Once everyone can agree on the finish line, there is so much freedom to be had. It now also means the nuances of each job must be divided: Which tasks are suitable for remote work? How much co-presence is needed? In truth, this has always been the problem. Managers must define what success looks like and be able to recognize when the bar has been met or exceeded. The answer is goal-oriented management, job by job. ![]() However, productivity theater doesn’t serve anyone well. How much of that human connection is really necessary for the job? For the moment, the hybrid work movement seems to have decided that “more than none but not necessarily all five days a week” is a good enough answer. Technology hasn’t yet arrived at the point where human interaction reliably builds relationships (despite the seemingly endless attempts at forced “share something about your weekend” conversations happening before video meetings). And we do get to know each other better in person. It’s much easier to ask a colleague who feels like a friend for support on a work task. Whether it’s online or offline, we absolutely work better with people we know and trust, with whom we’ve developed an easy pattern of interaction. We also enjoy the camaraderie of greeting each other and exchanging chitchat between meetings. We feel better when we see other people “working hard” while at the same time distrusting that those we can’t see are working at all. Management by walking around has been a reliable crutch. Without measurable outcomes (like a count of sales generated or vehicles repaired), success can feel abstract. Some jobs, obviously, have to take place in person, but for vast swaths of the employment landscape, remote work is both possible and, often, preferable. It doesn’t work for leadership to be in the office while technically “allowing” some to work from home: Those who show up will end up being favored, and everyone knows it. It doesn’t work to have some people on-site and others dialing in the imbalance in being fully part of the conversation is apparent to all. It turns out we’ve learned a few things about what doesn’t work: It doesn’t work to have employees commute to the office only to find themselves alone, logging into online meetings just as they would from home. Lately, we’ve seen a large variety of attempts to make hybrid work work. What makes us know that this job, another job, or any job, has been successfully completed? In the meantime, when working remotely, we need to know what our work comprises and what criteria allow us to know whether it’s done well. ![]() Hybrid work it is.Īs advancements allow for more and more of a human feel in our online interactions, work location may become less relevant. The rhetoric on both sides is fierce, but the paths are remarkably parallel. Even the extreme butts-in-seats chief executives often now push for 80% time in, not 100%. Ironically enough, both groups are leaning toward similar policies, with many requiring three days a week in the office and approving two from home. Workers say that flexibility is a right and the most productive way forward. Some executives stand on their soapboxes and insist that the creative process happens only over the literal watercooler. Battle lines have been drawn between the RTO and WFH camps.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |