In the aftermath of the pandemic, the question of whether employees should continue to work from home or return to offices has sparked numerous debates. As we reflect on the last two years, we’ve witnessed a shift in work dynamics, with some firms requiring employees to return to the office five days a week. There’s a polarized debate where corporate leaders claim that office time improves productivity, collaboration, and company culture while employees advocate that flexible arrangements lead to better balance and increased productivity.
Based on 25 years of research on remote and hybrid work, it can be said that both sides present compelling arguments, and the truth is far more complex than either black-and-white narrative.
The term “productivity” is used by both camps to support their claims. But what does productivity mean in these contexts? In this debate, it’s critical to understand the difference between individual and collective productivity and between short and long-term gains. For instance, teleworking employees may experience a boost in short-term productivity due to fewer distractions. However, in the long run, productivity might decrease due to fewer opportunities to learn from colleagues or a breakdown of interpersonal trust relationships built on face-to-face interactions.
On the other side of the coin, using productivity data collected during the pandemic is challenging for various reasons. The extraordinary nature of the period, challenging not just business operations but also individual psychology, means we cannot guarantee the stats are an accurate reflection of everyday business activities reprised.
Moreover, during the pandemic, most remote workers already had pre-existing relationships, norms, and cultures established from their previous office interactions. Today’s hybrid workers often lack this shared history as a starting point. Additionally, communicating via tech can limit the quantity and quality of social cues, making building trust and cohesion much harder than in person. Relay that onto the fact that we’re yet to fully comprehend the long-term effects of remote work. While benefits such as flexibility and autonomy are immediately apparent, potential costs like diluted culture or less innovation might take more time to reveal themselves, potentially skewing the perspective on practical gains versus sustainability.
A lot of emphasis has been put on returning to the “old way of doing things.” There’s an acknowledgment from employees that time in the office comes with numerous advantages, which research supports. Office time facilitates serendipitous chats, water-cooler conversations, and boosts social connections and trust building. It provides better opportunities to clear misunderstandings, resolve conflicts, and exposure to the company culture. However, enacting such policies does curtail workers’ sense of autonomy and control. Not to mention it can mean greater commuting costs, possible relocations, and a pinch on the employees’ work-life balance.
What’s needed right now is a productive, balanced, and authentic discussion instead of adopting defensive stances. The discussion needs to center around finding mutual solutions that curb retaliatory pushbacks. Crafting the perfect work environment is a tall order, given the need to strike a balance between diverse and conflicting interests that are constantly evolving. This process necessitates continuous adaptation. The best way forward is to maintain flexibility and open a channel for collaborative discussions which entail active listening and not just airing of opinions.
In summary, it’s clear that neither staying fully remote nor returning to office-based work entirely will solve the complex issue raised by the pandemic’s impact on work. Instead, both employers and employees must adopt a flexible approach and work together to find a compromise that serves both parties and maintains productivity levels. And while it would be unrealistic to expect a one-size-fits-all solution, it’s reassuring to remember that work norms have always been in a state of flux. Changes in working methods signal progress and evolution, and there will always be a space for learning and growth on both sides.
