Remote work is back in the news. This time it is half a world away, in Australia. Nevertheless, the debate is interesting and perhaps indicative of where future discussions will recur.
This blog has focused periodically on the perspectives regarding remote work. See Remediating (February 2022); Productivity is Down (December 2022) Presumptively (August 2023); Virtual Productivity (August 2023). Companies of many descriptions have struggled with the dichotomy of work. There are those who believe virtual work is "the" answer and a counter group that has the opposite view. This was not created by the Great Panic of 2020, but COVID-19 and various government (over)reactions brought the debate to the fore.
Since the Pandemic ended, there has been persistent discussion of the benefits and drawbacks of both virtual work and the traditional office paradigm. There are adamant fans on both sides, valid arguments, and emotion plays a role at times. There are some who prefer one path or the other mainly on the basis of what they are accustomed to. I have noted repeatedly that familiarity is comfortable and no one really loves change. See Departures and Progress (December 2023) and the posts cited there.
What I have gleaned from all this debate is fairly ambivalent. It appears to me that each paradigm has benefits and burdens. The "right" answer is likely elusive because people are not fungible, whether they are supervisors, workers, or both. By the same token, jobs are no more interchangeable or even similar. A virtual lawyer is a lot different than a virtual firefighter. That is not to say that some firefighter tasks might not fit the paradigm, but some might really need to go where the fire is.
The news recently focused on a one-size-fits-all solution for government workers in New South Wales Australia. This is the most populous state down under. Its Premier (similar to a U.S. Governor) has removed all doubt. He has ordered state employees to return to the office forthwith. That is not to say there will be "no" virtual, but the expectation will be "in office" work as a presumption or default.
There is some measure of effective management in this tack. Advocates stress the opportunities for mentorship in the office. Over the last few years, more than one manager has told me that remote employees are often reluctant to call or email four guidance due to some trepidation of "interrupting" or "disturbing." One told me that the best mentoring he does is around the communal coffee pot.
He describes a feeling there of casual, quiet, and non-intrusive availability that his employees use. He says he is "often" followed there for quick and impromptu advice and guidance. For this reason, he goes often and never pours a full cup. Sneaky? Perhaps.
There is also some measure of the office advocates that point to productivity. It is amazing that perspectives can be so different. Nonetheless, many workers find the home environment incredibly more productive. Conversely, many supervisors decry the productivity of remote workers. Can they both be right? Of course, because people are unique, supervisors and workers.
But, there is also another communal rationale expressed that seems more directed at ancillary interests. Some of the biggest fans of the "return to the office" movement are those who offer services (coffee, restaurant, etc.) and real estate services in the office communities. Those businesses thrive on the supply of customers in a particular location, and work brings the people there. The draw in some instances is specifically the office. Being "in town" or "downtown" for work already, the chances increase of someone purchasing a latte, sandwich, or watch.
That last one is likely a shortfall of the virtual world that is being aggravated by more than the remote work. I know people who claim they "never" enter retail stores anymore. They have gone full "virtual" in their shopping habits. Whether those workers return to the office or not, it is likely their retail habits may not change.
The other side of that coin is the labor movement. Unions have been less than supportive of the "back to the office" initiative. They have expressed doubts as to the need for such a mass return. As yet, the news is not reporting any union opposition per se in Australia, but that unions are unconvinced of the business case for the mass return. In the end, differing perspectives might matter in a macro sense (expressed by a collective) or a micro sense (any employee might enforce a preference).
The story also raises the specter of competition and mobility. Some complain that there are insufficient workers now and that the return to office order will exacerbate that. I have spoken to various employers in recent years who tell me that the first question they get from job candidates is whether the job is virtual. Thus, there is some evidence that virtual options are important to workers. The availability of virtual options may thus influence the competition for workers between jobs or professions.
Similarly, a neighboring Australian state is starting to promote the affinity its government has for virtual work. the "Premier of neighboring Victoria" has suggested that "disgruntled New South Wales public servants should consider moving there." That begs the question of "why?"
If Victoria is willing to allow its state employees to work from home, why not be a Victoria state employee working from home in New South Wales? Maybe "remote" in the sense of not being present to consume goods and services is not what they had in mind? Regardless, the fact illustrated is that different employers may embrace virtual as a competitive tool.
Are businesses any less vulnerable to similar forces? If company A offers no virtual options, will qualified candidates flock to A's competitors? Worse perhaps than candidate flight, will existing A employees migrate to competitors? In the process, will A face issues with ongoing expense and time associated with recruiting, training, and mentoring, which are often critical to employee efficacy?
In fairness, the New South Wales mandate is not an absolute. There is an expression of some flexibility, and allowing remote work in some contexts. There is also mention of allowing broader application of the paradigm in specific instances in which justification is demonstrated and compelling.
Nonetheless, the era of remote work in one state government is broadly ending and how that plays out in the competitive environment of recruiting and retention will be interesting to watch.
