One of the most talked about, written about, and maligned topics in the business press this year has been RTO (Return to Office) policy decisions. It makes sense. After all, we collectively lived through a nearly instantaneous change in business context and practices when countries went into lock-down due to the spread of a virus. We changed where and how we worked in nearly the blink of an eye. And even those in roles where working from home couldn’t happen, suddenly saw work differently.
If you weren’t working from home, you knew someone who was.
Then the pandemic and lock downs ended, and businesses began rethinking how, where and when work would take place.
Enter RTO policy decisions.
As the author of a series of books whose titles open with the words “Long-Distance,” (The Long-Distance Leader, The Long-Distance Teammate, and The Long-Distance Team – links to all three in the Long-Distance Worklife Series are here), I have watched, commented on, written about, and consulted with organizational leaders on these policies.
The state and effectiveness of these decisions doesn’t surprise me but does disappoint me. My focus is less on exactly what the policy might be in an organization, but rather how it was determined, and the impact is on the organization.
Two organizations could have identical policies, but very different outcomes now and into the future – with one thriving and the other struggling in ways it might not even understand yet (or attribute to this policy process). The differences are stark and start with a difference in the underlying assumption of the policy decision.
Failure (or significant problems) comes from an either/or view of the decision. Success comes from a both/and view of the situation.
Let me explain.
Either/Or
Most of the RTO policy decisions have seemingly been made with a win/lose, either/or viewpoint of the world. What do I mean?
If we don’t bring people back, we will:
- Lose productivity (either work in the office or be less productive)
- Lose collaboration (collaboration can only happen in the office)
- Lose culture (the culture only happens in the office)
- Lose money (on the office lease – which is a sunk cost whether people are there or not)
- Lose control (If we can’t see them, we can’t know they are working)
Or the ultimate example: Come back to the office (x days a week or everyday) or lose your job.
So even if you think it hasn’t been an either/or approach because some people can work from home some of the time, that split time approach has mostly been seen as a compromise between two “competing” groups – leadership, who are focused on outcomes, and employees, who are concerned about their needs and lives.
If you didn’t catch it – the either/or, win/lose view of the situation leads to a mindset of competition. While competition with those in other businesses makes sense, when we pit the competition inside the organization, typically everyone loses.
And that is how most feel about their RTO policy – everyone (the proponents of the office and the proponents of working from home) feels like they have lost.
Both/And
There is a different way to see this situation of massive change and opportunity. It assumes a different starting point, thinking both/and, rather than either/or. Here’s what I mean:
- How can we meet the needs of great organizational outcomes and help people meet their needs too?
- How can we create a shared understanding of the context of the situation?
- How can we create a new recipe for shared success?
- How can we come to decisions, that while complex, grow trust across the organization?
Notice that all of these questions start with we. In the world of we, there aren’t single winners or losers but a shared blending of needs, expectations, and outcomes. This approach also implies that the goal is to find the best solution, not the singular “right” one.
Admittedly, this approach is harder than either/or. It will take longer. It is messier. It is less black and white. And it also reflects the messy complex world of work.
Now What?
If you are considering, reconsidering, or unhappy with your RTO policy decision, let me propose some things to consider. My suggestions will take longer and might be frustrating now but will build far greater long-term results. And regardless of where this decision-making process lands you (always in the office, there is no office, or somewhere in between), it will create better results on nearly every measure than taking a dictated either/or approach.
- Have more conversation. This implies that parties talk more. Surveys are fine but they are one-way and aren’t conversations – they miss the richness and complexity needed to create new and better solutions.
- Share more honesty. Leaders need to be honest about their needs for the business. And employees need to be honest about their needs too. Until that happens, we can’t come close to a consensus.
- Create more shared understanding. When all groups understand the needs and goals of others, there is the chance for a shared understanding that can form the basis of policies or approaches.
- Identify the shared goals of all involved. Shared understanding helps create shared goals – goals that motivate and direct everyone’s activities and decisions.
- Try more stuff. Rather than crafting a “perfect” solution, why not try something? While policies have a place, in a complex situation like we are in today, consider more pilots and fewer (or later) policies.
If you would like help with this both/and approach to your RTO policy decisions, whether consultation or facilitation, reach out to us.
Note: This article challenges us to look at the context of a situation to help determine our leadership approach to that situation, rather than doing what comes naturally and seems easier. If you find this idea fascinating and would like to learn more, you will want a copy of my new book: Flexible Leadership: Navigate Uncertainty and Lead with Confidence. This book gives you a full understanding of what it means to be a flexible leader and provides you with a toolkit for becoming more effective and flexible.
1 comments