The Quandary of Remote Work

One of the hot topics at the moment is the ongoing discussion about remote work. At the time of writing this article, the at-work/at-home percentages appear to be about 67/33. Formal hybrid (work/home) arrangements have the highest growth percentage.

Lots of people have a stake in the issue of remote work. Economists are working on productivity studies in service to CEOs and others who are making policy decisions. ICT (Information Communication Technology) makers and providers want to show that their equipment, devices, and applications are the best to make remote work very feasible. Academics are looking at the benefits and tradeoffs for employees and organizations. Others are looking at the impact on families, health and well-being, and other factors. The TMPs (Talent Management Professionals) are looking at what it takes to supervise and manage remotely in service to staffing and development requirements. There’s more, and the range of dynamics being studied runs the gamut.

After looking at research to date, this is what we know for sure about working remotely: NOT MUCH.

We know close to nothing. Why? There are about 25 relevant variables likely to impact remote work, but these are all too scattered in focus to be generalized.

The Catch 22

Anyone interested in the topic thinks they know something. Unless you are an academic who has read the more than 100 published works or the executive summaries, you have either seen a viewpoint of a journalist or you may be speaking from personal experience.

Almost any viewpoint can be supported by a handful of studies, as long as you don’t look at the other studies that contradict your preferred answers. Because of the confirmation bias we all have in our brains, we unconsciously seek out the studies that support our beliefs. We then stop looking and/or distrust contradictory findings.

What we know for sure is that we don’t know much that can be generalized.

Wait! Sorry. There is one thing we know for sure. IT ALL DEPENDS.

It depends upon the kind of work involved.
It depends on which employees you are focused on.
It depends on which industry you are in.
It depends on the geography of the organization or the worker.
It depends on the quality of remote work management.
It depends on whether the organization provides high-quality ICT equipment.
It depends upon the organization’s engagement scores; trust is the most important factor.

Does remote work actually work? It depends.

There isn’t even an agreement about the definition of remote work. To the less-than-fully-informed, it’s binary. There is work from home and face-to-face work in the office. The options between these two are many. Three days in the office and two at home seems to be the most frequent hybrid model, but there are many possible combinations, each of which would have to be studied independently.

The economists and academics doing more serious research can’t agree on how best to measure productivity. Hours worked? Performance? Benefits, tradeoffs, and costs?

What we know, but not yet in enough depth to be useful, is that some people are more productive at home and others in the office. Personality type, social and work styles, and interpersonal variables matter. These and many other variables are beginning to be evaluated with more rigor.

We have more research and answers from school children who were not physically in the classroom during the two years of COVID. We know that some did better than in the classroom (like home schooling), some kept pace with what they would have learned in school, and about 1/3 appeared to have learned less, some substantially less. The researchers opine that the children will never make up for the two-year gap in learning during a very important time for brain development. Will this be a permanent disability? Harvard just announced a remedial math class for their freshmen because they didn’t learn enough during the last two years of at-home schooling. The simple answer is that goal-oriented, curious, disciplined children did better. Home environment and parental support also played a part. It may be that the same results will hold for working remotely.

Home environment, manager capabilities, and trust

Research on the “remote work” question considers one’s home environment. Is there a good, isolated space for a home office? How many other people are in the home (noise and distraction possibilities)? Do others in the home respect the work/life boundary rules? Does “do not disturb” work? Is their primary at-home relationship healthy or troublesome? Will that relationship change when the at-home percentage increases for one or both partners?

Then there is the supervision and management of remote work and workers. We know it is harder, and therefore, fewer people are good at it. Researchers suggest it’s a matter of mindset and framing. Remote work isn’t just a variation of work in the office; it’s a thing of its own. We need to consider remote work as materially different, perhaps with a different KSA profile for managers. Job crafting will be needed to design the work to fit a remote environment.

Another variable is trust–that the remote workers are truly working, and only for their primary employer. Trust cuts both ways. The remote workers need to trust that the manager will support them. Trust has always been an important variable in the office, but it’s even more important for remote work. Some ICT providers have equipment that measures keystrokes, butts in seats and even an always on camera focused on the workspace, which a manager can monitor. It’s complicated, right?

Questions and trade-offs

For employees, there are trade-offs. Wellbeing and cost savings are the main variables. They might avoid commuting and parking hassles. Are there fewer distractions at home or work? Fewer expenses? Workers might elect to live in a more desirable and/or affordable geography. Autonomy, yes, but also less socialization, less spontaneous engagement, and potentially fewer feelings of belonging. How does one onboard into the culture remotely? Will important information get to me? Do I lose career opportunities?

For the organization, is it less expensive? While there is access to a greater pool of global talent if they don’t have to be in the office, where are specific individuals more productive? How can talent be assessed for future career opportunities if we rarely meet face-to-face? Would it create a class system culturally? In the office, there is knowledge spillover and innovation from causal interaction. People learn from exemplars and others. Will that also work remotely?

The King wanted the courtiers to be close to him. That’s why Versailles was built. The King had quick access to anyone needed. Everyone important was there. The King wanted to “see” the people. Some CEOs feel the same. Can you imagine Tim Cook walking around the Apple Spaceship office with no one there! Designed and built before Covid with cafeterias, workout rooms, Starbucks, quiet spaces, and other amenities attractive to employees, what would the feeling be if it were nearly empty?

The impact on cities

Another macro consequence of remote work is the declining economic health of large cities. For most cities, the tax base includes big and small companies with lots of employees parking, eating, shopping, and working downtown or in an office park. Now we have empty skyscrapers, failing restaurants and bars, closed shopping stores, and empty city and private parking garages. Yet, property taxes for residences have increased as an offset. Big city downtowns are dying. That’s part of why Mayors and Governors are moving to require a return to in-office work. It’s not a well-being or productivity concern. It’s economic.

We have always had remote work. Park rangers and lighthouse keepers, traveling sales folks and factory reps. People working in international divisions are constantly away from the office. There are auditors, consultants, space station crews, Arctic Circle scientists, police officers in patrol cars, Teladoc, and remote mental health counselors. Even before COVID, lots of people worked remotely. So, it’s not new, but it’s much bigger and significantly different.

Many think they know. With respect, they don’t. No one does. There are too many variables to consider, and the variables change from example to example.

It works for some but not others.
It works for some jobs but not others.
It works in some industries and not others.
It depends on quality management.
It expands the talent pool.
In-office might result in more creativity and innovation.
Hybrid approaches might make it difficult to arrange childcare.
Some state they will not work for an organization that doesn’t offer options.
It will make succession planning and leadership development much more difficult than it already is.

And the list goes on. How are you handling this complex challenge?

Authored by: Robert Eichinger