The more a manager's "management" style was actually a "control" style, the more threatened by remote work that manager is. Managers are fighting to stay relevant. Managers might need a new form of management training to thrive. Or, in some cases, management might need their FIRST ever management training to survive and thrive.
I agree, completely. Good hybrid management is just good management. In some cases, managers could get away with poor skills and ineffective behaviors if their team was right next to them in the office. But that was never good management.
100% agree the mangers are the problem, they aren’t relevant, aren’t needed and rarely do anything to contribute to goals but take credit for everything. Sadly they are backed by equally toxic HR departments. Working from home removes a lot of this.
@@ShaunboloshisII We have heads-down work to produce output that benefits from being remote (no commute, fewer distractions) and heads-up work that benefits from physical interactions. Hence, hybrid might make the most sense for many teams.
@@DrLianeDavey Hybrid is a half measure and locks people into cities. Good news for our real estate masters. No, remote is the only way to go, all else will still , damage the environment, cause property damage, traffic jams, and traffic. Deaths not to mention loss of sleep and production.
I think there's more than just control (although for the bad managers, that's probably the central factor). There are important dynamics on a team that benefit from some time together.
@@DrLianeDavey although there can be bonding in a team, that generally requires openness and people to hold varying opinions, sadly this is often seen as a threat by managers, as such most people at work fall into one of three camps (I’m generalising here quite a bit), those who are genuine people and humour each other with pleasantries, those who avoid people and are loners, and those who play everyone and grease up to people for gossip then back stab anything they think will get them brownie points back to managers, in short it is very rare that everyone is treated equally, and many work places have become very toxic. In my opinion much of this can be avoided by not dismissing people with opposing views as negative and anti establishment, but by listening to them, accepting their opinion, and where necessary rationalising with them. Sometimes everyone knows a company is doing the wrong thing, but they equally know a decision has already been made so it’s going to happen whether you like it or not, and sometimes managers should be open enough and respect their staff to say something like, “I agree with you, but unfortunately the company has already made a decision so we will just have to make the most of it”, vs something like, “no don’t worry it’s going to be great” and then Seeing you as a threat. I’ve worked from home for 3 years and I’ve worked in an office for more than 30 years, and I can say with things like Teams, people are still able to bond, form relationships, and work just as effectively as in the office but without the politics. Personally I’d like to have a blended approach where if you want to go into the office you can, and if you want to work from home you can, you don’t have to have a set number of days, you just do what works best for you. There is no reason team building and training couldn’t be done on site quarterly if companies were really concerned about the culture. I can honestly say I’m not likely to take a job in an office again having now worked from home. Stress is down, there are no toxic politics to deal with, and I save 2 hours a day in commuting, yes it’s nice to have contact with other people, but work places have become so toxic over the years that it’s probably safer for people to work from home. The issue started when people introduced micro management and then appointed managers who didn’t understand the numbers they were looking at.
What people don’t seem to understand is for most people at the bottom the workplace is one of the most toxic places you could be. This is usually due to incompetent aggressive managers who spend most their time in meetings or going for coffee than working and contributing. If the truth be told what working from home has really highlighted is that 90% of middle management aren’t needed. In my opinion HR have always recruited the wrong people for management roles. These individuals have little interest in the company, and usually only care about themselves. They are often lazy, control freaks, and people who do nothing but take credit for everything. They like to control people and are often narcissistic in nature. For some reason HR departments think these traits make good management. I’m at a loss to be honest.
Can relate... Actually i have a great company, you can come to the office IF you want and many do cuz you dont wanna be alone at home, it is about control from low manager. My current manager is nice, get he has thankful subordinates and people mostly go to office 2/3 times a week anyway... Exactly because of flexibility, mood, family issues for that day or work issues they need to be in person that day. Great for companies who get it too. Nobody wants to leave and can save plenty of money in long term
@@OrechTV I believe flexibility and having hot seats at work is ideal, you work from home when you want to, and you pop in when you don’t. No pressure either way, as long as the work is done you have total flexibility, that caters for everyone.
Also from an IT perspective, it helps if they are in the office to resolve issues. But I agree with you. I did the best in college when I did a hybrid online class, and it was mostly the reasons you mentioned.
I believe that hybrid can be the best of both worlds if we 1) shift our week to optimize the activities on in-office and remote days (rather than having virtual meetings where we're remote and sitting on Zoom calls while we're in the office) and 2) learn some new skills for how to interact remotely
Doctor, 100% it’s a control issue. Also, it’s a low risk way for companies/ corporations to downsize without the hassle of actually going through the process of laying folks off and all of the work and $ that would take. The issue with that approach is a loss of real talent that can then go elsewhere- possibly a competitor.
I suspect that companies with rigid return-to-office policies will lose good talent. I also suspect that those that don't require any time in the office will have reduced trust, teamwork, and innovation. I believe that the right approach in somewhere in the middle... being physically together, doing work that requires interaction for 2 or 3 days a week.
Two things not mentioned: 1. Se*ual harassment (and other forms of harassment) are a lot harder to commit at a distance. Remote employees can record all interactions much more easily than they can when working in person, and harassers know it. 2. Commercial real estate value: unused office spaces are liable to get dumped onto the market, lowering CRE values overall. A lot of companies have invested in CRE, if only their own offices, so that if the value goes down, it shows up as a decrease of assets on their balance sheets. Guess what? They don't like it.
At the macro-level, there's lot of pressure to make the most of leased office space. For the average manager, they don't think about that. They're just try to figure out how to get the outputs they're accountable for when they can't see what's going on!
These are such great points Liane! I run a creative business and for me it's essential that our team be in person to collaborate. We've always been pretty flexible with people's schedules though if they have appointments during work hours, so I hope we're hitting a good balance.
Jenn, I think that's a great balance. In-person is important in creative industries as so many of the sparks come with the collisions by the coffee maker or in downtime while you're chatting. As you say, that doesn't have to be rigid. It's possible to have both frequent office time and then the flexibility to work remotely for focus and flow and to provide flexibility to accommodate personal needs. I think most of the people who haven't realized this are just not willing to put in the effort to figure it out.
Why in person, do you incorporate, taste , touch , and smell in collaboration some how? If so how is it sexy quid pro quo. Do you play favorites and have the girls decorate the office and that makes "all the difference". Sight and hearing are all that is needed in a normal office meeting and you can do that fine on a conference call, if you can't, maybe you need to learn to. Or inhumanely drag everyone in and smell em.
@@woodside4life I'm mocking the office experience. It's foolish to have a physical office if the business can exist in a virtual office. All the office does is ease abuse.
I was with you during the first part; but I strongly disagree with the "community" part. I get paid TO WORK. I do my job well. I'm one of the top performers, and I take pride in my work. I'm not here to hold anyone's hand. That's what PAID trainers are for. I don't get paid nearly enough to be anyone's counselor, and as a burnt out former teacher, I'll tell you plainly that I couldn't care less about trying to be. I'm the first to admit there are certain disadvantages to WFH (I work in the office, btw), but "community" BS has nothing to do with it. That's just cultish propaganda whipped up by corporations to regain control through mind games when they can't control through direct force.
Thanks for sharing your perspective. In some cases, your approach might work. Doing independent tasks might be sufficient to justify your pay cheque. In others, the compensation might include the expectation of contributing as a part of a team--helping one another out, mentoring junior team members, etc.. Either way, I think it's the managers' responsibility to define all of what is required in the job and for you to either accept or decline those responsibilities based on whether you think the pay is reasonable or not. I don't see many managers who've done a good job articulating the expectations of people who are part of the team.
I agree, there is no possible scenario where I would want my job to be my community. It's like the toxic mantra "we're like family". I will do my job and I will happily contribute to the wider team, but if you view your company as a community, it becomes much harder to set boundaries between life and work. It almost reminds me of how some of the big tech firms create little neighborhoods right near the office meant for employees or when companies offer free meals, but don't serve dinner until like 7pm. It's not fair for a company to expect someone to pour their entire soul and life in to them. Granted, as an American who has been living in Europe working the last three years, I've developed different work views than when I lived in the US. Regardless, I worked for a company that was fully remote prior to the pandemic, and that company knew how to fully utilize digital technology to enhance collaboration and onboarding. I get your point that we need to contribute to tasks outside our deliverables, but there are so many ways you can do that remotely! Wow that was a ramble sorry, bye!!!!
For those of us that do primarily design work, data entry, and KILLED it during COVID ( I got top achiever two years in a row in my team), being told you have to come back in because we don't trust you was a giant slap in the face. I immediately got cynical, went from top performer to being put on a PIP because I started calling out other idiotic choices our managers made, and was very vocal when bad calls were made, complete with a full detective background check on just how the manager messed up. I ended up leaving my job of 10 years because it became so rapidly toxic. I did get an incompetent, divisive manager demoted, so at least I took somebody down with me.
I agree that the return to the office wasn't necessary for many positions... and even if being in a couple of days a week was the right call for the business, it was badly botched by many managers. Hopefully you've found a place where you can use your outspokenness to support positive decisions!
it bugs me that they say they cant SEE or TELL if someone is productive from home... what about results at the end of the week or month? they aske me to deliver something... I do it in time... done... what they don't like is that I could be out performing and maybe do all my work in less time and do nothing after that...
I believe this is a big part of it as well. Lots of capital invested into office buildings and entire departments dedicated to managing them. Executives need to justify those costs and in some cases their job managing those assets.
I remember home office (HO) quite vividly. I would wake up at 6:00, have my first coffee straight on and by 6:30 I was already working full steam ahead, very often for ten or even twelve hours straight. Now I am back in the office. Still wake up at 6:00, have my first coffee, take a shower, comb my hair, leave the home around 7:00, 7:30, commute for 90 minutes to work and start working around 9:00, at best. At 17:00 I leave office no matter what to make sure I am home by 18:30, for the time for dinner. I mean, even if I am in the middle of something important I will cut it off and leave. All in all, I work three hours less a day, I contribute to carbon footprint due to my commute, I feel stupid for spending time being so inefficient, but, what the hell? If my employer is happier like this and my salary is the same anyway, so be it. I am simply going to commute more and work less.
I think that's a similar experience for many people. I'm not a fan of 5 days in the office for most roles. I think it's an unreasonable constraint on the work/personal flexibility that we need AND misses the fact that heads down productivity is going to be better without the distractions of an office. I do think there's good reason to be in an office for part of the week if you're doing teamwork. But 5 days doesn't make sense to me.
Instead of looking backwards for solutions to some of these small issues, why not think of new ways to accomplish these things with technology? You don’t need people physically sitting in an office to create the same atmosphere online. People just need to be creative and stop trying to get back to what we used to do.
45 minute drive into work and 90 minute commute home pre-pandemic vs zero commute willingness to work an extra hour occasionally if necessary because I'm alreafy at home! Same productivity or even better. Nope home office for me.
It's funny how every comment is like "I was with you when you were talking about my side, but when you started talking about the points from the other side I don't agree." 😂 I think you did a good job and agree.
Who cares if control freaks need control. Remote work ends it. Remote work had managers pineing away for the office resisting it acting like it cant be done. No we should not return to the office. It gives autonomy and no environment is as productive than home, i dont care how nice your office is. Scent based dusabilties on the rise , do you get migraines oops its likely scent based to some extent, now come in for that burned popcorn smell. Watch favoritism pick friends to decorate the office while you do all the real work. WFH ends all that nonsense. Office =lamp oil , Remote= electric. I could go on about polution and health vs commuter deaths and smog. Or i can talk about pets alone for 10 hours a day losing their pet minds. Bottom line, older workers with power want to go feel special with quid pro quo and earn of their commercial real estate investments. Remote works is better and more humanistic. Maybe try to make it work instead of crying the whole time about it and trust the employees for once. You dont need to touch or smell someone to innovate that is more blather to sugar coat the poison pill.
