The Government’s directive that public servants return to the office has been criticised as a misdirected means of reviving flailing retail and hospitality businesses. Leaving aside the question of whether or not they can afford to buy lunch, there are other arguments in favour of office based working which are more compelling.
Recently released census data shows that 17.7% of employed people now work mostly from home, compared with 11.9% in 2018. This has become so wide spread and normalised over the past 5 years that people coming into employment and starting out in their career, now appear to regard it as an entitlement. Or to put this another way, if an employer is not prepared to offer flexibility, they will find one that does.
But working from home on a full time or regular basis comes at a price. In my employment law practice, I have seen some concerning trends arising from the lack of authentic social engagement that being in the office offers.
Notably there appears to have been an escalation in levels of anxiety and stress, leading to disengagement and a loss of confidence in many people. Coupled with this is the risk of heightened sensitivity to feedback and the likelihood of misunderstandings occurring in this context. This is a foreseeable consequence of people receiving what they interpret as negative feedback when isolated and not in a supportive environment.
There is also increased potential for poor communication and a perceived lack of empathy as a result of people living and working largely behind screens. Firing off email missives to colleagues and clients, rather than meeting or calling to talk issues through, can quite often lead to misinterpretation and assumed ill intent.
This is quite aside from the issues which arise from the use of emojis, which should simply not be allowed in a professional environment. What should I make, for example, of a colleague sending me a “winking” emoji?
This over reliance on technology and lack of real human engagement has led to an escalation in employment issues and an increase in disciplinary action being taken against employees in these situations.
There are also potentially adverse impacts on collaboration, creativity, learning through peers, team relationships and ultimately productivity. In this regard many employees will say that they are more productive working from home, but this will depend a lot on the employee and their home environment. When an employee was interviewed on TV One News recently about why she liked working from home, her response was that it enabled her to do the washing and other household tasks. This may not seem very reassuring to some employers.
Equally concerning from an employer’s perspective is the potential loss of loyalty that may arise from not having a genuine in person relationship with employees. If an employee feels that they do not know their boss, and that their employer does not really care about them, it will be a lot easier for them to leave.
These are some of the downsides of working from home, but there are clearly upsides too, including space to focus on thinking work and no wasted travel time. The option of wearing track pants and Ugg boots is also quite appealing. Even with a shirt and tie on top, this still feels better.
Ultimately, having a balance between the flexibility to work from home on some days and the requirement to be office on other days is likely to mitigate some of the adverse consequences and to achieve the best outcomes.
In addition to working from home, or because of it, many of us also live vicariously through Netflix far more often than going out and actually interacting with real people. We risk becoming social pariahs and of our empathy and ability to relate as real people being compromised to the point that we do not even know who our authentic selves are.
So coming back to where we started – the Government’s directive that public servants work from home is probably the right decision, for arguably the wrong reasons.
Originally published in The Post
