The New York Times published yet another challenge-free “remote workers will get left behind in hybrid work” piece, where the author-backed by the usual stack of McKinsey and Stanford brain masters - hammers home that those who are going to be in the office will be the victors of the hybrid debate. It includes every trope I’ve grown to love - the academic that says that there will be an in-group and an out-group, some sort of study, a bit of technology that claims it can “bridge the gap between in-office and remote workers,” and absolutely no possible consideration that these biases
I love good rails against the evils of companies and attacks on the laziness of the media probably more than anyone. This substack is great for that. Remote work needs to be more accepted. It can make life easier to lots of people.
Though I don’t believe that your truth is THE truth. (Or at least yet)
Remote work isn’t for everyone. Some people will prefer to go into an office and work with other people, get the feeling of pulling on the same rope together. Some will want to concentrate away from kids or spouses at home. Young people will want ways to meet people.
The way to do it might just be hybrid. Days in the office with your team or colleagues, other days at home.
I have been remote marcom freelancer for 25 years. I’ll say remote can be difficult and lonely. The line between work and home can be very difficult to deal with. It was hard sometimes not expanding my business because I didn’t have enough opportunities to interact with other brands/departments. Decisions were made about my work because I wasn’t around for people to consider. Did I say it can be really lonely? Like “I’m friends with my mailman and UPS guy” lonely.
Whether we want to accept it or not, whether this should be the case or not, lots of workers do expect (need?) to build their social circle at work. As a culture, we have been joining fewer clubs, sports leagues, block clubs, churches, etc. for years. We are at record low numbers of “close friends” and “confidants”. Now we are just going to say, “no need to leave your home, ever!”
Of course many workers have embraced - loved - the remote work lifestyle. But they’ve only done it for a bit more than a year. For many, they’ll develop new skills like separating work and home and creating connections outside of the workplace; many companies will develop new techniques and tools for remote work. But many will eventually miss being at home all the time and being isolated and wish they were in the office.
-- Feeling “less connected” is a very specific matrix to view one’s workmates through, unless connected means “can I rely on them to do stuff I need them to do so I can do my job,” in which case you are no longer describing connection, you are describing competency. --
This brings me to my problem with the vague term "collaboration." It seems to conflate information-sharing with negotiating and decision-making activities.
Leaving aside management's desire for control, I'd argue that executives' and managers' jobs (other than direct supervision) involve a lot more negotiating and decision-making than most other workers' jobs do. Most workers interact for the purpose of sharing information more than anything else.
When I entered the workforce in the late 1980s, information-sharing took the form of moving pieces of paper around, moving computer files around from workers' individual PCs (as if they were pieces of paper), and talking to people who held institutional knowledge in their heads.
Body language and "politics" of various types may indeed be inherent to the way two executives argue their cases for the direction of the company. Like with any decision-making between human beings, power and emotion have a place along with data-driven calculation.
But the same kind of relationships don't have a place in information-sharing activities. Better to share information from a database -- which can happen today in a way it didn't in 1988 -- than to have to navigate the guy or gal who hoards power by hoarding knowledge, for example. People can create any kind of relationship they want surrounding that. There's no need for a social "environment."
Really enjoying your columns on this topic so far, EZ. We’re planning to go to a “do-whatever-you-want” hybrid model in October which makes no functional sense to me. We crushed this FY’s budget full remote (it was conservative but still). Only like 10-20% of people want to go back. [Full disclosure: I will admit to being one of them, just because I wouldn’t mind the change of scenery for a couple of days per week…not for any practical or social reasons.] Because it’s fully optional, this all feels like some confused response on the part of management that won’t last long at all until it’s fully remote OR they make a huge misstep and attempt to go full office again. The notion of keeping a large building up and running for me and a few other people to be there a couple of times per week is nonsensical.
I love good rails against the evils of companies and attacks on the laziness of the media probably more than anyone. This substack is great for that. Remote work needs to be more accepted. It can make life easier to lots of people.
Though I don’t believe that your truth is THE truth. (Or at least yet)
Remote work isn’t for everyone. Some people will prefer to go into an office and work with other people, get the feeling of pulling on the same rope together. Some will want to concentrate away from kids or spouses at home. Young people will want ways to meet people.
The way to do it might just be hybrid. Days in the office with your team or colleagues, other days at home.
I have been remote marcom freelancer for 25 years. I’ll say remote can be difficult and lonely. The line between work and home can be very difficult to deal with. It was hard sometimes not expanding my business because I didn’t have enough opportunities to interact with other brands/departments. Decisions were made about my work because I wasn’t around for people to consider. Did I say it can be really lonely? Like “I’m friends with my mailman and UPS guy” lonely.
Whether we want to accept it or not, whether this should be the case or not, lots of workers do expect (need?) to build their social circle at work. As a culture, we have been joining fewer clubs, sports leagues, block clubs, churches, etc. for years. We are at record low numbers of “close friends” and “confidants”. Now we are just going to say, “no need to leave your home, ever!”
Of course many workers have embraced - loved - the remote work lifestyle. But they’ve only done it for a bit more than a year. For many, they’ll develop new skills like separating work and home and creating connections outside of the workplace; many companies will develop new techniques and tools for remote work. But many will eventually miss being at home all the time and being isolated and wish they were in the office.
-- Feeling “less connected” is a very specific matrix to view one’s workmates through, unless connected means “can I rely on them to do stuff I need them to do so I can do my job,” in which case you are no longer describing connection, you are describing competency. --
This brings me to my problem with the vague term "collaboration." It seems to conflate information-sharing with negotiating and decision-making activities.
Leaving aside management's desire for control, I'd argue that executives' and managers' jobs (other than direct supervision) involve a lot more negotiating and decision-making than most other workers' jobs do. Most workers interact for the purpose of sharing information more than anything else.
When I entered the workforce in the late 1980s, information-sharing took the form of moving pieces of paper around, moving computer files around from workers' individual PCs (as if they were pieces of paper), and talking to people who held institutional knowledge in their heads.
Body language and "politics" of various types may indeed be inherent to the way two executives argue their cases for the direction of the company. Like with any decision-making between human beings, power and emotion have a place along with data-driven calculation.
But the same kind of relationships don't have a place in information-sharing activities. Better to share information from a database -- which can happen today in a way it didn't in 1988 -- than to have to navigate the guy or gal who hoards power by hoarding knowledge, for example. People can create any kind of relationship they want surrounding that. There's no need for a social "environment."
Really enjoying your columns on this topic so far, EZ. We’re planning to go to a “do-whatever-you-want” hybrid model in October which makes no functional sense to me. We crushed this FY’s budget full remote (it was conservative but still). Only like 10-20% of people want to go back. [Full disclosure: I will admit to being one of them, just because I wouldn’t mind the change of scenery for a couple of days per week…not for any practical or social reasons.] Because it’s fully optional, this all feels like some confused response on the part of management that won’t last long at all until it’s fully remote OR they make a huge misstep and attempt to go full office again. The notion of keeping a large building up and running for me and a few other people to be there a couple of times per week is nonsensical.