There are few topics in corporate America as polarizing as remote work.
Regardless of where you fall on the spectrum — in-person, hybrid, or remote — chances are you feel strongly that your way is the best way. But the reality, as is often the case, isn't as concrete.
In a range of studies highlighted in a research note from Goldman Sachs at the end of August, the productivity effects of remote work ranged from very bad (-19%) to very good (+13%).
Such a wide spectrum shows there is no one-size-fits-all approach. Some people work better remotely, while others need to be in the office.
But nuance is a tricky thing with big companies. When creating policies for a workforce that numbers in the tens of thousands, it's a lot easier to take blanket stances on where employees can work.
Lengthy, expensive office leases might also discourage companies from embracing remote work.
And since the data seems so inconclusive, why would a company even make the effort to enable some workers to be remote? After all, decades of evidence before the pandemic showed people in the office five days a week worked fine.
As Aki's story points out, that type of rationale from larger companies has created an opportunity for those willing to support remote work. Of course, that decision comes with risks.
A company's commitment to remote work might not be forever, even if employees view it that way. As a result, a change of heart by the company puts it in the difficult spot of pulling people back to an office they never intended to visit.
No comments:
Post a Comment