We ended our sixth and final lockdown in Melbourne, Australia, on 21 October 2021, and most public health restrictions were lifted the following December. We could now leave our homes and return to the office. Most employees did not want to. Most had experienced nearly two years of flexibility, autonomy, and work-life balance. They did not have to incur an often lengthy commute to and from the office on overcrowded public transport or suffer traffic congestion.

They made their expectations clear. They did not want to go back to how it was pre-March 2020. They were happy to go into the office when it made sense. At the end of the day, they could say, “It was worth the commute.”

Over two years later, the debate still rages, and the divide between employee and employer is now a chasm across which it seems impossible to build a bridge. The problem is that both sides need to build that bridge together.

Adding fuel to the fire is media commentary on the situation, which is so contradictory it astounds me.

Gallup

The example I was to call out is that of Gallup. In October, they released a report called “The Future of the Office Has Arrived: It’s Hybrid.”

It’s a lengthy report of nearly 20 pages, so let me share with you what jumped off the page as a contradiction to what I know is happening.

Flexibility

“Moreover, leaders of large companies have confirmed that hybrid work flexibility is here to stay in their organizations. Eight in 10 chief human resources officers (CHROs) from Fortune 500 companies surveyed by Gallup report that they have no plans of decreasing remote work flexibility in the next 12 months.”

Middle ground

“But the more important story is this: Employees and employers have found a middle ground in hybrid work that appears to be working well when managed effectively – a work arrangement nobody would have imagined before 2020.”

Office schedule

“Gallup research reveals that four in 10 hybrid workers get to set their own office schedule. Specifically, 31% of hybrid employees have full autonomy to choose their own office schedule each week, and another 10% are encouraged (but not required) to follow certain guidelines.”

My issue with the extracts above is that:

1. Flexibility is not given when employers mandate how many days an employee must be in the office or on which days they must attend.

2. There is no middle ground yet. Many employers are still demanding a full-time return to the office or dictating the terms of attendance. This is not what employees want.

3. Four in 10 hybrid workers do not get to set their own schedule.

Here’s why

The contradictory evidence.

ResumeBuilder

ResumeBuilder surveyed 1000 company decision-makers.

“Eighty-three percent of respondents whose companies have returned to office say they currently track employee attendance, and 70% of respondents whose companies plan to RTO in 2024 say they will also track employee attendance.

Of those currently requiring workers in-office, 71% say at least three-quarters of employees are required to work in-person, and 36% say employees are required to come in 5 days per week.

28% will threaten to fire employees for not complying with RTO.”

There is no flexibility there.

Robert Half

The talent solutions company Robert Half issued an independent research report in August that found:

“87% of Australian companies have implemented mandatory office days for staff.

19% of employers require staff to be in the office five days a week.”

An independent survey was commissioned by Robert Half among 300 business leaders, including 100 CFOs, 100 CIOs, and 100 general hiring managers.

Most employees do not set their own schedules.

KPMG

KPMG conducted a global survey of 1,325 CEOs. 64% of CEOs are planning on a return to the pre-pandemic, fully on-premises way of working within the next three years. 87% of CEOs said they would reward employees who went into the office.

Business Insider

Business Insider issued a list of companies requiring employees to return to the office. Here are some of them.

These employees do not set their own schedules.

Confusion

Let’s go back to the Gallup report.

“The balancing act for employers is this: Organization-wide mandates often backfire and disengage employees who feel that the requirements do not work for them and that they are not trusted by their leaders.

The solution is a clearly communicated hybrid policy that managers are expected to adjust to fit the needs of their team.

AGREED. But the opposite is happening, and organisation-wide mandates are the norm.

“Gallup finds that hybrid workers are most engaged when their team works together to determine their hybrid schedules. Unfortunately, we also find that this is the least common approach to designing hybrid work schedules, with only 12% of hybrid employees saying their team uses a collaborative decision-making process.”

Suppose only 12% of employees say their team uses a collaborative decision-making process to determine when to go into the office. In that case, the remaining 88% are told when to go into the office. Where are the four in 10 setting their own schedule?

Closing words from Gallup

“Now that people have a taste for remote flexibility, leaders must make coming into the office worth it.”

“Leaders need to ensure that people come to the office with intentionality.”

I could not agree more. The keywords here are flexibility, worth it, and intentionality.

Intentional reasons to retur

In May last year, I wrote an article called “There Are Only 5 Reasons to Return to the Office.” All of the reasons are intentional.

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.

In May, I asked, “Was It Worth The Commute?” The commute to the office must be for a specific outcome that cannot be achieved elsewhere, such as working remotely. It must be intentional.

The answer

As you can see from the research, surveys, and commentary in this newsletter, there is confusion, and it is just muddying waters that do not need to be stirred.

Employers and employees must find the middle ground. They are not there yet, despite what Gallup claims. Leaders must listen to what employees want and align them to organisational needs.

The middle ground is not a mandate for a full or partial return. That is just utter madness. The return to the office must be intentional and for a specific purpose, not just because it is Tuesday.

If you can do what you do in an office just as well elsewhere, then why go into an office?

Your employees are adults. Treat them as such. Allow them and their leader to decide their working schedules.

Organisations should provide guidelines for hybrid employees. It should include:

· Who are the hybrid employees?

· Guidance on what sort of outcomes could best be achieved in the office for both individuals and teams?

· The default starting position for days employees must be in the office is zero.

· The leader and team decide when to go into the office – when, how often, and for how long.

· The focus must be on outcomes and value-add, not activity and face time.

· When asked, “Was it worth the commute?” the answer will be “Yes.

· Be prepared to experiment. There is no one-size-fits-all model.

· Be empathetic to each team member’s specific preferences.

Note: This guidance assumes the team leader has received education and training on how to lead the hybrid team effectively. Otherwise, the team may be subject to a leader who wants things to return to how they were before March 2020 and dictates a total return to the office.

Contradictory Hybrid Commentary