Do as I say, not as I do. Why are some people so upset about flexible work?

Couch, coffee shop, home or office? It is not either or.

Few things upset employees more than organisations saying one thing, yet doing another. We value employee well-being but (insert contradiction here). We put our employees first but, (you get the idea). This week, a new angle of attack emerged in the ‘let’s go back to the good old days way of working’ conversation.

Having failed fairly early on in the pandemic with the argument that working from home wouldn’t work (and that people would just watch Netflix all day), there are those who appear dissatisfied that people are continuing to work from home happily and productively. Perhaps the opponents don’t know how to navigate this new world of work, or what it means for property trusts, control, and the established order.

Various companies tried to lure workers back with pizza parties or outright threats of being sacked. Elon Musk recently ordered all Tesla employees back to the office, proclaiming that anyone who wants to work flexibly is lazy and not committed to their job. Old ways of thinking and managing die very hard it seems.

And amongst all this, let’s not forget that most people only want to work from home some of the time, that they enjoy different work settings and, yes, people do want to interact with others for a whole host of personal and work related reasons . This is all well established by empirical research.

So why is there so much hysteria about making people go back to a work setting that research shows wasn’t that effective on a whole host of fronts - productivity, well-being, efficiency, sustainability, innovation and more.

Somewhat surprisingly, joining the chorus of hysteria about new ways of working this week were two prominent figures, Stern marketing professor Scott Galloway, and bestselling author Malcolm Gladwell. Appearing to have given up on productivity as an objection, the messages were “you won’t get promoted” if you WFH, and even “you are in your bedroom living a life that isn’t contributing to anything.”

Interestingly, in his interview with CNN, Galloway brings up a quote from famous management educator Peter Drucker who commented in the sixties that modern office buildings would be like the pyramids, people would marvel at them but they would serve no functional purpose. But Galloway goes on to suggest that people should get back to the office because promotion is about who has the best relationship with the decider. Not about who is doing the best job?

Reaction to Galloway’s comment was marked.

“I don’t think he meant to tell on attainment tracks in corporate America being so discriminatory, but he did so perfectly.”

“Promotions shouldn’t be about brown-nosing the boss, but who works the hardest, who gets the job done, who doesn’t waste time in idle chit-chat. We are paid to work not kiss butt for promotion. I 100% disagree with this”.

“You might as well say ‘promotions are for white males 25-35’ as it adds up to the same thing: discrimination, against all forms of which organisations worth their salt should have rules in place. This tired old threat was waved about 18 months ago by those banking scions who had to change their minds in the end.”

“Is this about proximity bias? Hasn’t this myth been busted? Perhaps leaders and managers need to learn to be more effective today.”

“I disagree. These articles of old school leaders coming out to say ‘look at this study, it shows you need to go back to the office is a bunch of BS. Nobody wants to go back to the offcice becaust we are done having managers count minutes for how long someone is on lunch or how long they talk with fellow coworkers instead of getting work done.”

Soon after, Malcolm Gladwell’s comments from his appearance on the Diary of a CEO podcast in late July, came to light. “As we face the battle that all organizations are facing now in getting people back into the office, it’s really hard to explain this core psychological truth, which is we want you to have a feeling of belonging and to feel necessary,” he said.

Gladwell added that it was “not in your best interest to work at home.”

“I know it’s a hassle to come into the office, but if you’re just sitting in your pajamas in your bedroom, is that the work life you want to live?” he questioned. “Don’t you want to feel part of something?” He added: “I’m really getting very frustrated with the inability of people in positions of leadership to explain this effectively to their employees.”

A bit rich coming from a writer who has opined on his preference for remote work forever. Gladwell wrote an op-ed in 2020 for the Wall Street Journal talking about how he had used coffee shops to write from for “much of my adult life.” And with good reason, I’ve written previously on this blog about how coffee shops can make us more creative.

And while he is assuming everyone working from home is in their bedrooms, Gladwell starts his working day working from his couch as he “hates desks.”

Unsurprisingly, his comments infuriated people. Very few people, if any, who are working from home are huddled under the laptop in the bedroom in their pyjamas all day. Research shows that people who are working from home are enjoying better well-being, more time with family and friends, more time on hobbies, passions and side projects.

Being part of something greater doesn’t have to come from work. And it doesn’t require commuting to an office five days a week to make a contribution to something beyond ourselves.

In fact, we had no trouble finding ways to contribute to projects, communities and causes before (and since) office buildings existed.

The problem with most approaches in corporate life is that they are one size fits all. This doesn’t work. While we know most people want to work from the office only some of the time, there are a host of spaces in our homes and urban environments that support a range of different types of work. What we should be thinking about is what types of environments support our own needs and the work we need to get done.

Perhaps Gladwell forgot that Churchill held cabinet meetings from his bedroom. And if he has been able to pen numerous New York Times bestsellers from his couch and a coffee-shop, I am at a loss as to why he imagines it isn’t suitable for anyone else.

Where we are working now is not a question of either or, of home or office. It’s not one size fits all. It never was. This way of thinking won’t help us get anywhere that we want to be.

Let’s start by asking different questions and imagining that what we think is impossible, isn’t.