Hybrid work: the issues of free choice
At the time of writing this article many companies have become convinced of how much efficiency can be gained with remote work, and they are therefore reflecting on how to regulate these policies for the post COVID-19.
(Italian translation of this article is at this link)
Having used to work from home both as a team manager and as a worker, I have noticed some differences from office work which, if maintained for a long time, can cause issues among colleagues and to the whole company.
The alternatives
Even if it exist there is the possibility of working 100% both remotely and in the office, this article focuses on the hybrid solution, i.e. partial remote work: a few days a week working remotely (which for the mass practically means from home), and a few days in the office. This solution lends itself to large customization: how many days a week? Which ones? Establish a common policy for the entire company, or let each department / team / worker decide independently?
At first glance, the choice could be dismissed as simple: we set loose guidelines and let teams / departments / workers decide.
But this elasticity opens up non-trivial scenarios, if we think in the medium-long term.
The advantages of being in the office
The benefits of working from home are glaring nowadays, both for the workers and the companies. Maybe a little too much, and in their dazzle they distract our view from the benefits of working in the office.
First of all: sociability. Much of the communication between human beings occurs through gestures, tones, glances, and other non-verbal means. Furthermore, our sympathy towards a person also depends on her behavior with others, and also on her behavior outside of communications. It’s then clear how much easier is to deeply know our colleagues and consequently seal a friendship with them while we are physically near to them.
Better socialization with colleagues helps efficiency: we have more pleasure, so we act more diligently, in giving help to a friend rather than from a semi-unknown colleague.
Again, in the most extreme utilitarian case, if one of these fellow-friends will find himself in some way able to benefit us, he will.
Professional growth is another advantage. The chats we have in the various breaks do not necessarily focus on the matters of the moment; maybe we speak with the existence of an instrument, or a technique, or an interesting event which, although perfectly useless at the moment, could be useful in unpredictable ways in the future. As example, a chat about how a stormy situation was handled, or how the relationship with a supplier, or with a customer was managed. Note that although these topics can be addressed in remote chats, hardly we talk in such channels about topics which usefulness is in doubt, especially when we don’t know not very well our colleagues, or when we know that our manager is reading. But in front of a coffee our attitude is much more informal, and we are willing to indulge, tolerate and interact more.
The same reasoning applies to the insights about the company and its internal dynamics: those who go often to the office, stroll through the corridors, stop at the coffee machines, end up interacting with colleagues and bosses (including those with whom they usually have no relationships) in the most different ways, and they manage to perceive humors, worries, rumors about the ongoing decision-making processes in quantities and in qualities far more significant than the remote chats, or in the more or less formal remote meetings.
Again, there is visibility, particularly towards senior executives. We can divide managers into two macro categories: the ‘neutral’ ones, who tend to be unconcerned about the place where workers perform their duties, and those who prefer to see the workers in the office; to my knowledge, executives who prefer their subordinates stay at home do not exist.
While neutral managers will be just neutral towards both categories of workers, the latter will have an amplified attitude towards those workers who work in the office. So, if we imagine that in a company there are elements of both kinds, we understand that on average the workers which stay more in the office will acquire more visibility.
These are just some of the privileges that come from being in the office, enough to give an idea. For each of them mitigation policies that make their impact less felt can be studied, but they will always remain present in hybrid work situations.
The difficulty of choosing
Although at first glance one could think of an awareness campaign on workers to help them to choose with more conscience, it cannot be ignored that we are dealing with human beings. In essence, a young, single and childless worker would still tend to go to the office more often than an older one with family and dependent children.
The former, therefore, would enjoy the benefits listed above to a greater extent than the latter; as a result, his daily work and career would take more advantage.
If we want to expand the two categories above, we could consider that would tend to stay more at home people:
- disabled, or with disabled children
- introverted, or more generally with sensitive psychological distress
- that feels overweight, underweight, and in general those who do not believe to correspond to the usual standards of beauty
- who belong to ethnic minorities
- who live far from the office
- who carry out secondary activities (voluntary work, associations, but also parallel projects)
- …
Leaving free choice therefore brings with it an enormous problem of diversity: it will lead to the formation of categories of workers advantaged, and therefore preferable, both in terms of career and entry into the company.
The deterioration of relationships at work
At the atomic level, if some workers find themselves professionally advantaged and socially more cohesive than others, the business environment will necessarily worsen. I am not a psychologist, but I believe there is a high probability that some of the following situations may occur:
- relations between workers will be more tense; there will be misunderstandings, differences of opinion will increase, collaboration and solidarity will be undermined;
- workers who will find themselves advantaged as they frequent the office more may feel they do not deserve the advantage obtained (impostor syndrome), tending to amplify stress, anxiety, mental rumination.
- the managers who, inevitably and understandably, will favor these workers will develop a feeling of guilt towards the other workers, and therefore would not be cloudless in their choices, both daily and strategic ones; moreover, they will find themselves being flattered in an abnormal way by the former, to the detriment of the diversity of thought, and challenged in an abnormal way by the others, to the detriment (again) of their own serenity and perception of the quality of their work (again, syndrome of ‘impostor).
- workers who will find themselves disadvantaged because of the choose to stay more at home will feel that their efforts and professionalism are not sufficiently valued, which is the exact opposite of the impostor syndrome (some call it the authority syndrome); they will feel anger, frustration, desire for revenge.
By extrapolation, similar problems will arise leaving the teams and the departments free to decide on the subject, as the departments that choose to frequent the site more will have an advantage over the others.
Solutions?
Free choice is beautiful, but it is an illusion. Each choice we make is influenced by a thousand small laces that limit its freedom. And the factors that influence a worker on a daily basis in his choices about how much and where to work, as we have seen, could lead him to damage his relationship with colleagues, his career, and potentially even his mental health. Also, and consequently, the company would be damaged.
If we exclude a priori the possibility of total remote work (or total presence in the office), the simplest solution is a strict regulation of hybrid work. More clearly, companies should decide how many and which days the workers should be present in the office, and when instead they should stay at home, or in any case elsewhere than in the office.
Such a policy will inevitably be hated by many, especially those who are convinced that they are fully capable of choosing the best for themselves, both tactically and strategically.
But giving every worker equal opportunities is useful to safeguard a good business environment, therefore this solution remains, in my opinion, the best on the market.
