As someone who ran a fully remote company, I get sent articles like this all the time. Most often, they are shared by family members from older generations.
I have to admit, these articles piss me off. Time and again, these articles put the onus on the remote worker to conform to flawed corporate structures.
Take, for example, the title and subtitle of this particular article:
Title: Our home-working revolution is harming the younger generation
At first glance, I was hoping this article may explore the mental health and isolation challenges associated with remote work.
Subtitle: Bosses who insist on a return to the office are demonized - but turning up is better for your career
Oh wait, nope, this is the same old argument. Bosses are demonized BUT really it’s kids these days.
The article notes that engineers working from home produce more code but receive fewer code reviews, particularly if the engineer is a woman. The proposed solution? Have these engineers return to the office to increase their visibility. Frankly, I find that suggestion to be bullshit. It's a clear indicator of inadequate employee support within these companies. If female engineers are less likely to receive code reviews while working remotely, I can guarantee you they will still face disparities when working in the office.
Rather than admonishing remote workers, especially the younger ones, to conform and "be seen" in the office, we should be scrutinizing the internal company structures and politics that hinder employee support. Remote work often exposes existing problems within a company, but it’s certainly not the root cause of those issues.
If remote workers are going unnoticed, who is being noticed? Is it the person sitting next to the manager? Is it the most outspoken, assertive, or humorous employee? Is it the one who communicates in a way that makes their superiors feel heard? Do these factors define a "good" or "productive" employee according to the company's standards?
Gleb Tsipursky, in his article "The Forced Return to the Office Is the Definition of Insanity", addresses the issue of engineers receiving less feedback when they're not physically present. He points out, "The unspoken belief in many organizations is that if you pack employees into an office like sardines, mentoring will magically happen. However, office-based mentoring, especially full-time, is often inconsistent, inefficient, and dependent on factors like proximity, office politics, and personal dynamics, which can limit its reach and impact."
Proximity, office politics, and personal dynamics—these factors succinctly encapsulate what's really at play in this push to return to the office. It's clear that we are asking employees to participate in a power dynamic game. We're not urging employees to come back to the office for high-quality in-person mentorship that can't be replicated remotely. Nor are we requesting their presence in meetings because remote communication tools are lacking. Instead, we're pushing for a return to the office to cater to those resistant to change. We're asking employees to be physically present because it's more convenient than putting effort into communication, processes, and genuinely knowing our employees.
I firmly believe there's a time and place for in-person work, but as leaders and bosses, we must be crystal clear about the reasons behind such requirements and approach them with intentionality.
In the meantime, let’s stop putting the onus on the employee to conform to outdated policies for the betterment of their career. Let’s instead discuss what it takes to truly support our employees, and appreciate that our employees are surfacing issues that need attention.
Comentários