Return to office obsession is real, writes Perry Maddox, and it reflects the same leadership failure behind open-plan offices.
The braying CEOs have spoken.
They want their employees to return to office, with CEOs like Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase claiming that: “remote work slows down honesty and decision making.“
Employees beg to differ. A 20,000 person study across 11 countries found that 87% of employees felt as, or more efficient when working from home. Strikingly, 80% of managers disagreed. Talk about a managerial blind spot.
Even though only 6% of employees want to return to office full time, in many places the forced march to return to office has begun. Leaders dictating a return to office are forcing their people into problematic working environments.
Much like cramming them into another common office feature: the open floor plan.
Hiding in Plain Sight: The Problem with Open Plan Offices.
An open plan for a young, dynamic team seemed an obvious choice.
During my time with Restless Development, we created an open floor plan. Many people loved the plan, but over time, more people donned headphones or migrated to the edges and corners of the room, seeking quiet to concentrate.
Turns out, they weren’t alone. The New York Times recently laid out a well-evidenced case against open plan offices, which lead to:
- 70% less face-to-face employee interaction
- 31% of staff holding back sincere thoughts on calls
- 25% increase in negative moods
- 34% increase in sweat response
- 62% more sick days
Those are serious drawbacks, yet leaders press on with open plans, often because it’s cheaper to fit more people into an open plan.
Even with the best of open intentions, we fell into the trap.
Which got me thinking about the growing drumbeat to return to office.
Why the Return to Office, Really?
It’s easy to assume that the leaders forcing a to return to office are low-trust dinosaurs like Mr. Dimon. Plenty are the same micromanagers installing software to track remote employees.
But with 85% of bosses wanting their employees to spend half or all of their time in office, something else is at play. For all the bad bosses out there, I doubt that 5 out of 6 fall into that terrible, micromanaging category.
Instead, there are plenty of reasons they want staff to return to office. Some may be unaware of the downsides, like I was about open floorplans. Others are financially motivated, wanting to squeeze every penny out of offices they own or rental contracts they can’t escape.
More likely is a classic resistance to change.
Many leaders simply cannot imagine anything different than how it’s always been.
There’s something human about wanting to return to ‘normal.’ After all, a pandemic turned the world on its head. The world of work changed radically and rapidly.
Whatever the reason, employees are coming last. Consider that per Gallup:
- 94% of employees prefer hybrid (60%) or fully remote work (34%)
- Staff forced to work against their preferences show lower engagement, higher burnout, and more desire to quit.
- Employees accustomed to hybrid and remote models are less likely to give them up.
All pointing to one big problem.
Leader Must Avoid the Big Risk of a Return to Office.
Like the staff migrating to the edges of an open plan office, employees are leaving organizations who force them to return to work.
A forced return to office risks alienating the 94 percent of people who prefer hybrid or remote work. So how can leaders avoid losing their top talent?
- Begin by listening to your people. Understanding how they feel will go a long way to solving this challenge.
- Acknowledge the strategic landscape shift afoot. The world of work has changed. Like the way that a surge of women and Black Americans entering the workforce during World War II permanently changed labor markets, we’re not likely to revert to a pre-pandemic normal.
- Make the most of this change. That’s what the best leaders do in a changing world. The good thing about strategic change is that we can hold on to the elements of the past that still work while mixing in approaches for a changing present and different future.
If only there were a term for such a flexible, hybrid approach.
