#6 The Hidden Corporate Agenda Behind Anti-WFH Rhetoric
Why Your Boss Really Wants That Desk Filled: *Hint* It's Not Just About Your Productivity
Welcome back to the latest edition of Etcetera, resuming after an extended hibernation! This month, I unpick the increasingly loud corporate resistance against Working From Home (WFH). Dive in with me to uncover the concealed corporate motives behind the anti-WFH narrative, as we dissect the discrepancies, challenge the presumptions, and shed light on what might genuinely be fuelling these views. Join me in revealing the true story behind the chatter.
This morning, coffee mug in hand, I was scrolling through my usual digital bubble, absorbing the news of the day when I noticed a message blasted ubiquitously across all platforms: there are new shocking “bombshell” findings about Working From Home (WFH) 👀. These overstated claims read “WFH’s staunchest proponents just dropped a bomb: Fully remote workers are officially less productive”. These articles centre the WFH conversation about productivity, declaring remote or hybrid workers are ‘lazy’ and have a ‘productivity problem’.
Now, as a researcher, nothing catches your attention quite like this Amazon executive did. He announced that it’s time for workers to return to the office, declaring that “I don’t have data to back it up, but I know it’s better”.
The inconvenient truth is that the research these articles base their arguments on is unpublished, lacks peer-review, and is riddled with inconsistencies which prevent their generalisability. Here is the ‘groundbreaking study’ that ‘proves’ WFH productivity is considerably lower than in office productivity:
The study was set in India, with the average family income of participants in this study was £201 per month, this is compared to the average family income of $10,152 per month for a family in San Francisco (a WFH battle ground)
The researchers themselves said “we think our results are most applicable to low-skilled job environments in India”
The sample size was only 235 workers
The home work setup differs significantly from the desks and external monitors knowledge workers in the UK/US have, and look like this:
With unpublished research being the cornerstone of companies' arguments that WFH is driving a productivity crisis, you have to ask yourself: why are these employers so set on forcing workers back to the office?
The Corporate Elephant in the Room - Why are companies really pushing for employees to return to the office?
In the hundreds of articles attempting to lure employees back into the office, there is a corporate elephant in the room that remains unaddressed. Instead of pinpointing the real issue they are concerned about—losing money on property assets—they rely on three narratives:
Employees are lazy and can’t be trusted to WFH, hence leading to a productivity crisis. Major proponents of this point of view are Elon Musk and Morgan Stanley CEO James Gorman.
WFH impedes social dynamics, reducing **corporate vibe** and collaboration. Amazon is a major proponent of this point of view.
WFH negatively impacts your career as supposedly training takes a backseat, networking is limited and managers will suddenly forget to promote you when they don’t see you face to face.
Yet, in truth, at the core of the corporate drive to refill offices with workers, there is a reality that many firms are reluctant to acknowledge: a massive financial loss on corporate real estate. Recent reports highlight that “the city of New York continues to face devastating financial peril from remote work, as office buildings could potentially lose $50 billion due to people doing their jobs from home.”
But here's the dilemma: offloading these assets isn't a straightforward solution. In a market where numerous firms are re-evaluating their office footprints, selling prime property might mean settling for a price far below the initial outlay, leading to potential substantial financial losses. The pandemic has upended the property market in unpredictable ways, turning once coveted office sites into potential liabilities. For firms, this translates to a stark decision: either lure employees back into these venues or face the repercussions of a poor investment.
At the heart of the corporate call for a "return to normality" is this economic foundation. It's not just about reigniting team camaraderie, fostering collaboration, or maintaining company ethos; it's about pounds and pence, investments and assets. We only need to look at virtual first companies like DropBox to observe that their productivity and annual profit has continued to climb since going virtual first.
It's entirely legitimate for companies to mandate staff to operate from their offices to ensure their real estate assets maintain value. But, I implore these companies to stop gaslighting employees about their true rationale for these decisions. Further, the labour market is remaining as tight as it’s ever been, with employees holding more power in the labour market, this means that workers are voting with their feet. Employees are leaving if forced to return to the office 5 days a week. This is so abundantly clear that 80% of bosses say they regret earlier return-to-office plans: ‘A lot of executives have egg on their faces’.
What does research really show about WFH?
Using Dropbox as an example, a study they commissioned on their staff after their shift to remote workers showed that “knowledge workers are more focused at home and just as engaged as before. In our internal surveys most employees say they’re able to be productive at home (nearly 90%) and don’t want to return to a rigid five-day in-office work week.” PWC and McKinsey & Company observed increases in productivity, with McKinsey reporting a 41% improvement in productivity for staff WFH.
Academic research backs this up, with one study highlighting how WFH increases productivity significantly. A literature review of published research found 79% of studies investigating WFH productivity demonstrated that WFH increased productivity and performance, whereas 21% showed mixed or no effects.
In the end, the discourse surrounding remote work shouldn't be focused on a myopic debate about productivity metrics. Instead, companies need to understand that providing employees with agency and choice over where they work is essential for employee engagement. If you work better in the office, or at home, all power to you. What is key to remember is that numerous studies, including findings from the Harvard Business Review and Gallup, have consistently shown that employee autonomy, trust, and flexibility are intrinsically linked to heightened productivity and engagement. When companies push the narrative that employees are lazy and can’t be trusted unless they are babysat in an office, workers feel mistrusted and are more likely to disengage with their company and find somewhere else to work. There’s no easy solution to the problem of corporate real estate, but let’s frame the problem about financial loss and stop problematising employees in the discussion about where to work.
If you are new here and haven’t subscribed, you can receive next month’s newsletter straight to your inbox.