I have read many articles recently about younger workers in conflict with managers, especially regarding working remotely and number of hours put in. Managers are insisting that post-Covid it is critical to corporate success that workers be in the office and devote well over 40 hours a week to work. I would like to share my experience with those who would like to work from home and would like some tools to help make their case.
The common theme of the articles I’ve read run something like this: If you aren’t in the office you won’t be engaged. You can’t have serendipitous encounters with your coworkers at the water cooler. Your manager won’t know if you are working, goofing off, or mowing your lawn. If you aren’t being seen in the office, you’ll be forgotten. Managers may concede that 40 hours a week is the standard for full time employment, but they will argue that if a worker isn’t putting in 50 or 60 hours a week, or even 100+ hours at some investment banks, plus being available 24/7 to respond to emails, text messages and phone calls then they simply aren’t dedicated career oriented people. Are these legitimate reasons to require workers to be in the office full time?
A short bio: I started my career as an entry level accountant at a firm with about 200 employees, all in one office. Over the next 7 years I worked my way up to supervisor with 7 or 8 direct reports. The closest thing to work from home that we had was rotating which supervisor brought a pager home with them. I spent the next 17 years at a Wall St. bank that had about 40,000 employees and offices around the world. I worked as a manager for 5 years before transferring to a DevOps group where I wrote a lot of code, then started managing other developers. What makes this relevant is that I was based in a Florida office while my manager and peers were all in NYC. Once I started managing other developers they were all either in Delaware or Ireland. Some of my directs I never met in person. The last 6 years of my career were full time from home and I didn’t even have a desk in the office. Yet by any measure we were a very productive group.
So, do workers need to be in the office to be productive? The answer is a qualified no, they do not. Self starters, “A players”, will be productive regardless of where they are or who, if anyone, they sit next to. They are motivated to perform because they have career ambitions, like what they do, want to prove themselves and have talent inline with their occupation. Exceeding expectations on every review is what they expect from themselves.
Steady Eddie types, “B players”, are content where they are. They tend to have held the same position for a long time, know their job inside and out, and don’t feel any need to climb the corporate ladder. They can be successful working from home, but may lose their productive edge if they become disengaged or unhappy with the company or their manager. Meeting expectations on their annual review is their goal.
Those who struggle with their assigned tasks for whatever reason, “C players”, are not good candidates for work from home. If they are to become productive at their job they need close supervision and guidance to get them “up to speed.” This also means they have to have the desire to get good at their job.
Another important trait for deciding who may be successful working from home, in my experience, is an employee’s degree of introversion or extroversion. A good definition can be found at Psychology Today.
In short the more introverted a person is the more comfortable they are likely to be working from home. They are less inclined to small talk.
Those who are highly extroverted can feel bored or even anxious when they are made to spend too much time alone. The definition provided by Psychology Today states that “extroverts may clash with more introverted types, who may find an extroverts energy and enthusiasm overwhelming or difficult to tolerate.” While I agree with this based on my experience, I think it may be more nuanced; I believe there is an innate lack of understanding between extroverts and introverts. It can be hard to imagine why someone would prefer to be by themselves if you are an extrovert, while an introvert may not comprehend why extroverts appear to always want to be around many other people.
One question that many managers at big firms don’t even ask is: What’s the difference between working from home vs working with people in other offices within your firm via Zoom, Teams, etc.., or even with clients. If we’re being honest, there simply isn’t any difference.
The real question is: Why have a one shoe fits all policy? Some people may perform better by working from home, while others need to feed off the energy of other people in close proximity. Neither is bad or good, it’s just a matter of preference and ability. Some may prefer to work from home but suffer a decline in productivity whether it is because of a lack of self motivation, temperament, distractions, or some other reason.
What about serendipity? I thought hard trying to come up with a good instance where serendipity played an import role in solving a problem during my career. Having failed to come up with one, I did an internet search to see if I could dig up any scientific studies on the matter. I failed again. Maybe I’m a bad Googler. I found several articles (non-scientific) that more or less said serendipity doesn’t happen via Zoom, an assertion that is difficult to argue against. In my experience collaboration and creative problem solving generally happened by personal relationships or references. I was a good at accounting, but not great at it. I knew several people who were (and still are) great at it. After I moved to the DevOps group if I was out of my depth on an accounting issue I would call one of my old colleagues in accounting and ask them. I would occasionally get a call or email from someone I didn’t know asking me if I was the author on some spreadsheet or other that they seen someone else use. If so, could I assist them with how to use it and maybe make some custom changes. Or I may have been referred to someone based on work I did for someone else. None of these things involved a serendipitous meeting in the hallway or by the coffee machine. It was simply being willing to reach out and acknowledging that someone else might have an answer you need.
Here’s where the rubber meets the road: If some people can perform at the highest levels remotely and serendipity is an open question at best, do you lose out on anything by working remotely? Definitely. It is much easier to build those relationships in person, but not impossible. The one person with whom I had the best working relationship over my entire career worked in NYC. I did meet him perhaps half a dozen times over the 12 years I work with him. But we were collaborating and building awesome solutions to problems our employer didn’t even know they had long before we ever met. We had webcams but neither of us like the idea so we never even plugged them into our laptops. We spoke on the phone, utilized email and instant messaging, and did a lot of screen sharing. He is still great friend of mine to this day.
The old saying “Out of sight, out of mind” applies in spades to working remotely. Even the best managers will have more attention focused on those they see every day. I have read several studies showing that remote workers on average get smaller raises, bonuses and promoted less frequently than in office workers. It’s easy to be forgotten for meeting and social events. I often did not receive office notifications of events like awards banquets or holiday parties because I was dropped from the Florida office email list since my reporting lines went through NYC.
One thing that got old in hurry while working remotely was having to apologize to a group of people on a conference call every time the UPS driver rang the door bell. My dogs would, predictably, go nuts making it impossible for me to be heard or hear anything others were saying. I got pretty quick with the mute button, but a multi minute hiatus during a conference call while I tried to calm my dogs and wish away the delivery person was agonizing for me and annoying for everyone else.
Is it really necessary to work long hours? Is being in the office for 10, 12, or even more hours a day, plus the occasion Saturday or Sunday really a good indicator of a workers dedication and worth? Some managers certainly think so. I believe those managers who do are actually not managing at all. They are using time spent working as a proxy measure for productive working. Someone who is actually good at their job can accomplish more work in less time than someone who is struggling to complete their assigned tasks accurately and on time. There are many reasons why a worker can be more productive while working few hours. Studies have shown that “bulldozing your way through” is a very ineffective way to complete a challenging task. Often stepping away when you are having trouble coming up with a solution allows the subconscious to work on a problem. I would often take a 10 minute walk in the parking lot when I was having trouble resolving an issue. More often than not I would have 2 or 3 ways to proceed and frequently had the solution before I was halfway done with my walk. Also people burn out, which is bad for creative thinking and morale.
Why might you want to put in extra hours? Being paid overtime can certainly be a good reason. If you are on a salary and spend more than 40 hours a week in the office, well, that’s just a charitable donation to your employer that you can’t write off on your taxes! There are some good reasons why you may still be willing to work extra hours while on salary. If you are awarded compensation time, then it is a fair trade. If you are acquiring skills that can advance your career or open up interesting opportunities you may consider it advantageous. If you just love your job and would do it for free (which is what you really are doing) then why not? I worked on a race car part time for a couple of summers for free because it was fun. Accounting isn’t. For some jobs, investment banking for example, working very long hours is pretty much standard practice. If you are considering a career in a field that functions this way be aware of it before you accept a position. It may suit your life when you are young and single, but as you get older your priorities may change if you have a significant other and/or children.
To sum it up: If you want to work from home, or are being offered a remote position, be honest with yourself. What type of personality do you have? Do you need the energy of lots of people nearby? Are you a self starter? Do you really enjoy the work you are doing? Consider the manager you’ll be reporting to. Are they working remotely? Do they have experience with remote direct reports? Will they also be managing in office directs? Most importantly, and this applies if you work in the office, and more so if you are remote: Do they confuse productivity with activity? A manager can easily tell if their direct reports are working, or mowing the lawn, if they measure productivity by the accuracy, timeliness and quantity of work versus the amount of time spent working. If working more than 40 hours a week is the expectation then what will it take to outperform and exceed expectations?
Illumina Apps 