Adaptive Management: Does working from the office make business sense during COVID-19?
Those of you who met me in person know that I was not a huge remote work enthusiast. Even more, I have been a big co-located teams supporter and took many actions to enhance co-location:
I supported as manager the creation of co-located teams, including the relocation of team members and their families
I relocated myself and my family to be "where I am needed"
I became location independent with the purpose of having the flexibility to serve my clients at their offices
Co-location business arguments
I made all these decisions with multiple implications at the company and personal level, and my arguments were:
Productivity: Co-located teams are more productive than distributed teams. In a field study, Teasley et al. (2002) confirmed the advantages of team co-location with respect to both higher productivity and shorter schedules. Also, communication patterns are superior, collaboration etc.
Innovation: based on my Design Thinking education, I discovered that new ideas emerge when people with different backgrounds and experiences engage in meaningful collaboration and build on top of each others' ideas. Sharing the same office space increased the chances for this to happen.
Building relationships: we know that teams and people bound better when they share the same location even for short amounts of time. There is an excellent feeling created when you share with someone the same space, go for lunch together, handshake. It matters to know that John likes tea but not coffee.
Ease: remote work as any activity requires a specific skill set and, let's say, we humans have so far vast experience in "working together" by sharing our physical presence.
Comfort zone: we all grow in different areas, and honestly, we have to select also areas/topics in which we decide to stay in the comfort zone. We were trained from our school to go to a "special workplace", to see your colleagues, to sit together at a table to solve issues. It is one of our comfort zones and we mostly like it.
Working in an office space and being physically present made sense at the company level and from the business point of view. It was the right thing to do for me also, personally and professionally. The key question is:
Is it still the best option?
Considering the significant uncertainty we face today, the context has changed. Different context requires a different approach.
The business arguments during COVID-19
Some companies decide to switch their work to remote (at least temporarily and at least in some locations), and the business arguments are:
Resilience is more critical today than productivity: There are times when offering the basic service is more important than innovating it. Of course, not an excellent approach to have for the long term. Having a software team responsible for a software product sharing the same room can become a risk that needs to be mitigated by management. Not to mention that lack or interruption of basic resources (electricity, internet connection etc.) can make the entire team unable to operate. Having distributed team members allows the team to create a system in which resource scarcity or low personal capacity are handled constructively because each team member has its own "resources pool." Distributed teams are more reliable to keep offering the service.
Safety is more important than innovation: creativity and innovation happen in safe times and safe places. It does not even matter if the space is safe objectively; what matters is how safe people perceive it. The best way to create an environment for innovation in crisis times is to give everyone the possibility to work from where they feel the safest.
Maintaining relationships is more important than daily interactions: most of us work together with people with whom we have shared the space for months or years. Not a lot of value is gained seeing every day that John still likes tea. What I know for sure is that people under stressful conditions (real or perceived) become defensive and very irritable. Conflicts are good, but conflicts of ideas, not personal conflicts. Unfortunately, I have seen it over and over again that under stress, people start non-constructive, personal conflict. "Why don't we have any tea left?! It is John's fault".
The definition of ease changes suddenly: working face to face is the easiest. Working remote requires new skills. But working as a team that has some team members face to face and others remote is a big pain. It does not work well when two people share the space, and they need to collaborate equally with someone remote. When schools close down, and anyone can announce every day that they need to work from home, everyone working remotely is the most comfortable thing to do.
There is a new comfort zone: what was yesterday's comfort zone might be a challenge today. Many might argue that for them today is more comfortable working from home and address the remote work challenges, than commuting during rush hours, sharing crowded places, sharing public transportation, etc. What was natural yesterday is not necessarily easy today. It is worth raising the topic and discussing openly with people if things changed for them today.
There are plenty of arguments to raise the topic as a manager and management team to switch temporarily to everyone working remotely. It could be based on preference: who wants to work from home can do that and if there is at least one team member who says yes, then the entire team goes remote. Of course, there are exceptions: labor that requires physical work, and I will write about this exceptional type of work in a different blog.
Why do so many companies still require people to come to the office?
A manager told me that "asking everyone to work remotely is a fear-based decision!". I agree with the fact that in times of crisis we expect our leaders to do more than surrender to fear.
But I also believe there are times to be bold, and there are times to be cautious. There are situations that require speaking up and there are situations when silence is the bravest thing to do. Things are not black or white.
In fact, when it comes to the domain of fear, Aristotle's Golden Mean states that moral action is the balance between excess (recklessness) and deficiency (cowardice). Letting fear driving all the actions is not brave, but the complete opposite if not courage either. Lack of acknowledgment of danger, taking actions only to prove "fearlessness", minimizing team members' emotions, denial of own emotions and concerns, caring more about own image than people's safety is recklessness.
Courage is the Golden Mean in the fear domain
I like to believe that leaders in companies make decisions that are taken based on criteria even higher than the business arguments: company/personal values. When it comes to values, the crucial factor is the priority we put on those values. Being productive, innovative, building relationships, etc. are part of our values, but are these more important than care for people?
Today most companies state in their values that clients and their people are the most important. If service to clients can be offered and in a more reliable way, then such values give clear guidance on what decision needs to be taken as a manager and executive team. It is also about being pro-active instead of reactive.
Leadership requires "walking the talk," taking actions driven by values, especially during tough times. Then, there are the personal values that are hopefully aligned with the company's values. Personally, I have often chosen "care for people" over being perceived as "strong" or "brave,", always having in mind the greater benefit for all of us. Those were my most courageous decisions.
Do your company values include care for people? Do your rational arguments show that it makes sense for your business to adopt remote work now? Then the courageous decision is to pro-actively make sure people are safe, the company keeps going, clients continue being served well! It is a decision based on care for people that makes business sense today!
