Tell me again why the office matters?

As the global lockdown lifts, and the corporate world begins to count the cost of pandemic decisions, certainly in terms of working practices, there is now a gap between those who chose an ‘empowered culture’ over an ‘enforced culture’. This has resulted in a reshuffle of those organisations who are (and are not) perceived by the talent as aspirational employers.

Regardless of a raft of metrics, such as talent attrition ('The Great Resignation'), some still believe that even a hybrid model is an aberration that needs to be corrected. In order to understand that perspective we need to visit the three public arguments for a return to office, and a fourth that is whispered in hushed tones (but has been discussed by your employees).

The first is the belief that spontaneous workplace interactions are critical to innovation. In truth, there is very little evidence for this, and far more data indicating that the environment actually stifles creativity. For example, several studies show that open plan offices are so distracting that employees actually wear headphones and avoid eye contact with colleagues.

The second is that a prolonged period of time together fosters a strong organisational culture (shared beliefs and values). Whilst this is a far more plausible than the 'creativity' argument, there is little evidence that a company-wide culture has any meaningful link to success. The fact is that most companies have a weak culture due to a misunderstanding of the concept.

The third reason is that management functions can interpret presenteeism as an essential. This is why those in first and last out are sometimes unfairly valued. This approach has bred the assumption that those who work from home are somehow less committed than those in the office (proximity bias), with no actual credible data to back that assumption up.

“One of the secret benefits of using remote workers is that the work itself becomes the yardstick to judge someone’s performance.”?

–?Jason Fried

The fourth, and the one I mentioned was talked in 'hushed tones', but I can promise has been discussed by your employees, is 'control'. The premise behind performance is that you align employee goals with those of the organisation and then drive them to be achieved, and that is much harder to do when employees are effectively untethered and remote to management.

So although creativity, culture and being present have compelling surface arguments, their reasoning may not stand up to scrutiny. However, with workers based at home, and no-one onsite to supervise (and feel good about doing that) perhaps the actual debate is that whilst leadership is always needed, the days of management oversight may actually be numbered.

I would also highlight that the office does not provide a mental health silver bullet. Whilst everyone's circumstances are different, the silo of home working is now offset with the opening of public transport to physically connect us to bars, gyms, coffee shops, stadiums, restaurants, etc. This means our social interactions are our own choice, not our employers.

There are many aspects for and against home/ office/ hybrid working that range from cost saving (carbon & ￡) to risk reduction (travel & infection). What is clear, in many cases, is current management thinking does not match today's workplace reality, but when it catches up then many of us could be swapping al-desko dining for the comfort of our own kitchen.