We adopted two kittens in October. They are delightful. But they sure have done a number on my sleep habits. Which means that after a night with insufficient sleep sometimes I lie in bed longer than I used to. It starts with a crossword puzzle, moves on to a series of NYT games, and then ultimately onto various news sources.
It was one of those such mornings when the headline jumped across my screen: Just 4% of CEOs are prioritizing bringing workers back into the office full time.
Huh, I thought, Here we are in 2024 and “return to office” is still headline worthy? But I’m as curious as the next person, so I clicked. It starts off by giving the answer to the debate and informing the reader that, “The return-to-office debate isn’t going away — but one aspect may be coming to a close, and workers won.” I cringed a little. Or at the very least made a face.
As someone who wants flexibility for workers, shouldn’t this news make me happy?
On the surface, sure, the idea that “the workers won” should be something that would excite me. Except that it’s not true. Or at least, not entirely.
Yes, in a world where there are diverse working options to meet the diverse needs of an incredibly diverse workforce, the workers win. But you know who else wins? CEOs. And their companies. And their profits.
The positioning of the remote-work conundrum as an “us vs them” has irked me for some time. It’s a false narrative that only serves to divide two groups that surely don’t need any additional assistance in being divided, and in fact, could really benefit from sharing some common ground. Such as, say, the acknowledgement that having every single employee on site in a workplace probably isn’t a top priority for either group.
What are the top priorities then?
The article goes on to say that the majority of CEOs are instead focusing on, “attracting and retaining talent” as a top priority. Again, I am annoyed wondering, why is this news? What I mean is, we’ve read headline after headline about the employers struggling to retain employees, and employees feeling record levels of burnout and disengagement. That those at the top are focused on trying to create a work environment that not only attracts, but also retains a skilled workforce should be a given, no?
Which leads me to wonder if we’re still missing the mark in terms of why anyone considers it important to “bring people back into the office anyway.” Or maybe, just maybe, this headline news is a sign that we’re moving in the right direction. Are we about ready to drop the narrative that the only way to build workplace culture is to do it in a shared physical setting?
If not in our shared physical spaces, how can we build culture?
The culture argument was the one I heard the most frequently in support of bringing people fully back on-site. And while I don’t know that I am entirely convinced that argument was ever fully sincere, I am glad to see that there is the beginning of an agreement that culture can actually exist across time and space.
There seems to be a great deal of room for discussion on what exactly is meant by the term culture, and certainly there are plenty of well-researched articles, blogs, and speeches on the topic. However, it does seem like a lot of the angst around remote work and culture was around the ability to connect without a watercooler, and the ability to collaborate without a conference room.
A recent Forbes article accurately noted that, “Team connection is not about friendship or camaraderie, but rather an intentional and enhanced form of relationship that cultivates innovation” and that it’s the “small, consistent rituals incorporated into everyday interactions” that really make a difference.
Can this be done across the space-time divide? Absolutely. There are countless organizations who have been doing it - and exceeding at it- for years. I could throw statistics at you, but all of the research suggests that people change their mind based more on feelings than data, so I’ll share an anecdote.
Cultures I’ve experienced - in an office and at home
For (an undisclosed number of) years I worked for an organization where we all reported to the same office space, five days a week. While there was some flexibility in terms of the hours we worked, everyone was in the office between 8-4 or 9-5. Very rarely, someone would be allowed a 9:30-5:30 exception. But I mean very rarely.
We didn’t have a strong organizational culture. Our leadership felt a bit absent. We didn’t align our work according to the mission of the organization. And employees were led in ways that supported them as individuals, rather than as members of a team.
In the time I worked there, I rose in seniority. I accomplished a multitude of large, collaborative projects, and made quite a few meaningful relationships with people I am still in touch with today and expect to be in touch with for a long time.
Aha! You might be thinking, I knew being in person would serve her well! In all seriousness, being in person worked fine for me. But the most significant relationships I formed were with colleagues who worked for other organizations, but collaborated with me and my team. Sometimes we would meet in person. And oftentimes we did not.
Fast forward a few years when I began working for a fully remote team. I worked there for probably 6 months before I met anyone in person, and had some colleagues I saw for a total of 2 days across a multi-year time span. We worked across different locations and time zones. We had a strong organizational culture, and aligned as members of a team.
In the time I worked there, I rose in seniority. I accomplished a multitude of large, collaborative projects, and made quite a few meaningful relationships with people I am still in touch with today and expect to be in touch with for a long time. (Does this paragraph sound familiar to you? It should.)
There is no one universal truth, but there are endless options
My experience is not universal. No one’s experience is universal. What is universal is that employees do seek to feel engaged and connected. And what’s also true is that not all employees need to see each other in-person regularly for that to happen.
Jim Kalbach, Chief Evangelist of Mural (my favorite online collaboration tool) was quoted as saying, “creativity isn't tied to a location. It is tied to human connection, psychological safety, and trust.” And it’s not just Jim who says this. The overwhelming evidence supports this idea.
Near or far, if you want to build culture, collaboration, and innovation, your first stop isn’t an office. It’s psychological safety. And since that looks different for each employee and each organization, it is incumbent upon leadership to listen to and learn about what their employees actually need.
So, perhaps now that CEOs have deprioritized returning to their office, and have shifted the priority to attracting and retaining talent, we’ll be seeing more headlines focused on CEOs also seeking diverse strategies to build organizational trust across various workplace structures. Because if they’re serious about retainment - and the all-encompassing culture- they’re going to need it.
And you can trust that I’ll be looking for those headlines while I lie in bed. After all, I’ve got those kittens.
References:
Bellizi, K. (2022, August 16). Cognitive Biases and Brain Biology Help Explain Why Facts Don’t Change Minds. Retrieved February 5, 2024, from https://today.uconn.edu/2022/08/cognitive-biases-and-brain-biology-help-explain-why-facts-dont-change-minds-2/
Maruf, R. (2024, January 10). Just 4% of CEOs are prioritizing bringing workers back into the office full time. Retrieved January 17, 2024, from https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/10/business/return-to-office-2024-ceo/index.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=cnn_LinkedIn-Newsletter
Tsipurksy, G. (2023, July 19). The Power Of Psychological Safety And Creativity In Teams. Forbes. Retrieved February 2, 2024, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/glebtsipursky/2023/07/19/the-power-of-psychological-safety-and-creativity-in-teams/?sh=372ea64c5917