The ‘return to work' now being enforced by many organisations makes no sense for many people or the planet. It really is time for us to have some enlightened managers who do what is best for people and the world and not what they see as being best for them.
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
Why should people work at home? This seems to me to be one of those interesting issues that is being quietly swept under the carpet at present, and yet which should be subject to debate.
We all know that, of course, there was a massive move towards working at home during the COVID era, and amazingly, the economy kept going.
Not everybody could, of course, work at home. We know that. Retail workers cannot work at home. Care workers cannot. Healthcare workers, by and large, cannot. People who work in factories cannot. I know that all this is true. And so, of course, what I'm discussing will not apply to everybody in the workforce. If you work in those sectors, you will, by and large, have to work in a location where either the customer comes to you, or the customer is already present, or the capital that you require to do your job is present. That is an inevitable constraint for those people.
But there are vast numbers of people where that constraint does not apply, as we found out in 2020 and since. But the world's managers are demanding that people return to work. We're seeing this in accountancy, we're seeing it in government, we're seeing it in most administrative roles. People who were, two years ago, happy to let their workforces, by and large, work from home are no longer willing to do so.
There is no evidence that the productivity of people necessarily increases if they go to the office.
There is some evidence that it might fall because, after all, by the time they arrive, they will have been through the process of commuting. They will be fraught as a result, and they will then face that commute home.
They will also suffer all the distractions that a workplace offers and for some people those distractions are enormously difficult to manage. There are plenty of people, able as they are to do their job, who do not like working in open-plan offices, who cannot stand the noise that they represent, who do not wish to go to physical meetings because of the threat that they pose to them, and they genuinely do feel threatened by such physical meetings because of the behaviour of others in them. There are people who simply need quiet or isolation to work to their best, and very few modern offices provide that opportunity.
So, the fact that there is a demand that everybody return to work suits those who are well suited to the office environment, those who, by and large, as a consequence, climb the greasy pole towards management. But it doesn't suit everyone. Not by a very long way. So, I think enlightened managers will continue to offer the opportunity to people to work at home.
But there is a much better reason why they should do so. And that is, quite simply, that we face the threats from climate change. And one of the biggest threats that we face is the emissions that arise from transport, and transport is used most often at peak times of the day when people are going to and from work. The rush hour is named precisely because so many people move, and if they didn't need to move, we would not need so much transport.
We would have lower emissions, we would have fewer cars on the road, and we might have fewer trains running. Who knows, we might have fewer buses, although there aren't enough of those it seems in most places at present. But, my point is quite simple. If we really care about climate change, and I do - and I think everyone should, because it is an enormous threat to our well-being - we would not be investing in new transport systems to allow the ever-greater movement of people to and from work. Because we build transport systems to manage that peak, not normal levels of transport. And, if we did that, we would save vast amounts of carbon. Carbon on the construction of new transport systems, carbon emitted by existing and future transport systems.
Yes, of course, people will emit carbon when they work at home. I do not deny that. Of course, having people work at home will increase the amount of energy that is released within the home used as a workplace. So there is some degree of trade-off there. This I accept. But I do not think that tradeoff is nearly enough to undermine the case for reducing the transport to and from work as far as possible, simply for the reason of saving emissions.
Enlightened management would recognise this fact. If only companies were required to properly account for what are called their Scope 3 emissions. which would include the emissions made by their staff moving to and from work, and to reflect the cost of these in their accounts, which at present they are not under new international accounting standards, which are far too soft to do such a thing, then they would have to consider this issue as part of their financial reporting. As it is, they don't, and so they can get away with imposing this cost on people that they move and the cost on the planet of the emissions that result from those people moving.
It's time we took those emissions Into account.
It's time we recognized the diversity of workforces and their need to work in different ways and in different places.
And it's time we stopped unnecessary transport so that people could work in the right place, at the right time to suit their needs and to suit the planet.
Management has got the demand to return to work wrong. It's time that we change this approach and allow the flexibility that will provide us with a future and an economy with productive people of the sort that it needs.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
This is a really chewy topic. My viewpoint is as a project manager/team leader.
Working from home (WFH) has produced negatives (I see myself as an ‘operator’):
1. More email traffic – I mean, its ridiculous.
2. Impeded personal development through pedagogy.
3. Promotes ignorance of working conditions and changes – undermines management and feedback loops about what is really going on.
4. Creates unrealistic views amongst homeworkers about what they are doing and how good they are at it. It isolates people and they know less – working in silos has worsened.
5. Homeworkers who think that during working hours, home comes first.
6. Disrupts the economy of the office – lunches etc.
7. Slows down communication, more likely to cause confusion.
8. Reduces ‘knowledge redundancy’ the personal things teams share that act as glue to help them talk about the job and get it done.
But, as you say what we are seeing is an unquestioning recall to the old days which whilst at first could be seen as a failure of homeworking it is actually maybe yet another failure that modern management can notch up on its bed post – a failure to manage WFH.
It always struck me that that the people who really need to be in the office are the managers and directors – leaders. An opportunity to effectively monitor worker output has also been lost.
Too many managers have perhaps WFH themselves, making themselves feel out of the loop and are super imposing their own inadequacies on the workforce WFH. I am convinced that too many managers have no idea how their operations operate and the problem lies within management.
I totally agree with the emissions argument – car usage is back up again, yet the early morning train I use is hardly full compared to what it used to be. Covid policy – or a lack of – has probably helped with that.
The whole subject could do with a good appraisal of pluses and minuses. But it is good that it is raised as you have done.
I agree with you that there is no panacea – which is why working from the ofdfice all the time is not the answer.
But directors / senior managers do need to be in several days a week, I would have thought, as should most people be, sometimes.
I’ve heard of a number of people in their late 50’s and early 60’s who worked from home (and were quite content) and were told they’d have to return to the office 5 days a week recently. They decided (and could afford – partner working, renting out a spare room, no mortgage to pay and similar) to go part-time doing something else or retire early as they couldn’t bear the stress of commuting (and losing a couple of hours a day in a bus, train. car), managers 20 years their juniors watching from behind their back all the time, the constant noise in the office.
This is exactly a type of a worker that government wants to keep on working and not retire early. But if they do want this, they have to make some provisions for these people to stay at work – and this would include the right to work from home for 3 or 4 days a week if possible.
Much to agree with
That was not my experience of WfH. Information flowed properly, work was carried out and there was no loss of productivity. As for prioritising home over work, I had a strict work schedule so when I was in the ‘office’ I was working in the office.
What works in terms of home working was defined by ICL (remember them?) in the 1980s. The outfit I used to work for – OTR – produced a report in the 1990s summarising what ICL had learned (mostly amongst computer programmers). In summary, to keep teams together and to stop people being isolated. something in the range 2 – 3 days home working and 3 – 2 days in the office works.
Obviously, some people have don’t have space for home working, the solution (which I proposed to the Commission & which was rejected by one of the directors) was local teleworking centres – based on communes (or local council if you will). Oddly, at an I.T. event, Cisco presented a project in Amsterdam doing exactly that. The director that rejected my idea (& attended the event) was generous enough to apologise – me right/Commission/him – wrong.
Anyway, the modalities of home working are well understood, many managers don’t like it cos …..they are crap managers.
Which leaves the open question: what happened in Covid – did office-based work come to an end? nope. It was largely done from home.
Working from home is a topic that most businesses have had to grapple with since it was forced upon them in March 2020. And indeed still grapple with.
Some businesses need their workers to attend the workplace. Others are set up as 100% working from home. And many are somewhere in the middle.
Employees (and indeed their bosses) tend to like the flexibility that WFH allows in their lives, the time saved from not commuting five days a week, and productivity can be very high. But it doesn’t work for everyone. Many people do not have a dedicated and quiet workspace, such as people with young children, or in shared houses or flats trying to work at a shared kitchen table. Wifi and other human and physical resources (screens, printers, copiers, access to PAs, etc) tend to be better in the office. Particularly for more junior staff, WFH can be isolating and there is a loss of social interaction and the informal transfer of intangible information and “culture” and soft skills.
It is very expensive to maintain office space for 100% of workers, when turnout might be 25% on Monday and Friday and perhaps 75% (different people) on Tuesday to Thursday. But it can be problematic to have space for only 75% of staff.
But the bottom line is that many of the bosses calling for 100% return to the office simply do not trust their employees to work as hard when they don’t have a supervisor standing behind them, looking over their shoulder. They are extroverts and themselves want to work in a busy office all the time and they don’t see why anyone might be more productive doing something different.
Much to agree with
An excellent blog. In a former life I worked from home most of the time which I found quite good – I had a schedule so it was a normal work situation, and was in contact with colleagues so no sense of isolation. It saved time and expense on a relatively short commute (about 30 minutes each way), but the extra time was very valuable. It also cut emissions and helped on that score. Some people do find it more difficult to work from home – lack of space, a sense of isolation all being factors there, but people should be allowed the choice. As you say the economy worked away rather well with people working from home! So whats the problem?
I agree not everyone can or wants to work from home
What worries me is the dogma of ‘be in the office, or else’
That is what makes no sense
I always recall my wife saying the best thing abiut work when our boys were very ssmall was being able to go to the loo without them knocking on the door wanting to come in, so I fully undertsand why going to woirk is also important
But there is no rule that works for all
That is my point
The local authority I work for was an ‘early adopter’ as there were a few staff working from home back in 2006 when I joined, however that pilot wasnt expanded until the pandemic when we all ended up working from home.
Since then we have ‘rationalised’ some of our office space and for those who can and choose to do so working from home is what we do and the message from management is that our job is what we do not where we do it. Having said that of course as my team are in a rapidly contracting area of work we dont have issues like welcoming new staff or introducing young people to the workplace, although talking to someone who ran a small business the retailers seem to be taking that job on.
At a personal level I am probably saving about 4000 miles driving a year which probably means about a tonne of Co2 and about 160 hours of driving which is no bad thing for emissions, congestion or my sanity.
Its also a great help to me and my colleagues helping us to sort out childcare, and in my case pick my elderly neighbours up after falls.
I suspect that its a combination of landlords, caterers retailers and inadequate management who are pushing to get people back to the office.
I recognise a lot of that
It could also do wonders for road traffic accidents and fatalities as a side effect, bringing them down
SMALL but important point Richard. Although you rightly point out that working from home is not for everyone, remote working from home can adversely impact employees’ mental health (which in turn impacts productivity and performance). This needs to be admitted by employers and acted upon. Just saying..
It can, of course
But so can going to work impact others mental health
My concern is with a single rule
Yes for efficiency sake working from home is the way to go. Zero travel to and from the office saves so much. Saving in energy should be the biggest reason in 2024 / 2025.
We need to move away from car dependent lifestyles as quickly as possible. And working from home has a big part to play in this.
The environmental catastrophe we now face is reason enough. But, in addition we bear massive societal and social costs. Mental health (stress). Public space devoted to mechanised transport. Inactivity and subsequent health problems. The detriment to non-car owners and users of other modes of transport. And last, but not least, the death toll which is normalised and largely ignored.
Also, it is important not to overlook the working from home benefits for the employer. Geography is not a limit for recruiting talent. Conversely, for people who live outside of cities, they are presented with opportunities which would otherwise mean relocation and hefty rents.
Working from home opportunities can also reduce peoples expenditure, allowing them to make ends meet or giving them more disposable income.
Of course working from home means certain challenges. The effects of poor processes and systems are exacerbated. Where as the opposite is true, where employers have invested time and capital in removing friction from the workplace.
With so many high streets failing because of online shopping, and consequent conversion of retail space into living space, is there a case to be made for “halfway hubs”?
For those who could, but cannot work in their home:
* dedicated and serviced, rentable (by the hour, day, week, year) office space with secure communications
* sited in a central location
* close to (a) major transport hub
* for 10-20 workers.
15-minute neighbourhoods cut emissions, build personal and community (pride of place) relationships, alleviate loneliness, encourage small “village shops”, create local council income, provide local employment.
We should, of course, have begun this repurposing 50 years ago. But it’s never too late -until it is, which is a place I don’t want to visit.
I know some places have these
I think they are a great idea
I use coffee shops…and a local hotel that is pretty quiet most afternoons and so they donb’t mibnd me lingering over my coffees
By sometime in the afternoon, and having already put in seven hours work, I need to go put for a walk and coffee
All good points, though the antisocial personality concept also needs to be mentioned. So managers “bosses” really get a kick out of manipulating their paid employees who rely on them absolutely for income and reputation in broader social concepts. That power is addictively intoxicating. I’m retired now but over 55 years of observing it, the point is relevant, for some it’s all about their craven need to manipulate and bully. Thankfully not all though.
I live in a rural area where self employment and working from home were common pre Covid. However many large employers were reluctant to adopt it pre Covid but now embrace it. Many staff had travelled long distances to work and with poor public transport (I’m in Devon) car parking was a real issue. For many office based jobs it works really well. I think living in a strong community minded village offsets any sense of social isolation those living in cities may feel.
I’m almost 100% working from home travelling in for meetings about once a month with half my meetings being done via Teams. It works very well for me as someone towards the end of my working life. I do appreciate for younger workers mentoring and learning opportunities may be harder, but there are ways around this. To me this push to get people back into the office is much more about lazy managers and their need to control then productivity. And for parents the flexibility of home working really helps with school pick ups etc.
Thanks
Another advantage of a WFH culture is less spread of infections (Covid, of course, but many other diseases too). That will provide knock-on improvements in productivity (with fewer sick days, but also with fewer days when employees are working ‘sub-par’).
I hope some proper studies will be undertaken which include all the issues mentioned in these comments. I suspect that the net benefit will prove to be surprisingly high.
“… If we really care about climate change,…”
But we don’t.
There is little or no sign that ‘we’ take climate change seriously. Let alone ‘care’ about it.
I don’t know what it will take to shift the balance of opinion. At some stage somebody is going to twig that there are huge potential financial/economic benefits to be gained by pursuing ‘green’ policies. It will require a different perspective on the balance between general, societal well-being and the interests of a small minority of the uber wealthy (ably and enthusiastically supported these days, as ever, by the think-they are wealthy and the wannabe wealthy).
Some serious amount of excrement will need to hit the extractor before popular opinion shifts. Mass migration might do it, but it will probably be too late by the time that happens. Current migration levels which cause so much right-wing rancour are a mere trickle and as much to do with (physical and political) conflict as with climate change.
What was it Ronald Reagan was famous for saying?…..You ain’t seen nothing yet.