An Introvert Recommends A Return to the Office — Chapter Two

A posting earlier this month on the topic of return-to-office drew substantial attention and thought-provoking comment.

Three of the latter have inspired this second post.

My brother the architect and managing partner sent an e-mail, and made this very good point:

Individual efficiency and productivity is not the same as team efficiency and productivity.  Considerations of return-to-office must take both into account.

Individual contributors understandably seek the first.  Managers understandably pursue the second.  If a manager is truly leading a team – where the work of one will impact the outcome for all – then cross-team clarity and coordination of objectives, deliverables, milestones, and most of all, RACI-level roles and responsibilities is absolutely essential to success.

What must be in place for us to pursue this task or make this decision? Who is responsible for what, and when?  Who will be consulted?  Who will be informed of progress (or barriers) and when?  How?

              Here’s Scenario A.  Here’s Scenario B – tougher, more difficult.   If B happens, what do we do?

I’ve organized team coordination and clarity sessions both face-to-face and via Zoom across multiple time zones.  If the success metric of the session is to spend as little time and money as possible, hell, fire up the laptops and distribute the Zoom URL.  (I know I’ll need to do a few rounds of follow-up 1:1’s to patch holes in understanding, but as far as the upper management report is concerned, we can check the box and declare victory).  

However, if the performance metric is individual absorption of individual responsibilities – and, more importantly, the team achievement of the objective, at or above expectations, well, bring the donuts and the coffee and find me a meeting room.

A second comment was simple and blunt: 

Unless you give me a good reason, I’m not going to leave the efficiency of the home office and make the drive/take the ride.  Period.

The good reason might be the F2F concept pitch we described in the earlier post.  Or the team coordination meeting described above.  Or an All-Hands gathering to hear first-hand the CEO and corporate leaders.  (A John Chambers keynote at the annual Cisco sales kickoff was not to be missed.)

But don’t try and sell me a bunch of HR-department blather about the wonders of collaboration (on what?  with whom?) or the serendipitous business value of water cooler-coffee room conversations. 

A third comment, from Atlanta-based marketer Maureen Cole provided a unique and highly valuable perspective – thank you, Maureen!

              Working from home decreases rates of sexism, racism, harassment.  Does it not?

Yes, I bet it does.

Maybe, just maybe, RTO reluctance has as much to do with a desire to avoid toxic managers and toxic organizational cultures as it does with a desire to avoid one-hour commutes.   

Maureen’s on to something here. 

Face-to-face can bring us into crucibles of decision-making and team coordination.  All to the good. 

But face-to-face can also bring us into the presence of the bullies and narcissists, turf warriors and mean girls, harassers and creeps who stalk corporate halls, often in leadership and managerial roles – and who rely on F2F to bring forth their prey.

(I can tell stories of toxic workplaces and toxic people, and so can you.  Let’s not pretend otherwise.  And it’s all to the bad.)

In such situations, it doesn’t take snowflake sensitivity to prefer to be somewhere else.

A February newsletter from Propmodo Technology, a U.S. provider of commercial real estate solutions and services, noted a “silent crisis:”

 . . . a phenomenon of growing concern has emerged: the disengagement of employees from their work and workplaces. According to Gallup's latest survey on U.S. employee engagement, the year 2023 saw a continuation of a worrying trend.

Workers are feeling increasingly detached from their employers, with a decline in clear expectations, satisfaction with their organization, and connection to its mission or purpose. This disconnection also extends to the personal level, with fewer employees feeling that someone at work genuinely cares about them as individuals.

 This comes not without cost.

 A single percentage point change in engagement represents approximately 1.6 million workers, and the associated cost of disengagement is staggering, with about $1.9 trillion in lost productivity across the nation.

There’s more going on here than a return-to-office mandate will ever fix.

Yes, there are reasons to go back to the office. 

 It can make us better.  And our team better.

But when you ask me to come back, give me a good reason.   And know that we cannot ignore the ugly underside of the F2F experience.

 To be continued.

I’m Jon Stine, 35+ years in business and technology.

I read, I write, I learn, I advise.

Jcstine1995@gmail.com, +1 503 449 4628.