While some of us worked remotely (i.e., from home) occasionally, even before COVID, the epidemic forced us all to work from home. Once the public health issues were addressed and it was safe to return to our offices or plants, some of us did, but many did not — or, more accurately, did not return as frequently as before. Employers and managers had extremely different reactions to this new way of working.
The usefulness of remote work or being in the office, cubicle or plant comes down to the relationship with one’s boss or supervisor and the nature of your work. If you are in direct services, like surgery, you obviously have to be in an operating room or clinic. But other work, like sales or teaching, can be done remotely, and save a lot of time and expense involved in traveling.
Now that there seems to be more companies requiring employees to return to the office, let’s review the pros and cons of remote working before addressing the better and worse ways to encourage people to return to the office or plant.
Remote work is less stressful. We don’t have to commute and deal with traffic or public transportation, so it saves time during the workday. As a result, we can get our work done with greater flexibility.
Remote work is effective if a person’s productivity is evident, like sales, papers written, new inventions. It also works better if relationships with colleagues and supervisors are trusting.
The downside is that it requires more context as a substitution for being in the office, and communication from bosses and supervisors, which translates to more Zoom meeting hours than casual walks down the hall.
Working in your office or plant is more effective when the nature of the work is process-oriented and less tangible. Providing information or goods to others, translating efforts and such are less tangible than sales or actual products made. Such work requires interpretation to determine effectiveness. Some managers worry about and do not trust their subordinates or direct reports to be working their hardest in such fuzzy conditions.
There is an unfortunate assumption that if you are in your office or cubicle, you are doing a useful or productive day’s worth of work. This does not account for daydreaming, spending time on personal email, or just goofing off. On the plus side, being physically present does appear to enhance each person’s sense of belonging and identification with the company, organization, products/services or clients.
Beyond the reason for a push to be in the office, how such changes are implemented will affect important long-term factors. Forcing people to return to work can be called a “push” approach. If you want employees to leave, make it a demand and threaten them with their jobs. But if you wish to maintain or increase engagement and motivation, then a “pull” approach will work much better. This is not a new revelation. Psychologists studying people at work have known the impact of this approach for decades. For example, our research has shown that a “pull” (or stimulating what we call the Positive Emotional Attractor) can lead to the desired changes and maintain or increase motivation for people to use their talent and work smarter and harder.
If you believe it would help commitment, the work climate and employee motivation, spend time talking with them about how it felt when they were in the office or plant at the same time. Discuss how this is a contrast to remote work. People may conclude they want to return to the office, or at least return more often than they are currently doing. ●
Richard E. Boyatzis is Distinguished University Professor, Professor, Organizational Behavior, Psychology, and Cognitive Science, at Case Western Reserve University’s Weatherhead School of Management
