Working From Home Should Be Easy…Right?
With more work-from-home options becoming available to employees, this article aims to bring forward some of the foreseeable challenges.
At the time that this article is being written, businesses in Canada and the U.S. are slowly starting to pick up after the world came to an abrupt halt due to COVID-19. Although that is great news, some are announcing that they will be transitioning into becoming a digital-first company (like Shopify and Twitter) while others are providing more flexible work-from-home (WFH) options to their employees.
Despite how great all this sounds, there are challenges that have the potential to outweigh the benefits of working from home. The purpose of this article is to briefly bring to light potential challenges using a systems-thinking lens and spark a discussion about ways to solve them before it reaches a critical point.
Environment
If an employee has the option to WFH or to work from anywhere (WFA), then the environment (or location) in which they choose to conduct their work must be considered. According to a literature review on the factors that can affect an employee’s performance, it was found that: “a comfortable working environment is important to enable employees to focus and do their
job perfectly”.
People’s socio-economic situations largely contribute to where they live and the locations they go to, which can affect an individual’s performance. For example, within the same team, you can expect to find one individual that lives in a quiet apartment or home where they have their own office and the ability to control everything like heat and noise levels. You can also find another individual that lives in an apartment where the walls are thin and distractions from neighbours are frequent. The second employee would have a harder time doing their job because of the distractions.
Solution: It may be easy to say that employees could get a higher salary but that employee might choose to spend the money on something else. Employers can partially subsidize the living arrangements of employees but the question then becomes: what happens when that employee is no longer in their role and is unable to find another living arrangement? The solution might just come down to work processes and project management. For example, starting a project earlier while ensuring deadlines factor in that it may take more time for employees to complete their work will allow those that face more distractions to contribute in the same way as others that face less distractions.
Tools
Many employers provide a laptop, cell phone or other devices necessary for the job and there are many debates on the ethical implications behind tracking employees on their company-owned devices. Knowing that different roles require different bandwidth usage, in a WFA situation, would employers have to provide or subsidize the internet that is required for employees to do their job from their desired location? If an internet connection is provided by the employer, then should they be allowed to track an employee’s online footprint? How about when an employee decides to take a break or after work hours? Subjecting employees to this level of surveillance will surely bring some resistance.
Solution: Although it is generally known that companies can track their employees' activities on company devices, further instilling a culture of trust will help make employees feel like they have nothing to hide. A potential way for companies to subsidize the tools required for their employees to perform and for employees to feel like they are not always being watched is for the tracking data to be locked by all parties unless there is a criminal or legal investigation that requires that data. Of course, there may be additional legal and ethical implications involved in this scenario but it may pave the way to a more trusting relationship between employers and employees.
Stakeholders
Simply put the stakeholders are humans. Although quite vague (and obvious), it’s important to consider how individuals will react from the WFA model. The nature of people’s roles are different. Some roles require conversations while others require less. When talking to individuals face-to-face, humans are able to pick up on micro-expressions and intonations more effectively than through a screen. This ability allows us to add a layer of context to the conversation. Virtual discussions, so far, are not natural enough for us to be able to pick up on the cues that we would have in a real-world setting. Furthermore, according to one HBR study, “remote workers communicated nearly 80% less about their assignments than colocated team members did”.
Solution: Humans are social creatures. Interacting digitally is not natural enough for us and when we do it, it may not be as effective as intended. In fact, the same HBR study suggests that, “to increase interactions, workers should be in the same building, ideally on the same floor.” In a WFA scenario, a potential solution to increase quality interactions would be to assign moments in which employees are encouraged to come to the office, similar to what MIT is doing with their students enrolled in some online classes. This would allow individuals to complete their work in an environment that works best for them and then consult with their colleagues in-person for feedback with minimal risks of misunderstanding.
To conclude, COVID-19 forced the world to change its ways. Employers and employees will not only have to consider their qualifications for the job but also their environment, the tools and the stakeholders involved. There is no universal solution and the solutions presented in this article serve to spark a conversation within organizations. Employers and employees will need to have honest conversations about expectations and why it’s important to them and frequently test their success rates in order to find the best solution for all parties.