RTO? It is not happening
Iva Durokovic has been popping up in many of my media feeds over the last week. Phys Org, Human Resources Director, News.com.au, and Daily Mail, to name a few, are reporting on Iva’s opinions regarding CEOs predicting that workers will be back in the office full-time by 2026.
Iva is a researcher in workplace design at the University of New South Wales, Australia.
The return
In October 2023, KPMG reported that 64% of global CEOs predict a complete return to in-office attendance by 2026.
What I find worrying about the KPMG findings is the following.
“The 2023 survey also identified that 87% of CEOs would be likely to reward those employees who do make the effort to come into the office with not just better assignments, but also raises and promotions.”
In my book, that is outright bullying tactics.
KPMG calls out how this highlights the persistence of traditional office-centric thinking among CEOs.
“This sentiment underscores the persistence of traditional office-centric thinking among CEOs. It comes against a backdrop of the debate surrounding hybrid working, which has had a largely positive impact on productivity over the past three years and has strong employee support, particularly among the younger generation of workers. As organisations continue to roll out their return-to-office plans, it is crucial that leaders take a long-term view that embraces the employee value proposition and encompasses the considerations and needs of employees to ensure that talent is nurtured and supported.”
Iva’s response:
“They’re bound to be disappointed. I can’t see us going back to the way things were. In fact, I think this is just the start.”
The reason
The News.com article says companies often cite concerns about remote work’s cultural and productivity impacts.
Culture
In October 2022, I wrote “Culture Does Not Live Here.” In the article, I shared six definitions of culture from various sources, and none mentioned a location, bricks and mortar, a building, four walls, or an office! There is no substance behind the pervading belief that you cannot have a good culture without employees in the office.
I cited several organisations with a great culture and a fully remote or distributed workforce. As of my last research, these companies have not mandated a return to the office full-time or part-time.
There are the scores for each of those organisations as voted by employees.
Comparably provides an overall “culture” score.
Glassdoor’s score is based on the average rating given by employees.
Indeed’s score is calculated by work-life balance, pay and benefits, job security, management, and culture.
All scores are out of a total of 5.
Culture is not adversely impacted if employees work remotely.
I have also used the example of Liverpool Football Club (LFC). I am an avid fan, being born and bred in that city. As of June 2023, there were an estimated 200 million fans globally. The capacity of Liverpool’s home ground is 61,276.
This means that only 0.03% of fans are ever together. Yet, we have a great culture. We have the same values, sense of purpose, behaviour patterns, expectations, and assumptions. We sing the same songs.
Productivity
Remote work does not adversely impact productivity.
The Owl Labs State of Hybrid Work 2023 surveyed the US, UK, France, Germany, Nordics, and the Netherlands markets.
79 % of managers globally believe that hybrid and remote working has made their teams the same or more productive.
59% said teams were more productive, and 20% said there was no change in productivity.
Research by Nicholas Bloom and associates found that hybrid working from home increases average productivity by 5%, and the trend is increasing as companies and individuals get better at it.
Many employers are obsessed with productivity and need to learn what it means. I wrote about this in October. This is why they want a full-time return to the office.
“Even though many organisations made record profits during the pandemic when many of their employees worked from home, many bosses are demanding employees return to the office, citing productivity as the driver.
The problem is that these bosses do not know how to measure the productivity of their workers, especially knowledge workers.”
Bosses are measuring what workers put in rather than what they put out. They believe they need to see them to see the hours they put in. But that is not a measure of productivity. They must measure outcomes, not hours.
Money and real estate
Iva says, “This will sound harsh, but I think the desperation to get everyone back in the office is largely to do with money and real estate.”
Many companies have invested in real estate because impressions matter.
In August 2021, I wrote:
“This is all about ego and protection of the kingdom. It revolves around the idea that the size of your kingdom is evidence of your success. The more real estate you have, the more it costs, and the bigger your headcount, the greater your position in the hierarchy of the ‘successful’ CEOs.
If you believe that size matters, then you will be supportive of the return-to-office demands of Google to return to the 2 million square feet (190,000 square meters) of the Googleplex; Apple to return to the $165 billion ‘spaceship’ at Apple Park; and Goldman Sachs to return to the 749-foot-tall (228m), 44 story building at 200 West Street.
Suppose you believe appearances can be deceptive and that headcount and real estate do not indicate success. In that case, you will be supportive of the removal or downsizing of the physical office. As Ed Zitron points out:
“Because most private companies don’t share revenue, we frequently tie headcount and real estate to success. Removing the physical office forces modern businesses to start justifying themselves through annoying things such as ‘profit and loss’ and ‘paying customers.’”
The rationale
The only rationale for employees to go into an office is that they can achieve what they could not achieve elsewhere.
As Iva says:
“If the team comes together and they’re engaged and actively reaping the benefits of face-to-face interaction, then it makes sense that people are in the office. But simply doing what can be done elsewhere doesn’t make sense.”
The demand for employees to return to the office a given number of days or on specified days per week is utter madness if they are remote enabled.
Every employee should be able to ask themselves, “Was it worth the commute?” And the answer must be “Yes.”
Mandating employees to return to the office will erode trust. Demanding a return to the office is simply saying, “I don’t trust you.”
The idea of employees working where they want, when they want, and how they want will not go away. The genie is out of the bottle, and it is not going back.
Employees I talk to are happy to go into an office if there is a purpose. It must be intentional. There are only five reasons to go into an office.
1. Preference – you decide you prefer to work in the office.
2. Purpose – the leader and team decide it is easier to establish a shared sense of purpose.
3. Participation – you think it is better for collaboration, brainstorming, complex problem solving, and ideation and innovation workshops.
4. Productivity – when the team or individual decides they will be more productive.
5. Party – for celebrations.
Why would I go into an office to do what I could have done at home and give up the benefits such as:
· Fewer hours due to increased productivity
· No commute - saving time and money
· Work-life balance
· Work organised around life (not vice versa)
· Easier access to medical appointments
· More time with family and friends
· Increased time for exercise
· Location flexibility
The results
A three-year-long study conducted by Culture Amp and Thrive at Monash Business School broke down wellbeing data from HR professionals into five categories: Purpose, support, self, balance, and equipped.
Employees required to work in an office scored lower across all wellbeing metrics.
At least 60% of respondents who worked in a hybrid model reported feeling supported, as opposed to only 52% of those forced to work in the office. 65% of hybrid respondents felt a sense of purpose in their jobs, whilst only 56% of those forced back into offices felt the same.
If you demand a return to the office, you will just alienate employees. Iva says:
“It’s interesting CEOs have an impression that people will be more effective if they are in the office. They might turn up, but it’s certainly not going to do wonders for your culture or your turnover rates.”
It will result in presenteeism. They will turn up because they have to, not because they want to. They will have reduced engagement, motivation, productivity and lower organisational results. There will be increased attrition and an inability to attract talent.
The wrap
The idea that how and where we work will return to how it was before the pandemic is false. Companies may try to go back by demanding a return to the office on a full-time basis, but it will not endure. Not only do employees want autonomy and flexibility, but they also deserve it.
We can only move forward as further radical change is likely, as are new challenges in how workers are engaged and managed.
I will leave the final words to Iva:
“That’s what makes efforts to kill off remote working entirely such a wasted pursuit.
New challenges will emerge. New technologies will emerge that we can’t even imagine right now. I don’t see us going backwards. The pre-Covid workspace is over.”