Remote? Hybrid? In-Office? 3 Ways Forward (So Far)

This blog post is the second part of our Evolving Workplace series. To hear more thought leadership, check out series episodes on the Remarkable Leadership Podcast.

So, Covid has gone away (except it and a host of other respiratory diseases hasn’t according to the CDC, but that’s another topic) and we are settling into the “new normal.” The problem is that nobody seems to agree on what that is. Depending on what you do for a living, and who you work for, you may work remotely full time, some of the time, or not at all.

It looks like we have settled into three general ways of tackling (knowledge) work. The three ways are (in no particular order) Remote First, Hybrid, and In-Office First. They all have their pros and cons, and only you and your organization can know what’s right for you. The challenge is to make the right decision, and ensure it is done strategically and supported by policies and leadership behavior.

This last part is important. Many decisions about how organizations work are made for emotional reasons (people LIKE working one way or the other, the CEO HATES seeing empty desks) or for expediency (It’s too disruptive to our systems to have everyone remote, if we make everyone come in people will quit or whine about it so let them do whatever they want as long as the work gets done.)

Let’s take a look at some of the advantages and disadvantages of each system. Then we’ll circle back to some truths that apply to all of them. These are NOT in order of preference or success rate.

Remote First

This way of working makes remote work the default standard. There may or may not be a physical headquarters, but the assumption is that most people will not come into physical contact with each other on a daily basis.

Advantages:

• No budget (or very little) is spent on physical infrastructure. Leases, furniture and property taxes aren’t a problem.
• Hiring can be done with a “talent first,” approach. Find the right people, no matter where in the world they are.
• It’s easy to accommodate time zones, languages and geographic territories.
• Leaders must use different metrics and social approaches than they do in the office.
• Remote workers who are engaged and productive are REALLY engaged and productive.

Disadvantages:

• Remote first companies tend to suffer a branding problem. They aren’t perceived the same way as companies with their names on buildings or attractive offices.
• Customers can’t come to you.
• Hard (not impossible) to create valid metrics for employee attendance and productivity.
• There are few big-name companies to benchmark against.
• Forming a “one-company” culture can be tricky and time-consuming.
• Leaders (especially senior leaders) are often not used to working this way and their discomfort can result in either micromanagement or benign neglect.
• Work relationships can often become transactional.

In-Office First

This way of working is the default for most companies. It’s the easiest to implement, because it is the way we have worked for most of the last hundred years or so.

Advantages

• Physical proximity should make communication and relationship building easier.
• Everyone working in the same place at the same time means systems interact easily and information more easily accessible, especially tacit, “unwritten rules.” Traditional metrics like attendance and hours in the office are easy to track.
• Onboarding and training are simpler.
• Synchronous work is the norm. Systems like HR, succession planning and employee development are understood with best practices in place.
• Leaders are comfortable with (or at least used to) the way things work.

Disadvantages

• Physical space, furniture and infrastructure are expensive.
• Little flexibility when head count goes up or down.
• Hiring and recruiting are limited to specific geographic areas.
• Recruiting may be difficult in middle management and more experienced employee levels.
• Favoritism, individual employee requests, and circumstances often result in “stealth remote work,” regardless of official policy.

Hybrid/Flexible Work

This is becoming the default for many companies. 77% of Fortune 100 companies have some form of Hybrid or Flexible Work arrangements, and 43% of the general workforce. This doesn’t mean it’s being done well or strategically, just that it’s happening.

Advantages

• Employees enjoy the flexibility and opportunities flexible schedules provide.
• Managers and long-time employees have made this the most requested (non-pay) perk.
• There are fewer interruptions from natural as well as personal events.
• It is somewhat easier to recruit experienced people.
• Having people together at least part of the time should make synchronous work easier.
• Social relationships are more easily formed and maintained.

Disadvantages

• The physical costs of office space and equipment are often the same as full-time in-office, with more empty desks.
• You are still likely restricting your hiring based on proximity to the office, since they have to be physically present some of the time.
• Scheduling may be based more on perception (the CEO wants to see people working) than actual output and productivity.
• People report it can be hard to get some kinds of work done in a busy, noisy office.
• Knowing who is where at what point in time requires effort and coordination.
• Scheduling tasks may be more difficult.
• Many leaders default to the in-office mindset. Proximity bias can impact how they interact with their team.
• A move to reduce space by hoteling or strategic scheduling may meet with resistance.
• The perception of fairness between remote people and those in the office must be carefully managed to avoid problems such as proximity bias.
• Remote work can impact training, development, and delegation opportunities. HR processes and leadership behaviors need to adjust and be supported at all levels.
• Those who do not have flexibility may complain that it’s “unfair” for others to have that option.

As we can see, there are pros and cons to each type of working system. Few of the advantages apply to every organization, and most of the disadvantages can be mitigated with thoughtful policies and intentional, flexible leadership.

It is clear that one-size no longer fits all. It’s incumbent on leadership at all levels to recognize what works and what doesn’t, and to match the approach to the needs of organizations, their customers, and their employees.

At the Kevin Eikenberry Group, we specialize in helping develop leadership skills that work in all three environments.  Visit www.KevinEikenberry.com to learn how.