Home Business Why forcing a return to the office is a step backwards for business

Why forcing a return to the office is a step backwards for business

by trpliquidation
0 comment
Why forcing teams back to the office is a regressive move, stifling productivity, morale, and profits in an era proven fit for remote work.

Not so long ago, the ability to work from the comfort of your home in slippers felt like a futuristic dream bordering on utopia.

And yet here we stand, practically on the cusp of full-on remote revolution, and I see a line of business leaders feverishly retreating to outdated notions of “bums on chairs.” Or, as I like to call it: “The return of the status quo.” Pardon me if I stifle a yawn. Because if there’s one thing I’ve learned from over a decade of beating the proverbial drum about the virtues of working from home, it’s that the naysayers are usually swayed by something that’s more about control (and a hint of distrust) than real business acumen.

Let’s be perfectly clear: I’ve been preaching the mantra of working anywhere since 2011, if not sooner. My piece in Business Matters from five years ago, “Working from home can increase positivity, productivity and profitability,” should have been etched into the hearts of every forward-thinking employer. I remember the world patting me on the back at the time and saying, “Yes, sweet, great idea,” as they checked to make sure no one was playing solitaire in the back of the office. It was like telling a Victorian mother that you were planning to give her precious son vegetarian sausages. The horror. The uncertainty. The mild panic that everything we knew about business was about to disintegrate into chaos.

Fast forward a few years (well, more than a few years), we’ve all seen exactly how viable it can be to work from anywhere. There are now even fewer excuses for archaic views. Technology has made it easy, cheap, and ridiculously flexible to replicate all the necessary functions of a physical workplace without actually dragging your blue-eyed body onto a crowded train. Of course, that doesn’t mean the standard headquarters doesn’t have a purpose. Some people really like the camaraderie and structure of a shared space. But insisting that this is the only way? That’s a bit like refusing to give your kids a smartphone because you think the carrier pigeons were doing just fine all those years ago.

One of the first arguments I remember in another Business Matters piece titled “Bodies & Bums Cost Money, Could Become Virtual” was that paying for an army of seats to be occupied from nine to five is both expensive and , quite frankly, is pointless. in modern times. You pay for the property, the electricity, the toilet paper – and for what? A chance to watch accounting type Sandra in real time? A daily chat via the coffee machine about last night’s television? I have nothing against Sandra’s engaging conversation, but let’s be honest: a good Zoom or Teams meeting can yield the same interplay, minus the leaky commute. If you want to promote human interaction, schedule weekly meetings or once a month off-site. But making it mandatory every day feels as old-fashioned as a copy of the receipt.

And yet that’s exactly what many companies are doing, hitting the big red “Reverse” button on progress by dictating that everyone goes back to hiding under the fluorescent lights, strapped to desks. We hear the same tired reasoning: “productivity decreases” or “team spirit is lost” or (my personal favorite) “people cannot be trusted to do their work from home.” Let’s take those apart, shall we?

First, productivity. It’s breathtaking how often remote workers end up working longer hours simply because they don’t have to endure the pain of the commute. Keep in mind that people can set their own schedules, do their best work when they really feel awake, and take breaks that don’t revolve around obligatory small talk in the kitchen. That’s not laziness; it’s quite the opposite. People who aren’t boxed into a 9-to-5 routine often discover a sweet spot for output that suits their natural rhythms. And guess what? That usually means more results, not less.

Secondly, the myth of team spirit. As if the only thing that binds a workforce together is the ability to physically see each other in an open environment. Team spirit comes from shared goals, supportive leadership and clear communication – not the faint smell of microwaved curry and the chatter of panicked typing. Anyone who’s spent more than a week in a Zoom-based collaboration knows that there’s a real camaraderie that comes from working together on the same goals, even if you’re in different zip codes. And if you ever miss hugging your colleagues in person, you can meet up once every fortnight or month for that big, warm hug – no harm done.

Finally, the issue of trust is perhaps the most baffling of all. Why hire people you don’t trust and then fixate on babysitting them from nine to five in an office? If your business model relies on sharp-eyed managers hawkishly searching for lanky employees, there’s something rotten in the process. Good workers get the job done. Exceptional companies will do better when they have the freedom to shape the way they work. Micromanagement, on the other hand, breeds resentment and stifles creativity. We have a word for that, and it starts with ‘toxic’.

Ultimately, companies pushing a rigid return-to-office directive are not only ignoring the past decade’s evidence that remote work is beneficial; they turn a V sign into the future. People have proven that they can be even more productive, balanced and – importantly – content by working from spaces that suit them – whether that’s a home office, a beach hut in Cornwall or a Wi-Fi café in the mountains. I’m not saying that offices should be eradicated completely. I suggest that they should be an option, not an obligation. A tool, not a trap.

So yes, I consider the “bring back the offices” brigade to be as misguided as the dial-up Internet evangelists: clinging to the comfortable drudgery of the old ways rather than moving on to the new. We can do better than that. In fact, we’ve already done that. The argument against remote working made some sense in the ’80s, but in the 21st century it’s about as relevant as a Filofax. And if you ask me, long may that irrelevance continue.

So let’s collectively turn this regressive idea on its head. A flexible approach allows companies to hire, retain and get the best out of the best people. Clinging to the old “bodies in the building” model is short-sighted and myopic, and will inevitably lead to a mass exodus of talented people who know they can be just as – or even more – effective at home. After more than a decade of advocating this cause, I’m saying it even louder to those in the back: real, thriving businesses in this century will value results, not time. And the rest? They are left standing with their creaking wheelchairs wondering where it all went wrong.


Richard Alvin

Richard Alvin is a serial entrepreneur, former adviser to the UK government on small business and an Honorary Teaching Fellow on Business at Lancaster University. Winner of the London Chamber of Commerce Business Person of the year and Freeman of the City of London for services to business and charities. Richard is also Group MD of Capital Business Media and SME business research firm Trends Research, regarded as one of the leading experts in the SME sector in Britain and an active angel investor and advisor to start-up companies. Richard is also the host of Save Our Business, the US-based business advice television show.

You may also like

logo

Stay informed with our comprehensive general news site, covering breaking news, politics, entertainment, technology, and more. Get timely updates, in-depth analysis, and insightful articles to keep you engaged and knowledgeable about the world’s latest events.

Subscribe

Subscribe my Newsletter for new blog posts, tips & new photos. Let's stay updated!

© 2024 – All Right Reserved.