The Future of Work Debate
Preface: Let’s be clear, not everyone can work remotely. Obviously, most medical professionals, teachers, restaurant staff, postal delivery workers etc. - do not have jobs that support remote work. This post is not geared at them. These humans have knowingly pursued careers that require them to be in-person a majority of the time. I’m directing this mostly at the tech giants and old-school corporate offices who could really use a reality check. ;)
Where I Fall in the FoW debate & why
It’s no secret that I’m an advocate for remote work, but I’ve also built my career around designing experiences, most of which are IRL. I like to think I see both sides of this argument.
In fact, I’ve lived both sides. Before I was a remote-first worker, I was your traditional corporate 9-5er. I live in New Jersey and worked on Wall Street, so everyday I got up at the crack of dawn to brave mass transit for my 90min commute. I would get into my office at precisely 9am, clock-in on my computer, do a whole bunch of stuff that could’ve very easily been done from home, and clock out at exactly 5pm. I had my commute down to a science too. I knew if I missed that 5:35pm Woodbridge bound train, I wasn’t getting home till well after 8pm. Missing that train = missing the small sliver of life I got to enjoy with my family. It meant my kids went to sleep without me, my husband would have already left for his overnight shift, and I would end up alone in the kitchen eating whatever was leftover from the family dinner.
It was miserable, but I didn’t know any different. This is what my dad did, what his dad did, this was the cost of “having it all.” To have a family, a career, a home, cars and nice things, this is what it took…or so I thought.
Trello introduced me to remote work, and let me tell you it took some serious deprogramming to lose the corporate mindset. Their office was also in downtown Manhattan, and for months, I came into the office everyday. They would gently encourage me to WFH, but I was convinced it was too good to be true. “I’ve never been given a choice before, what’s the catch?”
It wasn’t until at least 6 months in that I was finally able to trust that it was real. I gradually got more comfortable with WFH, but still loved the energy of the office sometimes, so I built a hybrid schedule for myself. When I needed focus time for heads down work, I stayed home. When I needed to execute an event or just recharge my social battery, I went into the office. It was the perfect balance, and for the next 3 years, I was the best version of myself. Enter 2020…
When the pandemic hit, I wasn’t worried about going fully remote. I felt Trello team was well-equipped to handle the shift. What I didn’t anticipate was my reaction to it. Being forced into solitude killed my engagement. Like the majority of the world, I went through a period of complete disconnection from my job, from my family, from everything. I did the bare minimum for close to a year. So much so that during a 1:1 my manager suggested that maybe I go part-time. Even though it wasn’t the wake-up call I wanted, it reminded me that this company was still giving me options. They could have very easily laid me off. It was what every other business was doing at the time. But they didn’t do the easy thing, so I wasn’t going to either. Having the ability to control my future re-fueled me! I wanted to show them how much I appreciated this job and I would do anything I could to support the team during this difficult time.
I’m sharing this story because I want you to understand where my opinion on this subject comes from. I’ve experienced all scenarios - office, remote and hybrid work. Now it might seem from my account of office life, that I deem it the enemy. I don’t. The truth is I was just as unengaged when I was forced to go fully remote. I might have struck that balance with hybrid, but that’s only because I got to set my own schedule. See the common thread?
I was a more engaged employee only when I was given the autonomy to choose the life I wanted to live. Not full-time office, not completely remote, not even our current definition of hybrid - What I was responding to, what we all respond to, was the freedom of choice. Which is why I don’t believe the problem lies in the model your company adopts - The problem is mandates.
What’s wrong with mandates?
Mandates rarely work for anything. They are all about forced change, and with any change, especially forced change, comes conflict.
Take Politics for example, I believe a majority of people, like myself, do not solely identify as Democrat or Republican. They pick and choose the policies that reflect their beliefs, then they base their vote on what will have the least amount negative impact on their lives. Now what would happen if one day someone came in and declared, “You’re now a Republican. You have no choice but to believe in everything the party stands for.” Okay, there are some things you might be able to get onboard with, like their profitable economic strategies. But what about those policies you hate? Maybe, you're a steadfast LGBTQ supporter, which means you have to tell your brother, Patrick you can’t attend his wedding to his partner David, because you’re a Republican now.
Chances are you're probably going to reject the declaration and go to the wedding, right? Of course you would! Why? Because nobody has the right to tell you what to believe and who to support.
This is precisely what’s happening with RTO mandates. After surviving covid and realizing we have options, here come tone-deaf leaders crying “Forget remote - Your office people again!” They cite their bogus reasons backed by bad data, and hide their very obvious mandates and personal agendas, in some grand statement about “Getting back to normal.” Well if exhausting myself to the point of burnout just to get into the office for a zoom call, is normal…Hard pass on normal.
I know this may seem like I'm targeting RTO specifically, but as I said before it’s not the model, it’s the mandate. Sloppy hybrid models are equally skilled at mucking up the conversation. When most companies say they are hybrid, they might as well say, “We have no idea what we’re doing.” Half of leadership probably wants remote-first, the other half crave the collaboration of an office setting, because they can’t reach a decision they declare “We’re hybrid.” Cue the chaos…
Employees like Workplace Experience are mandated to return to the office 5 days a week. Maybe one “WFH” day with manager approval.
Sales or Engineering must come in 2 days a week even though it’s totally unnecessary to their jobs…but ya know, that’s what’s fair.
And Leadership can create the schedule they feel aligns with their working style. Which inevitably means their teams are at the mercy of whatever belief system they subscribe to.
Eventually the indecision and total lack of equitability unmasks the truth...your hybrid model is nothing more than a RTO mandate masquerading as flexible work.
Fully remote work is not without blame either. Sure, it offers more flexibility than RTO or Hybrid, but that’s only if your company responsibly embraced remote. I know many companies who thought remote work meant mirroring in-office practices. So they set up strict working hours, daily check-ins, endless zoom calls, and some even went so far as to track your mouse and keyboard strokes. A company who steadfastly adheres to careless remote-first policies, and doesn’t offer the option of IRL time, is just as damaging as a company that demands a return to office. You’re forcing them to align with your principles, and not giving them the freedom to determine how they work best. Whether you admit it or not, that’s a mandate.
I realize my comparisons to politics and bad hybrid and remote models are extreme examples, but they don’t negate my point - The problem isn’t RTO, remote, or hybrid…the problem is the absence of choice.
If mandates don’t work, why use them?
Obviously I can’t know all the reasons behind every leader's decision to use mandates. I do appreciate that every situation presents its own unique challenges, but I have a theory that there is one central, motivating force behind many, if not all, ignorant decisions… the fear of change.
Fear of change is a defining characteristic in most conflicts, but it is the catalyst for every generational conflict in history; discord erupting when one generations beliefs, values, & behaviors clash with another generation/s.
Let’s take the fight for Women’s Rights, for example:
The Greatest generation fought the Lost Generation to secure a Women’s Right to vote. Basically saying, “Okay you can have your voice, just not a seat at the table…yet.”
Baby Boomers grappled with the Greatest Generation to allow women to have careers outside the home. Stating “They should not only have a voice, but it should be heard.”
GenXers battle the Boomers for equal opportunity for women in the workplace. “Thank you for hearing my voice, I’d like to take my seat now.”
Now Millennials and GenZers are taking it one step farther by evolving gender identity as a whole. They say “There’s no difference between a man or a woman's voice, we’re all humans.”
Fear of change guided decision-making in this example, as it does all generational conflicts. The older generation fought, most times at great cost, for the slightest advancement in their causes. Once they achieve it, they want to enjoy the victory. Then the next generation comes in pointing out all the ways to evolve the cause further. The older generation takes this as an insult to their success & sacrifice in pursuit of their normal, but really it’s just fear of change disguised as conviction of truth. I.e. the prospect of their normal evolving is terrifying, so they reject the change.
The Future of Work conflict is no different. To be blunt, Baby Boomers and GenXers make up the lion’s share of RTO/Hybrid mandate supporters. They are so scared of the workplace changing beyond what is “normal” to them, they are abusing their positions of power to achieve their preferred method of working. On the other hand, Millennials and GenZers make up the majority of remote work advocates. They are yelling for evolution but some are taking it a little too far, too fast.
Ultimately the fear of change drives their need to preserve their normals, so they create excuses to mask the real motivations behind their choices. This is how mandates are born.
If I still haven’t convinced you, here’s the #1 excuse for each models mandate, and 3 possibilities for the change-based fears that are actually behind them.
Excuse for RTO mandates: “We need to get back to normal. People cannot effectively work or connect remotely.”
Possible Translation #1: Remote work is for lazy Millennials and GenZers who don’t know the value of personal connection. Since I’m “the boss” I’m going to show them the old way is the right way.
Possible Translation #2: I don’t personally do well with remote work. I don’t know the tech and I’m used to being in an office to properly manage my team. That’s how I am comfortable; If the workplace evolves into remote work, I'll be left behind.
Possible Translation #3: I am literally bleeding money, paying for an office that nobody is in. With 5 years left on this lease, I got to get people back to the office to stop the hemorrhaging.
Excuse for Remote mandates: “We don't ever need to have a physical place to work and connect. We can do everything remotely.” (Side bar: I generally agree with this sentiment. I’m coming from the perspective of a leader who is totally opposed to incorporating any IRL time for their remote teams.)
Possible Translation #1: I want to stick it to those RTO advocates and show them remote work is the future.
Possible Translation #2: I am personally not a people person, and I think most of the people I hire feel the same way. We’re doing our workers a favor by remaining remote and never forcing them into awkward social situations.
Possible Translation #3: I don’t have the money for a physical space or teambuilding of any kind, so we’re just going to hide behind being completely remote.
Excuse for Hybrid Mandates: “People should have a choice, but in order for that choice to work it needs to be structured.” (Structured is just another word for controlled.)
Possible Translation #1: Our leadership team can’t make a decision whether we should be remote, or come to the office. So we’re just going to assign days, but tell people they have a choice - as long as it’s our choice.
Possible Translation #2: I’m personally scared to change to fully remote because I like the office sometimes, but also like to be able to pick my kids up from school on Tuesdays/Thursdays. Okay so everybody has to come in on Monday, Weds and Friday.
Possible Translation #3: We have this office space burning a hole in our accounts, but people will riot if we say they have to come back full-time. Let’s do a mandate with just Fridays off. Then we’re being cool and not seeming like we’re forcing RTO.
Why is Flexible Work the common ground?
Another defining characteristic of generational conflicts is the lack of resolution. Most of the time nothing actually gets solved, there’s just brief periods of compromise. Usually the older generation realizes change is inevitable, but at least they can control how much of it they accept; and the younger generation attempts to find ways to appease the opposition by slowing the speed of the change and accepting even a small step forward as a win. Basically everyone agrees to disagree and the issue goes dormant until the next generation picks up the fight.
The FoW debate is slightly different in that even though there are people steadfastly standing in one camp or another, they’re all arguing towards the same end result - Being able to work as they work best.
For instance, it’s not that RTO supporters so badly want to get back to commuting and sacrificing time with their families. They work best in an office. It’s what they know, it’s familiar. However, those same people who support RTO will tell you they prefer to choose the days they come in. An argument that supports the implementation of Flexible Work.
Equally, it’s not that Remote advocates never want to see people again. They just realize the technology we have today allows for more flexibility, so the office is not a large factor in doing their best work. However, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had teams say they wish they had a physical space for IRL time. They want the option for in-person collaboration, but when it works for them - aka Flexible Work.
I won’t even touch on Hybrid, because in my opinion that term needs to be retired. If you take away policies like, scheduling of mandatory office days, hybrid work is flexible work.
The compromise in the FoW conversation is obviously Flexible Work. The right to determine your schedule in accordance with your life. If I’m a person that thrives in an office environment, I can decide to come in 5 days a week. If my role responsibilities don’t require me to be in-person, I can remain remote. If I like a healthy dose of both, I can create a hybrid schedule for myself.
I leave you with this…
Even though it’s obvious to me, and I think many people, historical evidence of generational conflict indicates we’re not yet at the compromise phase of this journey. So until then, I will continue to spread the Flexible Work love until everybody starts to recognize our commonalities - We all want to be able to create work/life balance, we all hate being told how to live our lives, and we all want our normal. Translation: We all want Flexible Work.
