Supercharged during the pandemic, remote working has become both a buzz term and a staple of everyday working life in recent years. So much so that policies around whether to stay office-based, go remote or opt for a hybrid model is now a critical signifier of corporate identity, ethos and culture.
According to recent Gallup data, almost 30% of U.S. workers in remote-capable jobs work exclusively at home these days – representing a broadly similar picture to what was seen in 2022. Nevertheless, this figure may gradually be eroded by a sweeping wave of return-to-office policies.
Last week, Meta effected a mandate that any employees assigned to a physical location will be required to be in the office for at least three days a week. In doing so, the company has aligned its distributed working policy along similar lines to that of fellow Silicon Valley Big Tech giants Apple, Google and Amazon.
Earlier this year, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote in a note to staff, “Our hypothesis is that it is still easier to build trust in person and that those relationships help us work more effectively.”
Misdirected diktats
However, a report published last month by Boston Consulting Group entitled “Making Flexible Working Models Work” has sought to challenge the assumed wisdom entrenched across corporate America that sees distributed work policy as a central edict that must be fed down from the very top of an organization.
BCG’s research entailed a survey of 1,500 global office-based workers. Almost two-thirds of respondents (62%) stated that they did not have a say in their work model policy as it is dictated by company-wide guidelines or their manager. Overall, 39% of participants reported that their company decides where they work. Within these organizations, 24% of employees expressed dissatisfaction with their work location policy. That 24% came down to 14% if the manager decides and 6% if it was a team-wide decision.
In short, the closer the flexible working policy is aligned to the specific dynamics of the team and the nature of the workload, the greater the employee satisfaction. Whereas, the further removed from the team with the policy instead arising from a boardroom edict, the more employees experience a lack of control and agency over how they perform their best work.
In summarizing the top-down approach to flexible working, the report’s authors concluded, “It would be convenient to assume that the return-to-office debate can be resolved with a corporate missive. Instead, leaders in the future of work need to take the time to understand how to enable employees to do their best work—so that they can create value and thrive.”
Exceptions that prove the rule
The empowering of corporate diversity, equity and inclusion commonly runs in tandem with the promotion of flexible working policies. Enhanced accessibility for a multitude of minority groups was cited as a principal benefit during the time of its widespread adoption during the pandemic.
In line with this, 90% of women, caregivers, LGBTQ+ and disabled BCG survey respondents consider flexible work options important or very important in staying in or leaving their job. Yet, it is precisely within this contingent that the dangers of making rash assumptions about distributed working models are exposed most sharply.
For example, there is currently a widespread consensus, not without its merits, that broadly separates work tasks that lend themselves to remote or in person in the following ways: Focused work tasks such as analysis, emails, report writing and administrative tasks tend to marry up rather nicely with remote working. On the other hand, for activities like training, social events and collaboration – in-person tends to win out.
However, when it comes to employees with disabilities or those who simply lack the facilities for homeworking the script may be flipped. For example, it would be woefully wayward to simply assume that a neurodiverse individual would be more inclined to collaborate or undertake a presentation in-person. Equally, to consider that, for a physically disabled employee, their genuine enjoyment of a sociable back-and-forth in-person brainstorming meeting would naturally outweigh the very real barriers they may encounter in commuting to the office is misguided.
Given that one size can never fit all, the key recommendation to emerge from Bostom Consulting Group’s report revolves around corporate leadership delegating more responsibility as to the composition of individual and team working models to the managers themselves. Perhaps, rather than creating those inflexible diktats, corporate leaders would be better served investing in the upskilling of team managers on how to make those calls for themselves and ensuring that the appropriate technological infrastructure sits behind them in whatever direction they go.
“It should be the role of the manager to decide on the work model that’s best for their team. You can’t just take this top-down approach,” says BCG’s Head of People Strategy and Global Leader for the Future of Work Debbie Lovich.
She continues, “Bring it down to the team level, know your work, know your team and don’t be afraid to experiment with different models. Post Covid, we’re increasingly learning that employees are just like consumers with different needs and preferences. You have to create a work product, just like a great consumer product, that appeals to your employees and enables them to be their best.”
Equally, with nine in ten of BCG’s survey respondents stating that they prioritize flexible working options when looking for a job and employees dissatisfied with their company’s model 2.5 times more likely to quit, the stakes couldn’t be higher for leaders committed to hiring and retaining the best pool of available talent.
Read the full article here
