I have been hearing a lot lately about "return to work." It was confusing at first to hear various workers' compensation community members discussing this. My first reaction, long ingrained by this workers' compensation world in which we live, was it must be a reference to the end of work restrictions following an injury. I was way off. These folks have been away from their offices, telecommuting, and are now returning to the office.
Over the course of the last 15 months or so, I have heard anecdotal stories of offices closing due to SARS-CoV-2 fears (You cannot be infected with COVID, it is a result not a cause). Admittedly, the Florida OJCC has had to shutter an office here or there for deep cleaning a few (less than 5) times; those have been for a day or perhaps 2. We have had some employees who needed to telecommute temporarily, but that population was never anywhere close to a majority of our team. In short, the Florida team weathered the pandemic fabulously; mediations proceeded, trials were held, and orders were issued. I cannot express how proud I am of these outstanding professionals.
But now, the news is littered with advice for the workplace "reopening." Organizations are touting plans. Lawyers are posting advice. The Centers for Disease Control is providing guidance about environments and advice for the unvaccinated.
But some will not return. CNBC reports that "working from home is here to stay." There is news of companies "Switching to Long-Term Remote Work." and predictions of "accelerating the trend toward telecommuting."
A recent WorkersCompensation.com story highlighted the prevalence and challenges of telecommuting. It notes at the outset that many leaped to telecommuting with little or no warning. Thus, some concerns might be addressed with preparation. However, it noted that a small sample (194) study found that telecommuters were complaining of pain, perhaps largely "due to ergonomic deficiencies" and weight gain.
The ergonomics are somewhat predictable. It is rare for us to have professional-grade desk, chair, monitor arrangements in our homes. Despite that, the study concluded that those who telecommuted "reported a significant increase" in their work hours and "outputted better quality of work." The authors suggest that employers planning to use this paradigm in the future either invest in, "or contribute to" the kind of ergonomic arrangements that would be common in an office environment.
The weight gain is troubling, but the causes are perhaps not hard to define. The survey respondents largely reported that they ate better (homemade not carry-out), but also admitted consuming "more junk food." The study isolated inactivity and other factors including a reference to technology reliance and sedentary work.
And, there are other detriments to telecommuting interwoven with some troublesome aspects of office presence. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) recently featured "Why presenteeism wins out over productivity." That word means "being physically in your seat at work just to look dedicated, no matter how unproductive." Businesses thrived on it before the pandemic, and despite the shift of many to telecommuting, the issue persisted. The BBC notes that "presenteeism has simply gone digital."
See, in presenteeism, we are striving to look dedicated. That means first to the office and last out; being at our desk even if the work is done. Our presence virtue-signaling our dedication and necessity. I had a judge tell me years ago, upon my initial appointment, that I needed to be in the office; "being there is that important." So, a great many people were displaying their dedication that way before the pandemic. In the midst of it, reportedly, many worked harder at home (more productive) than they had in the office. And, they worked longer hours than ever. The BBC acknowledges that we may in fact be "be slaves to presenteeism forever," whether in the office or beyond.
They note that the pandemic did not legitimize telecommuting in the eyes of some. They noted that a 2019 study concluded that "telecommuting has generally been stigmatized as irresponsible, and those engaged in it suffered detriment in salary growth." Those who come to the office are seen, are able to "ingratiate themselves," and may enjoy advantage(s) as a result. The authors mention psychological concepts relative to how we perceive each other, and presence may influence that. It warns that "Many bosses only see the most visible people."
The article acknowledges that we may be no more productive in the office than at home. It notes workers recognize the presenteeism trap, however, and even telecommuters will come to the office. In some part, this will be due to our coworkers making that trip, and our desire to fit in with coworkers and enjoy benefits when possible. The authors quote one academic suggesting that managers must get over this "presence equals performance" bias. To do so, they must personally "model healthier behavior." Thus, when the work is done, the manager should leave the office. This signals to others that such a practice is accepted. Those managers should look to measures of "raw performance," and whether deadlines, commitments, and goals are being met. In short, the output and accomplishment must come to outweigh the simple presence.
So, as you "return to work," and join those of us that never left, perhaps you will want to find ways to stress your effectiveness. Perhaps there is value in being in the office, but maybe we all need to find value beyond presenteeism and this apparent conclusion that being physically there is half the battle?
