2023 - 07 - Tension Is Rising Around Remote Work

Digital
Article
Remote Work
Tension Is Rising Around

Remote Work
Leaders and employees must collaborate to determine the best
approach for their organizations. Here’s how to have a productive
conversation. by Mark Mortensen
This article is licensed for your personal use. Further posting, copying, or distribution is not permitted. Copyright Harvard Business Publishing. All rights reserved. Please contact
customerservice@harvardbusiness.org or 800 988 0886 for additional copies.
HBR / Digital Article / Tension Is Rising Around Remote Work
Tension Is Rising Around

Remote Work
Leaders and employees must collaborate to determine the best approach
for their organizations. Here’s how to have a productive conversation.
by Mark Mortensen
Published on HBR.org / July 18, 2023 / Reprint H07PZA
Illustration by Alanah Sarginson
You don’t have to look hard to find someone arguing passionately about
the benefits or perils of remote work. Some people argue that leaders’
productivity concerns are unfounded, while high-profile executives like
Elon Musk suggest that anyone working from home is “phoning it in.”
The issue, variably framed in terms of returning to the office (RTO),
hybridity, or flexibility, is no doubt polarizing. But the one consistent
element of the arguments for and against is how strong and entrenched
the stances are.
Copyright © 2023 Harvard Business School Publishing. All rights reserved. 1
While conflicting perspectives on remote work are not new, the tension
seems to be escalating. Consider, for example, the contingent of
Amazon workers who staged a walkout to protest the company’s office
policies, or Farmers Insurance employees’ threats to unionize or quit
in response to the CEO reversing the company’s remote-work policy.
Google recently began tracking employees’ in-office attendance, and
stories of employees being terminated for failing to adhere to RTO
policies continue to proliferate. Neither side holds all the power, and
as the conversation becomes more and more polarized, it becomes more
difficult to reach a mutually beneficial resolution.
Leaders must actively collaborate with their employees to find a

balanced approach to one of the most significant changes to the way
we work since the industrial revolution. First, we’ll discuss why it’s so
hard for leaders and employees to agree on remote work, then use that
knowledge to inform a few steps for leaders to help facilitate a frank and
open discussion with employees — one that recognizes and validates
the needs and concerns of both sides.
The Disconnect between Employer and Employee
Having studied and consulted on remote work for over 20 years, I’ve
heard a lot of perspectives from both leaders and employees. What’s
clear is that a major reason we’re having such difficulty agreeing on
a path forward is that we’re assessing cost-benefit trade-offs without
agreeing on the classic 5 W’s: who, what, where, when, and why.
The 5 W’s are a cognitive tool to help ensure you’re considering all
sides of the issue. Armed with a more complete perspective, it’s critical
that leaders then take the lead to use it as the basis of a dialogue
with employees. That dialogue needs to be balanced (understanding the
needs of both sides), respectful (validating those needs), and ongoing
(adjusting over time as needs change). More than anything, both sides
need to enter into these conversations with the objective of finding the
most mutually optimal solution — not of winning. Here’s how to think
about the 5 W’s:
Why The starting place for any discussion is alignment about why flex
work is (or isn’t) a topic of discussion in the first place. For some it’s
about increasing or protecting productivity, for others it’s attracting or
retaining talent, and others are more concerned about relationships and
social fabric. The first thing to get on the table is the driving motivation
for the discussion.
What Next, we need clarity on exactly how we define those driving

factors. Performance is widely heralded as both the benefit and cost
of remote work — how can that be? It’s because we rarely agree on
the definition of performance in the first place. For example, is it
productivity as in lines of code generated? Is it quality as in amount
of rework required? Is it efficiency as in output per effort expended?
A great example of this is seen in discussions around commute time.

When perceived as wasted time, cutting out the commute is an obvious
benefit. But when it’s viewed as a buffer between work and home or a
forcing mechanism to reconnect with old friends, its elimination carries
a cost.
Where No organization is uniform, and there are different paths to

achieving different kinds of work. Answering customer service calls can
be done anywhere, while packing product into boxes is constrained to
where that product is. Considering the types of work being done sets the
boundaries for discussions around policies.
When Organizational leaders and employees often struggle to think

effectively across time. Employees experience certain benefits of time
policies in the short term but feel their costs over the long term. For
example, granting employees an additional day of flexibility might have
the short-term benefit of eliminating a commute but the longer-term
consequence of a loss of mentorship when schedules no longer align.
Who I leave this for last because, in my experience, it’s at the root of
most of these disagreements. Work policies don’t have the same effects
on everyone involved. For example, are we considering the effects at the
level of the individual or the collective? A policy that allows employees
to work from home at-will will benefit individuals’ work-life schedule
coordination, but may come at the cost of the collective sense of culture.
Leaders need to think about whose interests or outcomes they’re

prioritizing (an issue that was critical in my recent work on
psychological safety in risky times). This becomes easier to do once
there’s clarity on the 5 W’s.
Keep in mind that these 5 W’s are a tool to help ensure you get all the
information on the table for a fruitful discussion — they’re not wholly
independent elements. Take, for example, decisions around which work
is suited for more flexibility. While this is a discussion about where
(which is contingent on what you define as key outcomes), it has major
impacts on who receives the benefits, with consequences for employees’
sense of fairness and equity.
How to Have an Ongoing Dialogue About Remote Work
Designing effective work policies and practices requires everyone to

have a seat at the table. Leaders who institute policies without involving
their employees are often perceived as out of touch, and employees may
even suspect their motives (chief among them: “Leadership is afraid of
losing its power and control”). Similarly, employees who make demands
about how they work are frequently perceived as entitled. Only by
engaging both sides in a dialogue will we be able to move past the

shouting match and start making progress
This conversation must be ongoing as preferences, needs, technologies,

and market demands keep changing. To make matters more complex,
people’s perceptions of how best to operate within that changing
context continue to change. For example, the novelty and contrast
effects in psychology tell us that new things elicit stronger responses
while things we experience over and over have much less effect. In
other words, the appeal of remote work wanes a bit when it’s not as
shiny and new. It’s important to recognize that these factors bias our
judgment with respect to flexible work. A given benefit or cost will
appear significantly less strong the more prevalent and the less unique
it is.
So how can leaders facilitate these ongoing conversations? You’ve

already considered the 5 W’s to ensure you’re getting a broad
perspective. Now the critical step is to maintain that clarity by ensuring
you and your employees evaluate them via a structured, objective
process.
Step 1: Own the issue.

Leaders and employees alike have a vested interest in getting work
policies right, and thanks to the pandemic, everyone has experiences
and opinions that provide valuable data. In order to have a useful
dialogue, it’s critical that all that data is brought forward and all
perspectives included.
However, the current exchange in which both sides are trying to “win”
makes that type of collaborative dialogue extremely unlikely to occur.
Dialogue won’t be successful unless both sides accept joint ownership of
the issue, and a key first step is taking ownership of any missteps that
have happened along the way. The purpose of the dialogue is to learn
and reach a better outcome, and that may require clearing the air.
It also requires that leaders recognize that the playing field is not
exactly even. The power of collective action (strikes, walkouts, etc.)
notwithstanding, leaders have greater agency and control over the
policies in question. In my work with companies, I stress to leaders
that this is not the time to be proud. As is the case with establishing
psychological safety, showing your own vulnerability by acknowledging
that we’re all doing our best to chart a course through unfamiliar waters
is a powerful first step.
Step 2: Set expectations and ground rules.

Psychology provides two powerful tools that can dramatically improve
the results of your discussions: psychological safety and a growth
mindset.
To have a fruitful discussion that accounts for the needs of all involved,
it’s critical that everyone feels a strong sense of psychological safety.
Employees need to feel like they won’t be met with reprisal for sharing
their needs and constraints (e.g., cost-of-living challenges or family
demands), just as leaders must be able to speak honestly about the
pressures they face (e.g., competition pressures or changing market
demands). Putting these ideas on the table allows everyone to work
together to find a more optimal solution, and both sides will hold back if
they don’t feel safe doing so.
It’s also critical to recognize that the environment companies are

operating in is constantly evolving. As employees and organizations’
requirements change, policies must be reevaluated to ensure they
remain relevant. Importantly, policies that are changed should not be
viewed as failures, but as steps in a learning process — the fundamental
core of a growth mindset. If all parties go into the process expecting an

ongoing, adaptive learning process, the end result will be far better.
Make sure everyone involved agrees to this collaborative process as

ongoing, adaptive, and governed by these key principles — and get that
commitment at the outset.
Step 3: Eradicate black-and-white language

One of the factors I see getting in the way of productive
conversations about work arrangements is overly simplistic, black-and-
white language. The 5 W’s show that this is an incredibly complex,
multidimensional issue. But oversimplified blanket statements like
“Remote productivity is just as good as in person” or “Face-to-face is
better for culture” abound.
In many conversations I hear an explicit or implicit refrain of “…but we

know what they’re thinking” — a belief that they can effectively take
another’s perspective. Unfortunately, the science doesn’t support this.
Recent research finds that people trying to take the perspective of others
were in fact less accurate in their judgments, and the only way you gain
better understanding is when you acquire new information from the
other party. As the authors put it, you need “perspective-getting,” and
the best way to do that is through dialogue.
I encourage leaders to be explicit and call out the risk of blanket

statements like “WFH is unavoidable” or “remote work kills creativity.”
Of course there’s truth in both, but they further entrench positions and
don’t advance our dialogue. For example, in one executive committee
I worked with, members were empowered to throw yellow and red
cards when they saw blanket statements being made. By leveling the
playing field and introducing a bit of levity, it allowed the group
to have more healthy and nuanced discussions. While you certainly
don’t need to introduce a card system, give some thought to how
to ensure that everyone (leadership included) is held accountable for

counterproductive language.
Step 4: Talk.
You need to create space and time to have actually meaningful
discussions, which requires designating time for them. Simple as it is
(and silly as it seems to have to mention it), we all know this may be
the hardest step in the process. Formalize these discussions to give them
legitimacy and, in line with step 2, make time in people’s schedules for
them on an ongoing basis. You don’t need to allocate hours every week
to this, but make the time you do allocate is regular, as predictability
builds trust. Remember, these dialogues are an important part of both
addressing the flex work issue specifically and leading effectively in
general.
•••
The active punditry on both sides of the work-from-home/RTO debate

shows that opinions are fiercely divided. Making matters worse, those
positions align with the divide between leaders and employees — both
groups with strong vested interests in the outcome. While data on the
subject is plentiful and increasing, the only thing that’s conclusive is
that there’s no simple solution. All decisions in this space have trade-
offs, and different groups experience and weigh them differently. The
only productive way forward is for leaders to engage employees and
work together to develop the most mutually beneficial model possible
for their organization.
This article was originally published online on July 18, 2023.
Mark Mortensen is a professor of organizational behavior at

INSEAD and for over 20 years has studied and consulted on
collaboration and organization design, with a focus on hybrid,
virtual, and globally distributed work. Mark publishes regularly
in Harvard Business Review, MIT Sloan Management Review, and
INSEAD Knowledge, and is a regular fixture in popular press outlets
like the BBC, the Economist, the Financial Times, and Fortune.

2023 - 07 - Tension Is Rising Around Remote Work

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2023 - 07 - Tension Is Rising Around Remote Work

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digital

Tension Is Rising Around

Tension Is Rising Around

Illustration by Alanah Sarginson

Copyright © 2023 Harvard Business School Publishing. All rights reserved. 1

Leaders must actively collaborate with their employees to find a

The Disconnect between Employer and Employee

Copyright © 2023 Harvard Business School Publishing. All rights reserved. 2

What Next, we need clarity on exactly how we define those driving

A great example of this is seen in discussions around commute time.

Where No organization is uniform, and there are different paths to

When Organizational leaders and employees often struggle to think

Copyright © 2023 Harvard Business School Publishing. All rights reserved. 3

Leaders need to think about whose interests or outcomes they’re

How to Have an Ongoing Dialogue About Remote Work

Designing effective work policies and practices requires everyone to

Copyright © 2023 Harvard Business School Publishing. All rights reserved. 4

engaging both sides in a dialogue will we be able to move past the

This conversation must be ongoing as preferences, needs, technologies,

So how can leaders facilitate these ongoing conversations? You’ve

Step 1: Own the issue.

Copyright © 2023 Harvard Business School Publishing. All rights reserved. 5

Step 2: Set expectations and ground rules.

It’s also critical to recognize that the environment companies are

Copyright © 2023 Harvard Business School Publishing. All rights reserved. 6

core of a growth mindset. If all parties go into the process expecting an

Make sure everyone involved agrees to this collaborative process as

Step 3: Eradicate black-and-white language

In many conversations I hear an explicit or implicit refrain of “…but we

I encourage leaders to be explicit and call out the risk of blanket

Copyright © 2023 Harvard Business School Publishing. All rights reserved. 7

to ensure that everyone (leadership included) is held accountable for

The active punditry on both sides of the work-from-home/RTO debate

This article was originally published online on July 18, 2023.

Copyright © 2023 Harvard Business School Publishing. All rights reserved. 8

Mark Mortensen is a professor of organizational behavior at

Copyright © 2023 Harvard Business School Publishing. All rights reserved. 9

You might also like