What's The Real Tea On Hybrid Work?

The real tea on hybrid seems to be like … we need to just treat everyone like we treat top sales guys. No one cares where those people are, so long as the numbers are there. If the numbers ain’t there? Ya #piped. We should design organizations where everyone is treated that way, honestly.

If you are a big in-office person, and you want to be there five days, go ahead. We’ll provide masks and wipes, even though we’re not sure (still) if either works that well.

If you want 3-in, 2-out? Go get ’em tiger.

Want 5 out and to have a lunch (or a nooner) with your significant other periodically? You got it, Andy.

So long as the deliverables are flowing in, you can do what you want, when you want. More productive at 9pm? Work then. All good. Once the deliverables ain’t flowing, we can terminate you.

If that was the inherent contract of most places, we wouldn’t need all these navel-gazing pieces about “hybrid” and “blended” and “WFH” and “models of the future.”

If you hit your tasks, you can do whatever. If you don’t, don’t let the door hit ya in da ass on da way out.

It’s not as complicated as we make it.

Now — in the coming weeks and months, as different companies try out different “return to normal” models, you will see a ton of articles (and I mean a literal metric ton) about empathy and compassion and new commitments to work and all this stuff. Those are mostly nice things to discuss. Work will be different, and it may even be a tad more empathetic, which will be nice. But in general, executives drive ships at companies — and they will want a certain amount of things to be happening, and middle management will respond to those things because, well, the executives are their bosses. Then rank-and-file workers have to respond to middle managers because, well, same. And since the human brain has an inclination towards normalcy, we might rush back into 2018 working models — even though 2018 working models were not exactly very good.

It’s likely to be second verse, same as the first at many places, with more of a mixed workforce.

One cool thing I do think companies could try (I use the term “cool” loosely): Every Friday on Zoom, do a fun little lottery deal where people draw numbers or letters … and then those letters are tied to the days you come in next week. “Oh, Randy got a ‘B’ as well! Haven’t seen you in a bit! Excited for Tuesday!” This gives people a mix of at-home and in-office, and the teams and people coming together might be random enough that spurts of innovation could happen cross-silo.

Now, some managers might hate this approach because they would want their entire team physically present on one day. I get it. And, sadly, one of the worst pieces of research that keeps circulating during COVID is that in-office workers get promoted significantly more. The notion of “seat time” is a relic, but it has never actually died.

But I would do 1/2/3 or A/B/C teams in terms of rotating people back in, allowing for some distance and some random connections to be formed and experiences to be shared. Everyone else, relative to their job, can be remote for a minute. While you’re doing this, try to cap Zoom calls at 3, max 4, per day. People do burn out on that stuff.

As much as I’ve bashed WeWork against the rocks on social media for years now, I admittedly do use it myself sometimes these days — and it’s a good option for execs who don’t want to buy a big building or floors of a building downtown. Go send your people there and they can interact but also distance. It makes some sense and it solves some “hybrid model” issues at a much lower cost, which is likely important to you.

Those are just a few ideas and some of the research things we’ve seen and discussions we’ve been having (which are admittedly getting repetitive) in the last four-five months. What else you got on the hybrid model?