Back to the Office - The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly - Part 1
The post-pandemic pull to bring knowledge workers back to the office is well underway. I've been involved with the debates and arguments around this issue for over 20 years. First as a software developer working on distributed teams (often internationally), than as a technical manager, and for the past 10 years as an Agile coach. I think a lot about this and in my view we are in the midst of an important opportunity. We are also poised to squander that opportunity. Unsurprisingly, I believe distributed work environments are where the greatest opportunities are for (re)defining work environments suitable to the 21st century knowledge worker.
To start, I make the following distinction between "remote" and "distributed" work environments. "Remote" implies a level of isolation that "distributed" does not. Examples of a "remote" worker include a telemarketer, technical support, virtual assistant, and data entry. These are jobs that are task driven and easy enough to define within a narrow set of expectations. For the most part, they are jobs that do not require a great deal of creativity, innovation, or oversight. Even working these jobs within the confines of a company office can leave an employee feeling "remote" and isolated. I know this because I’ve worked jobs like these.
"Distributed" implies connection, collaboration, and something shared. It implies a team. And it encompasses both hybrid and fully non-collocated teams. I'm not offering these as definitions. You may well think of them differently. This is how I've found thinking and talking about these terms in a way that is useful for my clients. It helps to know we’re talking about the same thing when we have a shared understanding of what that "thing" is.
Establishing a healthy and productive collocated, hybrid, or distributed work environment is a tough code to break if for no other reason then we're working with a dynamic system filled with zillions of human beings. And it may be for that very reason the code may never be broken. That doesn't mean we can't adjust key elements of the system to better accommodate 21st century needs and requirements. However, there are important elements that I believe are missing from the discussion so far. I'll start by calling out several prevalent assumptions that need to be challenged.
Distributed work environments diminish or are even antithetical to innovation. A common aspect of this assumption is that innovation will be reduced and, consequently, adversely impact growth. Each of these are potential outcomes, particularly if the expectation is that the collocated/factory mindset works just as well in distributed or hybrid work environments. Distributed teams most certainly can be as productive and innovative as collocated teams. But not in the same way or with the same mindset or by using the same management and team development practices that are typically used with traditional collocated teams - usually some version of the factory model: boss-worker, manager-direct report, etc.
The best solutions require frequent face-to-face interactions. Solutions often benefit from frequent face-to-face interactions, but don't require it. This is something that depends on the nature of the work. A friend of mine is a professional mediator and negotiator. Solutions there very much benefit from face-to-face interactions. In software development, the rapid development of complex solutions with team members separated by many time zones are an increasingly frequent occurrence. Such teams communicate, collaborate, and therefore build trust in a way different from collocated non-technical office workers. Frankly, I think the distributed software teams I've worked on and with benefited from more diverse cultural perspectives than our in-office brethren. The assumption that face-to-face interactions are required for building trust seems to be an artifact of the one-size-fits-all factory model for managing people.
Trust and resilience cannot form with distributed teams. Or if it does, those attributes are weaker or of lesser quality than the trust and resilience that is formed with collocated teams. It has also been suggested by some that collocation, face-to-face interactions and direct communication are essential requirements and, if absent, trust and resilience won't develop at all. In my experience, they can develop but to a different degree, according to a different time line, and via different experiences.
Failing to challenge these and other assumptions about distributed workforces risks loosing the opportunity revealed by the pandemic lock-downs to established business practices that are much more suitable to 21st century knowledge work.
Back to the Office - The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly - Part 2
Back to the Office - The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly - Part 3
Back to the Office - The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly - Part 4 (Conclusion)
Back to the Office - Delayed Effects from the Lock-downs
