Remote work, hybrid havoc and the cost of two-speed cultures

The benefits of remote work for individuals are dissected, costed and covered as almost fait accompli. So much, you’d be forgiven for thinking it’s a privilege afforded to everyone. But it’s not. And not because the organisation doesn’t offer the choice.

If you’re on the frontlines of teaching children, fixing roads, building houses, collecting garbage, nursing the sick, stocking shelves or any other of the many, many jobs that require you to show up at a specific location. Then, the conversations about remote working must garner a gigantic eye roll.

But what about organisations that have a bit of both? With frontlines that are anchored to a site and support staff or other roles who can bounce between remote and the office. Where some workers get to choose, and others don’t.

Any resistance to remote work has become a ‘third rail’ topic. Pity the CEO with the audacity to suggest that people return to the office full-time. They are roundly condemned as out of touch with what staff want. Yet, running a company means thinking about the whole. What trades does one decision make against other outcomes? For remote or hybrid work, that trade can be a connected culture.

Humour me. Consider the impact on the organisation. On people across the business. How would you feel if someone said, hey, there’s this terrific thing we’re doing, oh, but not for you? How is that fair?

Jobs and life are both full of stuff that’s inconvenient and annoying. So, while commute times and navigating family demands are undoubtedly made easier for the individual by remote work. Does the organisation benefit? Is it entitlement run amok or progress? Surely, there are ways to offer some equitable flexibility while recognising the diversity and demands of various roles.

The builder does different work than the bookkeeper. But both contribute to their organisation’s success. Should the fact that one works on-site while the other wields a computer instead of a nail gun give license to one not available to the other?

In reality, most organisations sit somewhere between everyone can work remotely and no one can. Meaning the question is not trivial.

While plenty of people push scaling back or even cutting out ‘head’ offices and making many roles wholly remote. While discussing the pros and cons, I wonder if they consider the two-state culture they’ll inevitably create.

Putting aside the fairness question. Let’s look at how the different ways of working can make culture a harder slog.

Workers at the office stand (or sit) alongside each other in person every day. There’s a social commons. It’s messy. People have to deal with each other. Problems exist, but it’s hard to hide them for long. They grab coffee together. Stop by cubicles for a chat. A thousand tiny moments that have nothing and everything to do with pursuing the mission. Where even multiple office locations combine into an archipelago of effort.

Remote workers are more isolated. Interaction is sanitised into digital, back-and-forth. Their relationship with the organisation shrinks to the size of a computer screen. There’s no shared office environment, or their contact is limited. It’s easier to hide any discontent — when your camera is off, no one can see you seething. Your coffee breaks — if you even get one between Teams calls — are solo, and hallway chats are not with your co-workers. And workers switching between remote and on-site are always in transit. Literally and mentally.

The different modes don’t mesh well. The organisation’s values and behaviours show up differently. Team norms diverge. Then, before you can say ‘no commute’, you’ve got a two-state culture happening. Instead of one location or a few, you’ve now got hundreds or thousands of micro spaces. And the environment matters. How we work isn’t merely about what we do. The physical environment and relationships in them influence outcomes as surely as how many customers and competitors you have.

Brands are a store for value created by how people do things and the work environment. And when one aspect is a privilege afforded to some, which also fragments how you work, you risk eroding the value with one hand you’re creating with the other.

Thanks for reading.

If you liked this, please share it with a friend (or two).

Subscribe to get new articles straight to your inbox.

Don’t forget to get your copy of my books The Unheroic Work and Between Making Money and World Peace.

Follow me on Linkedin