Getting workers back to the office

Many people who were first permitted to work from home during the pandemic found that not only could they do their job as well, if not more efficiently, than in the office, but they could also avoid a pointless commute. Disabled people, including me, found that they can look after their health needs, take prescription medications that prevent them driving, reduce pain, fatigue, and exacerbation of symptoms, with no loss of output for the employer. Why would any employer want to reduce their staff's work-life balance, increase their pain, fatigue, or other symptoms, increase their travel costs and lose people to more accommodating workplaces, for no discernible benefit? It baffles me.

As a creative agency, we've discovered that adopting a 3-day work week in the office has been exceptionally effective.

Our team appreciates the camaraderie and value of face-to-face interactions, while also having the flexibility to schedule uninterrupted, deep-focus work from home. We've established fixed days for in-office work that are non-negotiable. This consistency allows our team members to plan their meetings with clear availability, enhancing overall productivity.

Additionally, we organise a team lunch once a month to foster relationships. While it may seem cliché, the success of this model is largely attributable to our company culture and our commitment to cultivating a team that shares a similar mindset.

We have to remember that Generation Z in particular have only ever known flexibility, so I think any forced return to the office is an absolute mistake. We have learned, however, that working 100% remotely is also not as attractive as often made out. We know that people want to collaborate, be mentored and 'inspired' by their team and their leaders.

Any approach used to entice people back to the office to work has to include collaboration, mentoring, learning and development. Having Pizza Wednesdays, or Pool Table Friday is an absolute waste of resource and will not attract in a sceptical generation. Bring people in to the office to create culture and collaboration.

What we know... Businesses could save 25% of their costs through Hybridity and 50% of their costs through WFH or WFA policies. Automation, Augmentation and AI will save them an additional 3rd in people costs, and moving to outcome-based working will generate growth and financial fluidity (whilst giving the people the flexibility they desire in its truest form). Yet companies insist on seeing people back in the office. The case for a flexible resource architecture is a no brainer, which makes me wonder who is pushing the agenda for people coming back into the office - it can't possibly be the CFO's or the Boards, as the responsibility to their shareholders by not garnering these savings and growth would make the future of that company untenable!.

From my HR consulting business, I would say it's a mixed bag, and it varies quite widely depending on the industry.

Some are working to entice people back into the office with additional perks like office makeovers, free lunches, and team events (usually in a pub.)

Others are making it clear they feel it's much more productive to have people in the office together, emphasising team spirit and collaboration that's just not the same over a Teams call.

It's not just a sector issue but an age-related one also. In one of my clients, there is a big cohort of graduates, who have made it clear they see the value of being at the office, working with more senior peers, and forming those important bonds. Those more in "middle management", with kids, school runs and general life admin are probably less ready to trade in slippers for office shoes!

The approach to office working that we have adopted is underpinned by our Agile Working Framework. This means that we manage our people on the results that they produce for our business and not their facetime in the office. I see no benefit to any business of arbitrarily stipulating a number of days that someone needs to be present as this simply creates an impression that the route of the request is mistrust. Employers should be focusing on cultivating an environment that allows people to do their best work rather than assuming that presence means someone is earning their salary.

Not sure what this says for civil servants or why they're a specific focus. This is a question that completely depends on the job sector and personal circumstances. For example, single, no kids or school age kids, etc. Collaboration can be key for some organisations but often people just need to work through their tasks which can often be better away from the office.

Home working has definitely helped many employees with work-life balance and quality of life, so it's understandable why some people would not be keen to give this up. There is of course the 'trust' element and overseeing work and productivity, but I think employers need to get over this sometimes.

It's no surprise that Civil Servants, known for their love of bureaucracy and traditional work environments, are clinging to the office like a lifeline. Yet, the real controversy lies in the archaic mindset of employers who still believe in the outdated concept of TWaT days.

In a world where remote work has proven its efficacy and efficiency, it's astonishing that more than 60% of employers are pushing for a return to the office grind. Are they living in the past or simply afraid of losing their grip on control?

The real question isn't how businesses are coercing staff back into the office, but rather why they're resisting the inevitable shift towards flexible, remote work arrangements. Are employers truly prepared to foot the bill for office space, technology, and equipment, or are they just nostalgic for the days of water cooler chats and fluorescent-lit cubicles? Perhaps it's time for businesses to embrace progress instead of clinging desperately to the past.