While it’s true that a gradual shift towards home and remote working has been happening for some time, no one could have expected it to become the ‘new normal’ so fast. Such has been the case for many things during the pandemic. Coronavirus has affected so many aspects of our daily working and personal routines, and so quickly, that both employees and businesses are still trying to understand the short and long-term effects. Here our partners, JobLookUp, share their thoughts on why it’s still too soon to truly assess remote work.
Often described as ‘the largest social experiment undertaken’, and other equally grandiose terms, remote work has been a must for many in recent months, and hailed as a success so far by both businesses and employees. Better productivity, saved costs, better work/life balance, and increased employee autonomy have been among the often-cited advantages. These advantages were known before the pandemic of course, and despite the challenge of the situation, have held true in practice en masse.
The potential negatives of remote work however, have been less well documented. There are now, as a result, several arguments against working from home (WFH) circulating too, of course. These seem to suggest it may not be the panacea to work/life balance that we all previously thought.
Common negative impacts of WFH and remote work can include increased feelings of loneliness, worsening mental health, and a fraying work/life balance. Some studies and articles also suggest that many workers want to get back to the office as soon as possible, due to missing the social interactions with colleagues.
Then we have the economic impacts. Previously bustling city centres have been reduced to ghost towns, with restaurants, nightlife, and shops in these areas taking huge financial hits. Another issue that has gained more visibility is that of living space, especially in cities. Many younger employees are forced to work from home in cramped conditions or shared accommodation.
These are all valid areas of concern of course, but is it accurate and fair to attribute these problems purely to remote work? Perhaps not, and certainly not yet at least, because one crucial factor is being overlooked – we are not assessing remote working in a normal set of conditions. In almost all cases where these issues are used as arguments against remote work, the fact that we’re in the middle of a global pandemic is often overlooked or ignored.
This is a major oversight, because the pandemic itself has created a completely unique set of conditions and challenges, one of which is social distancing and self-isolation. When assessing anything to do with work or employee health and happiness in the last few months, including the downsides of remote work, failing to factor in the impacts of the pandemic is somewhat disingenuous at worst, and a mistake at best.
Additionally, many of the key problem areas that form the basis for criticising working from home may well evaporate in more normal times. This is even more likely now that employers have a clearer understanding of what support staff both need, and want, when they work off-site or at home too.
We shouldn’t overlook, for example, that in pandemic free circumstances, remote work is possible pretty much anywhere with an internet connection. In what now seems like a long-forgotten alternate reality, feelings of loneliness and isolation were much easier to combat, thanks to the abundance of cafes or public spaces available to work in. Visiting family or friends was always an option too, and no one was forcibly confined to their home working space during lockdowns.
Meeting up with colleagues, even though a team may all work remotely, is also entirely plausible in a post COVID world. There may be more onus on companies to provide the frameworks for this perhaps, but from these two examples alone we can see that the most often cited criticisms of WFH fade away in a ‘normal’ climate.
The issue of work and living space is not one that we can rationally attribute to working from home on its own either. The reason living space is so cramped and expensive in London, for example, is due to the concentration of employment opportunities, and the need to be near the office or workplace to take advantage of those opportunities. This enables landlords to hike up prices while minimising living space, setting the root of the problems that are now claimed to be a consequence of working from home. They are in fact, indicative of much wider, deeper issues – ones that could even be mitigated with a shift to long term working from home, in pandemic free times.
Then we have the economic arguments. It’s true that major centres have been hit hard, but conversely, high streets and local economies have flourished. Again, attributing these losses and gains purely to WFH seems ill thought out. In a corona free world, it’s highly plausible that both economy types will thrive, with perhaps a shift in favour of the local. The problems faced by retailers and city centre businesses isn’t because people are working from home – it’s because we’re in the middle of a pandemic, and the measures to control and contain this pandemic discourages or bans unnecessary use of public transport and travel.
In the end, then, arguing against remote work while we’re still very much in the grip of COVID is counterproductive for two main reasons:
1: We can’t accurately assess any long-term potential downsides in the middle of a pandemic, the main response to which focuses on social distancing and isolation.
2: There is no ‘one size fits all ‘ approach – there never has been – so presenting the arguments for and against remote work as such is pointless. Businesses don’t need to choose between ultimatums of ‘back to the office for good’, or ‘remote work forever’. Both can and should coexist as part of a single employee focused strategy.
Perhaps what this really all boils down to is employee autonomy. There are some that welcome that idea, and some that don’t. The fact is, businesses shouldn’t be forcing remote work on employees any more than they should be forcing employees into the office. The crucial difference is, however, that currently remote working is encouraged or required to help curb a national health crisis.
Once the pandemic has subsided, perhaps we should aim for a ‘new normal’ that accommodates employee preferences, delivers autonomy, and creates trust. Empowering employees to work in the ways they find most productive, rather than waging a war between remote and on-site work ideologies, is likely a much more effective answer to the question of what the post COVID world of work looks like. We can then also start to accurately assess any potential downsides of remote work fairly.
Siemens’ announcement on the future of working for their company is an excellent example of a model many companies could adopt. CEO Roland Busch announced the thinking behind the company’s shift in strategy:
‘The basis for this forward-looking working model is further development [of] our corporate culture. These changes will also be associated with a different leadership style, one that focuses on outcomes rather than on time spent at the office.
We trust our employees and empower them to shape their work themselves so that they can achieve the best possible results. With the new way of working, we’re motivating our employees while improving the company’s performance capabilities and sharpening Siemens’ profile as a flexible and attractive employer.’
One thing that both remote work supporters and office worker enthusiasts can probably agree on is having a choice. Everyone wins in such a scenario, and yet this is often what is missed in the debate over working from home and getting back to the office.
Author biography:
Simon Marshall, Head of Content and Communications at JobLookup.
Simon is a technology enthusiast with an interest in how the application of science, philosophy, ethics, and psychology can benefit us in both the workplace and wider society.
