In recent months, the topic of remote work has been in the news. I have also had the opportunity to discuss virtual presence with a variety of employees, customers, and managers. The opinions are diverse and likely reflect some degree of preconception (bias).
I have spent a lot of hours on predisposition, and it is worthwhile to consider its impact on all of our analyses. See Unseen Influence: Unconscious Predisposition in Dispute Resolution (2025). All professionals would be well advised to spend some time considering predispositions and their potential impacts.
The trend in our pandemic era was toward virtual work. However, 2025 has brought a significant shift back to the office environment. That has led to worker complaints and dissent, illustrated in a recent Business Insider analysis of one company and its employees' reactions.
The CEO of AT&T addressed the results of an employee survey. He suggested that there will be those who choose to remain with the company and those who seek other paths. He cited a very compelling quote on change:
"If you dislike change, you're going to dislike irrelevance even more."
That is a powerful thought. Change is incredibly persistent. If you have not been career-impacted by it yet, count yourself as fortunate. But also know it is coming nonetheless.
The AT&T conclusion seems aligned with those I have spoken with recently: a worker who changed jobs after relocating and elected remote work, two who have been mandated from remote to hybrid, and one who has long-term adherence to virtual. Their perspectives have been informative and interesting.
The young person who recently changed jobs and is new to virtual laments the lack of company and camaraderie. Their work seems transactional, and the connection with coworkers and team members is strained despite the generational affinity for digital communications and the raft of platforms that facilitate it. There is some demand for better interaction and collaboration.
One of the recently hybridized worker laments that the work rules in their company are inconsistent and yet constraining. They are back in the office on the premise of collaboration, but none of their team is co-located. They are driving two hours per day to/from work, and yet still interacting with their team and collaborators only by email, phone, and text, just as they might, as readily, from home.
Another recently-hybridized commuter drives less distance and duration each day, but still complains of the wasted commute time. They are adamant that this negatively impacts their productivity and motivation. This worker's team is periodically co-located, but because of self-selected in-office days, it is common to still interact only electronically. There is little coordination regarding selecting the same in-office days.
One of these related a story of a coworker who has "gone native" in the virtual world. This sounds a bit like Colonel Kurtz (Apocalypse Now, Warner Bros. 1979). This worker produces in sporadic dashes that last many sleepless hours, followed by crashes of similar duration. Their work is not in 8-hour stretches, nor any consistent or repetitive schedule.
There was some expression of concern for health and welfare in such an environment. That said, some may thrive on an out-of-synch process, driven from project to project with sporadic periods of lethargy. But it sounds a bit like a roller coaster to others.
Despite these examples, another virtual worker reported no real challenges or concerns with remote work. They have adapted and adjusted to the solitary environment where the only human interaction is digital. They find their day productive and engaging. They communicate electronically, virtually attend meetings, and produce effectively and consistently.
The common theme that draws to the fore seems to be control. The workers are each working in a manner that is largely dictated to them by policy or circumstance. Their affinity for each of the various postures seems influenced by the extent to which each was able to choose their circumstances. Therefore, this may be a significant detriment in the eyes of those being ordered back. It may not be so much the "back" as the "ordered."
There is likely some generational influence in this debate. The young people today are much more driven by their senses, conclusions, and independence. Like all young generations (and I have now seen a few), they believe they are better equipped and educated to make good decisions than the "old folks" who are hindering them.
Newsflash - that has always been the case. Every generation feels that way. We have all felt constrained by the old folks, their rules, their paradigms, and their resistance to our new and innovative ideas. The older generations have all felt emotions of "these kids today," and their disconnect from the values of the status quo.
But, there is reality. The world of work is returning to central office environments. The Great Comeback (c) or Great Inconvenience is here (for most). See Heigh Ho (January 2025). There is an extensive list here. In addition, the federal government and state governments are pushing in that direction as well.
Those who are still working virtually should be both grateful and focused. Focused on persistently demonstrating their value, resilience, and contribution. I would suggest documentation and reinforcement as important tools. I would suggest that those who are fortunate to work from home remain flexible, engaged, and communicative.
The world of work is in a constant state of change. The impacts may be disproportionate, disheartening, and disappointing (for some). There is potential for the impacts to be affected by educational achievement, industry, and employer. Nonetheless, this is the present. If you don't like it, stick around a minute and it will undoubtedly change—perhaps in a way you like (maybe not so much).
Change is constant, anxiety from it is persistent, and whether you like the result or not will be up to you.
