Do Not Dictate The Future Of Work Unless Your Why Is Clear

I have been saying for some time that it will be fascinating to watch our so called ‘future of work’ unfold and I was not wrong.

Companies are making the headlines as they announce their future model of work.

Apple is the latest in a long line of companies making front-page news.

Apple

The latest headline has been generated by Tim Cook, CEO at Apple. He announced last week to his 137,000 employees, that they would have to return to the office in September.

The email sent to staff last Wednesday was seen by The Verge.

It revealed that the hybrid working model to be adopted by Apple requires employees to work three set days a week from the office.

The in-office days are to be Monday, Tuesday and Thursday and as long as employees get management approval, they can work remotely on Wednesday and Friday

I have not been able to determine the rationale behind the edict apart from this statement in the email.

“For all that we’ve been able to achieve while many of us have been separated, the truth is that there has been something essential missing from this past year: each other,” he said. “Video conference calling has narrowed the distance between us, to be sure, but there are things it simply cannot replicate.”

That does not sound like a compelling argument to support a model that dictates the days employees have to be in the office.

Where is the why?

In response to the mandate, Apple employees pushed back in an internal letter to Tim Cook and his executive leadership team.

Verge obtained and published the letter in its entirety.

Specifics in the letter include:

This past year has been an unprecedented challenge for our company; we had to learn how to deliver the same quality of products and services that Apple is known for, all while working almost completely remotely. We did so, achieving another record-setting year. We found a way for everyone to support each other and succeed in a completely new way of working together — from locations we were able to choose at our own discretion (often at home).

Without the inclusivity that flexibility brings, many of us feel we have to choose between either a combination of our families, our well-being, and being empowered to do our best work, or being a part of Apple. This is a decision none of us take lightly, and a decision many would prefer not to have to make. 

For many of us at Apple, we have succeeded not despite working from home, but in large part because of being able to work outside the office. The last year has felt like we have truly been able to do the best work of our lives for the first time, unconstrained by the challenges that daily commutes to offices and in-person co-located offices themselves inevitably impose; all while still being able to take better care of ourselves and the people around us.

We are formally requesting that Apple considers remote and location-flexible work decisions to be as autonomous for a team to decide as are hiring decisions.

JPMorgan Chase

In April, the biggest U.S. bank by assets told its employees:

“…we would fully expect that by early July, all U.S.-based employees will be in the office on a consistent rotational schedule, also subject to our current 50% occupancy cap.”

The JPMorgan memo was published online by CNBC.

There is no reason why in the memo though it does include the assumption “We know that many of you are excited to come back.”

Ahem.

Goldman Sachs

In May, the NY Times reported on the Goldman Sachs announcement to put to end remote work and requested its workers in United States and Britain to return to the office in June.

David Solomon, Chief Executive of the bank, made it clear back in February, how he felt about remote working. He called it an “aberration” that must be corrected “as soon as possible.”

Despite the bank operating successfully throughout the COVID crisis with less than 10% of its 34,000 global staff in its offices, Solomon said the operating mode for the bank would not be vastly different to the way it was before the pandemic.

The only argument I found supporting the move was that Solomon had concerns as to how the next generation of bankers would be trained if they were working from home.

That doesn’t carry any weight with me.

Barclays

Should we draw conclusions as this is the third financial institution to take a stand on remote working?

Barclays Chief Executive Jes Staley announced at a virtual meeting of the World Economic Forum:

It’s remarkable it’s working as well as it is, but I don’t think it’s sustainable.”

The argument:

“It will increasingly be a challenge to maintain the culture and collaboration that these large financial institutions seek to have and should have.” Staley said.

Bricks and mortar do not create culture. The rituals and ceremonies conducted within the walls of the office may have supported the culture but that does not justify the reason to return to the office. It is time to reimagine and  find new alternatives to the office-centric ways of reinforcing culture.

Where is the why?

WeWork

WeWork CEO Sandeep Mathrani announced in May that organisation could identify their “most engaged” workers by looking at those who want to return to the office.

There was backlash in May when he intimated that the best, brightest and most motivated people will go back to the office. Losers, however, will stay at home. 

“Those who are uberly engaged with the company want to go to the office two-thirds of the time, at least”

This time we do know the why.

Mathrani’s role is to get people into an office – a WeWork office.

A commercial incentive does not mean it is the right reason for everyone to return to the office.

There is no why for the employee.

Washingtonian

Last month it was the turn of Cathy Merrill, CEO of Washingtonian Media, to make the headlines.

In an opinion piece for the Washington Post she made statements such as:

“I am concerned about the unfortunately common office worker who wants to continue working at home and just go into the office on occasion.”

“While some employees might like to continue to work from home and pop in only when necessary, that presents executives with a tempting economic option the employees might not like.

She said that if an employee was rarely in the office “management has a strong incentive to change their status to “contractor.”

“Instead of receiving a set salary, contractors are paid only for the work they do, either hourly or by appropriate output metrics.

“So although there might be some pains and anxiety going back into the office, the biggest benefit for workers may be simple job security. Remember something every manager knows: The hardest people to let go are the ones you know.”

Merrill’s reason why – your job security!

Not acceptable.

Netflix

Netflix expects its employees to make the return to office work at the start of September.

The announcement in April was no surprise as Reed Hastings had made his feelings clear about remote working the previous September.

“I don’t see any positives” he said to The Wall Street Journal.

“Not being able to get together in person, particularly internationally, is a pure negative” 

Really? Haven’t spent the last 15 months proven that otherwise?

That is not a reason why.

The Apple Cart

Who will be next to upset the Apple cart?

They won’t be the first and they certainly won’t be the last.

In the case of Apple, we have to acknowledge that Cook’s hybrid model is a move away from the organisations previous strong position against remote work.

Yet, this softening of approach is then met with a dictatorial instruction regarding which days employees have to be in the office!

What do any of these organisations seek to gain by demanding that all employees return to the office?

The only why I can see is that it is easier to return to the way we did things before than to take bold steps to do things differently and better than before leveraging all that we have learned over the last 15 months.

I have no issue with an employer making the operating model an office based one, if they can articulate the reason why – the benefit for the organisation and the employee.

A backwards move to the now archaic model of work being in an office, sitting behind a desk from 9 to 5 Monday to Friday, with a daily 2-hour round commute, will only result in attrition.

Having proven that most of us can work from anywhere not only do employers have a global talent pool from which to select talent, but employees now have a global pool of companies to choose from. Employees have the power and will use it.