Remote Working Riddle: Is it Really Working?

We’re experiencing one of the most significant shifts in how the world thinks about the working environment arguably since the 1900s and the emergence of Taylorism and scientific management theory.

The COVID virus and associated global lock down forced much of the working population, where possible, to relocate to their homes, or at the very least away from the office environment. The subsequent scramble resulted in a worldwide shortage of laptops, web cameras and other equipment deemed necessary for remote work.

As these new circumstances emerged, companies quickly became aware that far from being the cataclysmic drop in productivity that they feared, working from home or remote working in general could result in equal, or even increased productivity from their people.

Rapid rise of digital nomadism

Equally people started to embrace the notion of becoming digital nomads, where the ‘office’ was anywhere that could support a laptop with a decent connection to the internet. They started questioning the need for the constraints of an office if they could now work equally well elsewhere. Lifestyle choices and greater consideration of work / life balance gained prominence and importance.

We still haven’t fully returned to the pre-COVID world, and many companies continue to operate a hybrid remote / in-office approach to work. The question remains though, does remote working work?

For part one of this two-part blog post, we’ll look at some of the factors that need to be considered, and the many perspectives that relate to remote working. For our purposes, remote working distinguishes itself from near-shore or offshore development teams by considering the individual operating in an environment separate from the traditional office environment. It may mean working from home but should also include some of those digital nomad aspirations.

Companies

More and more businesses are urging their employees to make a comeback to the office. Undoubtedly, a myriad of reasons are driving this push. From a pure commercial standpoint, numerous companies are bound by leases on office spaces that they can't easily renegotiate. This leaves them shouldering the costs for underutilized spaces filled with equipment that’s being replicated for remote operations. Such expenditures offer little to no value in a fully remote setup yet are unavoidable. While many companies might not readily admit it, these financial considerations are possibly the main driving forces behind their push.

The productivity debate is another narrative that's often put forward. Interestingly, research on productivity during lockdowns is polarized. Some studies point towards a surge in efficiency, while others indicate a decline. What's crucial to consider is whether there was any transformation in management approaches to better accommodate the subtleties of remote work.In essence, our management tactics witnessed only minor tweaks to accommodate the "temporary" challenges of widespread remote teams. There was no deep-seated evolution in our people-management strategies. Most viewed the situation as a transient hurdle rather than a pivotal change in our work paradigm.

These are some of the seeds of the current conflict between companies and their staff that we are now experiencing.

Staff

The staff in these companies have experienced a range of positive benefits from remote working, particularly if they traditionally worked from offices in large cities. The time they can reclaim from simply avoiding the daily commute to and from work is material and has been clearly demonstrated to have a positive impact on their mental health.

They are getting to spend more time with their family and especially young children, time which was often missed by parents before remote working. They also have had the time to become more connected with the communities which has brought benefits to local businesses leading to commuter towns becoming much more than places where people simply sleep before trudging to their chosen mode of transport to shuttle to their workplace.

All of this culminated in a wave of optimism in relation to the environment. Ironically, in the depts of lockdown, the levels of pollution dropped measurably as a direct result of less cars being on the roads.

For those less constrained by family circumstances, the opportunity to take up residence in a more favourable location, perhaps less expensive or a more appealing climate became a genuine consideration. If work could be successfully conducted remotely, then why be limited in the choice of location? Couldn’t the young, single worker simply work from anywhere?

Government

While debates on remote working usually centre on the differing needs and wishes of businesses and their employees, the government's influence in this discourse often goes unnoticed.

Legislation remains woefully inadequate to deal with the emerging demands of remote working. Whilst individual member states are pursuing various adjustments to their local laws in relation to remote work, the overall posture of the EU largely relies on the existing teleworking agreements which are now under significant review.

For those people who attempted to embrace a more nomadic lifestyle, they will have quickly run up against legal and taxation challenges. If we pause for a moment, the issues faced by legislators and tax authorities is obvious. Remote staff consume the resources of the jurisdiction in which they are operating; that jurisdiction, often a country, has a reasonable right to demand some recompense for that consumption, which is normally captured in the form of taxation.
For instance, Portugal had a tax incentive program to entice newcomers, including digital nomads. Yet, this contributed to escalating property prices and rents1. To curb this, the government will cease this program for new entrants by 2024, although existing participants will retain their benefits 2 3. Now, these tax incentives are narrowed down to individuals in higher education or scientific research, indicating a shift towards managing the economic implications while still attracting specific skilled individuals4.

The rules are simple enough, if you’re going to operate in a jurisdiction, an entity must exist for the purposes of taxation. The implication then is that remote workers would need to be associated with a company registered in every jurisdiction where they want to work.

Social Societies

For ages, humans have gathered together – be it in early tribal communities, as wandering tribes, or within villages and cities. The underlying truth? We are inherently social beings who crave interaction to flourish.

The COVID pandemic altered our interaction landscape, shifting our attention from coworkers to loved ones and neighbors. While we didn't become isolated, our circle of interaction changed, filling some gaps left by the workplace but also revealing new ones.

In a work setting, the pandemic has made evident that we we gave up more than we gained. This is notably evident with newcomers to the workplace. These individuals, in their formative stages with a company, need ample interaction to assimilate. In remote setups, many felt detached, leading to diminished engagement and productivity compared to those onboarded in conventional settings.

It's hardly surprising. While we might resonate with TV characters, there's an inherent disconnect. Similarly, interacting solely through platforms like Zoom or Microsoft Teams can feel impersonal. This detachment grows with blurred backgrounds, tech glitches, and other virtual meeting interruptions. This diminished sense of connection in virtual meetings probably explains why we quickly returned to jumping on planes for meetings at the earliest opportunity.

Finding the Value

Companies assemble individuals into cohesive units with the intent of fostering collaboration towards shared goals. The rhythm of these units stems both from structured operations and the innate social needs of its members.

The key lies in understanding this rhythm to strike a balance between in-person and remote work dynamics. Communication is pivotal at the onset of any project. Whether it's brainstorming, discussing alternatives, or clearly stating decisions, no tool has yet replicated the efficiency of face-to-face interaction. While there are countless digital tools designed for virtual brainstorming or ideation, the magic of human interaction in a shared physical space remains unmatched.

So, should everyone rush back to the office?

Not exactly.

Each project phase demands its own dynamic. There's a time for collaboration and a time for execution. The latter demands undistracted focus. Pre-COVID, finding such focused environments was already a topic of debate. How can one foster concentration in bustling offices? Remote work provided a simple solution—remove potential interruptions. By working remotely, unwanted distractions were minimized. If one needed undisturbed focus, they could simply mute notifications and delve into their tasks.

Looking to the Future

The benefits of remote work on people’s wellbeing are too significant to be ignored. The need for social interaction and collaboration are so inherent in human beings that we need to be together. Equally, we need space, peace and quiet to focus on work. Reconciling these apparent contradictory needs requires a shift in how we are thinking about the engagement between people and their employers.

Companies will need to adopt more flexible frameworks that support both the demands of collaboration, bringing people together, and the desire for remote focused work. In some cases, this will necessitate a change in thinking for some managers that are desperately clinging onto a more Taylorist view of the world, where staff can’t be trusted to be working if you’re not looking at them – we’re well beyond that.

Similarly, people will need to adapt their thinking on what constitutes reasonable remote working. The lifestyle of the digital nomad, working from the beautiful beaches of the world doesn’t leave much room for alignment, collaboration, education and upskilling, or simple engagement with the organisation that is paying for the lifestyle you’re enjoying. Furthermore, until legislation catches up with the current zeitgeist, freedom to work from anywhere remains more fiction than fact.

There are periods in any undertaking, generally, where the location of the work has no material impact on the outcome, and there are periods where people need to be present in body and mind to collaborate with their co-workers.
The future of office work is apparently leaning towards a hybrid model. As we transition, there's an imperative to reshape management ideologies and methodologies. Following this, we can anticipate the evolution of novel structures and infrastructures to support this new work paradigm.

What are your thoughts? Is the hybrid model the definitive future, or are we yet to uncover the ideal workplace structure? Let's discuss below!