Can We Talk About Work?

Can We Talk About Work?

Have you noticed that people are very passionate about work?  Not necessarily about what they do as much as how and where they do it.  These days, talking about work has become a bit like talking about politics or religion.  This is especially true in the world of social media, even in the tamer waters of LinkedIn, where if you post about the benefits of working in an office, or you appear curious about the longer-range impacts of remote work, you will most certainly be attacked.  The attack comes from people vehemently opposed to return to office mandates, really to any concept of work that does not permit the employee a wide range of freedom in deciding where and when to work.  Some of them have financial interests in shifting work patterns, for example as purveyors of coworking solutions.  Others are anti-establishment, with echoes of the Occupy movement.  The more reasonable voices in favor of remote work are academics like Nick Bloom.  They conduct research and study work patterns, adding valuable balance to the discussion.

Work is far reaching in how it impacts society.  It translates to how we spend our time, where we live, the viability of cities and broader societal trends.  Work and all its related facets (i.e., commuting, etc.), is among the most significant of social constructs.  It makes sense we would approach large scale changes with caution, implementing big changes only after careful consideration.  But this has not been the way in which we’ve muddled through the past few years.  I think most employers have been as thoughtful as possible about work, initially by doing all they could to protect employees and later by perpetuating remote and hybrid workplace strategies even when they preferred that employees return to the pre-pandemic workplace posture.   Of course, much of their decision making occurred against the backdrop of historically high employment, causing them to perceive risk in advocating unpopular workplace strategies.  The net effect has been perpetuation of remote work at a level that many employers find uncomfortable.  It’s been the relative normalization of measures that were hastily enforced to protect people, never intended to be permanent - - - the keeping of these practices absent careful consideration of their broader impact.

Recently, I posted on LinkedIn about a New York Times article I found thought provoking.  I was curious to learn what others thought.  To be sure, I received some insightful comments.  Yet I also received a range of comments that could loosely be characterized as attacking.  Some of these had elements of perspectives I would like to have unpacked, but the sender’s “you’re wrong, I’m right and I’ll fight you to the death with my arsenal of word salad talking points” posture made productive dialogue seem improbable.  Some offered sweeping views, like: “People have disliked office life, politics and culture forever, it just wasn’t thinkable before the pandemic to oppose it or choose a different way of life without a private office.”  Umm…ok?  Have we now entered a new realm in which companies no longer have politics and culture?  That seems very non-human.  Then there’s the guy who immediately labeled me for my obvious bias: “Says "Executive Managing Director”.   I give him high points for being snarky, a skill not lost on me.  Finally, one pleaded:   “Why do we need to hang on to the old ways of working?”  I, for one, am not convinced we do.  But I think we should compare the pros and cons of the “old ways” vs. whatever is being held out as the ideal new ways.  In any case, the NYT article wasn’t necessarily suggesting we go back to the old ways.  Nor was I.  But since we’re asking questions, why do we need to make permanent, temporary changes in how we work which were made in response to a global pandemic without the benefit of careful consideration?  

It’s understandable that workers want more freedom, more flexibility to determine where, when, and how they work.  The idea that companies engage their employees more fully in developing workplace strategies is a big positive.  It’s the bigger, long-term implications of changes in how we define work that we’re most concerned about.  The act of deconstruction can be destabilizing.  Maybe workers are being influenced too much by the perceived benefits of not having to commute, or work in a synchronous context?   Maybe the short-term benefits are preventing them from thinking a few steps ahead about what could happen if this becomes the new normal?  For example, are workers considering the longer-range impacts of being distributed and having considerably less physical connection to their colleagues and management?  Is there a future state in which employees lose with distributed work?  I suspect, yes.  Why?  Because when companies are fully distributed, they can source labor based on cost and you can hire an engineer in India for way less than the same talent would cost in San Francisco.  For employers, a workforce that is more mobile, less sticky, creates more churn and makes it harder to build culture.  The broader effects of making the internet the global office include the erosion of cities, a dynamic that is taking shape right now.  Does that matter?  As with other social constructs that we’ve moved digital, like our use of social media to replace aspects of in person communication, are we destined to see similarly disappointing results?  Are we sure the new digital office is going to be better for society than the old in-person office?  Devoid of politics and awkward attempts at culture?  We have our doubts.