I was recently approached to be interviewed for an MBA dissertation on my thoughts about technical disruption in the Market Research arena and to provide my perspective as an Ops Director in a small business that aims to maximise the available tech. During this discussion we touched upon the physical aspects of tech disruption and what that means for a small business and its employees. I'm going to use this blog post to expand on that, what I think works well and not so well. Irrespective of size of business this is an area that significantly impacts on how we work and how we view work versus life.
I'm going to focus on two main areas - remote working and the technology and equipment that makes it possible.
There is no doubting that technology has hugely impacted our approach to work. When I started my career in MR back in 1999 I was issued a desk and a desktop computer. Mobile phones were just starting to be common place as personal communication devices but mobile email (blackberries and the like) were still some way off. Very few people had company issued mobile phones and laptops and, for almost everybody, work happened while you were physically present in the office.
Nowadays of course it would be unusual not to be assigned a laptop and not to have an expectation that you will be available to reach on numerous communication channels. That strict office environment and 9-5 working barely exists for anyone. Everybody will have some assessment of their work/life balance but there is little doubting that work and life have encroached on each other in ways that weren't previously possible and for better or worse.
Flexibility in the working environment is increasingly being accepted, and even encouraged, by businesses. Some studies claim recorded increases in productivity amongst their remote workers but irrespective of that it is considered by many that an employer with an open mind to flexible working is a key employee benefit. In terms of the benefits to the employee then reduced commute (saving time and expense), and flexibility to better work to how (and when and where) it suits you, are clear. I won't waste too much time on the benefits preferring instead to look at the technology that has allowed us to reach this point.
I've been remotely working for a long time now. Initially through periods of heavy business travel that required I be, at least somewhat, connected and productive in airports, in hotels, and in other company offices. In terms of remote working from home, I worked in a global team in Ipsos and my team was geographically spread - when I was in the office I was still working remotely with that team anyway. In that scenario I typically worked two, occasionally three, days a week from home. In my current position we have no company office. We are subscribed to a shared office space that the UK employees meet in one day a week and the rest of the time we work from home. Remote working has long been a realistic scenario but I believe we're now at a point of 'hypermobility' where technology has really enabled the concept of an office from anywhere.
What is it about technology that has brought us to this point? We've all had laptops and smartphones for years. I think it's fuelled by a few things - firstly the availability and familiarity of the technologies. Our devices are increasingly capable and so are we as users. The prevalence of Wi-Fi connectivity is another driving factor. Public spaces commonly have readily available free Wi-Fi access and where they do not our mobile phones can give all our devices fast and reliable hotspot connectivity. We now have the equipment and the infrastructure to match (sometimes exceed) the anchored office.
Device and infrastructure means nothing without availability of services and key to that is communication. With the arrival of office VOIP phones the concept of hotdesking became a feasible reality for many. You were not tied to a specific desk location because your phone number was no longer anchored to a physical phone/desk. These days an anchored telephone, be it traditional or VOIP, looks increasingly outdated. Your mobile phone, or laptop, or combination of either (whichever is most convenient at the time) is most people's primary communication device. And that's down to something we can term Unified Communication: where audio and video services, instant messaging, and email all converge.
In my line of work it's rare that my mobile phone number (I don't have a landline number) is used. Internally my team will use a combination of email (albeit declining in usage), Slack (for instant messaging), or Skype (for audio/video calls). When I'm speaking with clients their preference is usually Skype/Zoom/WebEx/GoToMeeting/whatever - it's cheap, reliable and effective. I can join through my laptop or I can join through my smartphone. I can even hand off from one device to another.
This ability to effectively communicate through different channels, as the need dictates, is key. It also helps address some of the challenges of face to face communication. I feel connected with my team through the channels that are available to me and for the various purposes that they are required. Most channels are strictly business related, some are not. I can still have a chat with a colleague in New York as to what her weekend plans involve without the both of us needing to be stood at a water cooler.
All of that is pointless if you still can't effectively function remotely within your job role. But the applications that we use are rarely dependent on a physical location and cloud hosting/sharing of documents and the capabilities for collaborative working on 'live' documents all help to reinforce the ability to work from outside of a structured office environment.
So with technology being an enabler towards employees enjoying the flexibility of remote working, and businesses increasingly accepting it, what are the downsides? Are there any?
Well we've already highlighted the pivotal role that unified communication has played in making remote working viable. But it misses one important communication method, face to face. Sure there are alternatives and video calls/conferencing are increasingly mainstream but I don't believe they can offer as much value as true face to face, in person, communication. Partly because the technology doesn't always convey the same emotion but also because typically remote conversation is initiated with purpose and directly to the person(s) it is intended for. Usually a good thing but how many times when you're in the office do you overhear something that piques your interest and into which you can add value? You rarely get that in remote communications. Off the cuff remarks, ideas, frustrations won't be picked up on unless the initiator specifically wants it to be. If a colleague bangs her fist out of frustration with a work challenge at home, I don't get to offer up a sympathetic "Anything I can help with?". It's partly this reason that we value our one day a week in the office. We might not have any agenda or even specific items to discuss. I might spend the whole day doing nothing that I couldn't have easily done at home and without the irritation and expense of a commute in, but more often than not in those situations there is some general chit-chat that will lead to a more in-depth and valuable discussion that we simply would have not had by not being physically present together.
Another downside might be down to personal working practices, motivations, and environment. In an office setting the work environment is controlled. It might not be ideal - maybe there's too much background noise, maybe the desks are the wrong size, maybe you're sat under an air vent or next to the office joker, but to all intents and purposes it is designed as a working environment presumably reflecting company ethos and culture. Your remote working environment might not be. I'm lucky enough that I have a specific office/study at home. It is furnished and set up to my personal preferences. It is the environment in which I feel most productive. Not everyone will have that luxury and they may find their own working environment to be to the detriment of their productivity or even their health (slouching in an armchair for the day will quickly lose its appeal). I've recently worked from home whilst my wife has been off work on maternity leave with our daughter. There have been plenty of positives of working from home and getting increased contact with my baby but there are difficulties within that arrangement as well. If my daughter is crying then she won't care that I've got an important conference call in 5 minutes! It's all been surmountable and the good outweighs the bad but I have a personal responsibility to ensure that my working environment is appropriate. There were many times when I longed for the escape of an office but usually in those situations, an escape to the garden or the coffee shop was an acceptable course of action.
From a business perspective there is a risk that being overly flexible to remote working agreement might be organisationally challenging. I think in this regard there needs to be mutual understanding and trust between employer and employee. Remote working arrangements may need to be flexible from both sides with appropriate give and take. "I never come in on Monday's" would be a challenging stance to take if an important client or overseas colleague were to be visiting the office on a Monday. Expected behaviours and fair advance warning might need to be applied. At the very least remote working arrangements should not be to the detriment of the business. A healthy employer/employee relationship will see each aware and sympathetic of the other's needs.
Additionally I think there is still a stigma attached to remote working. I can't tell you the number of times someone makes a 'funny' comment when I tell them I typically work from home. It's usually along the lines of "Working from home eh?" with the obligatory finger quotations. As though working from home is a skive. It's a stigma that comes from the same mindset that productivity is measured in the number of hours you are in attendance of your job rather than what is achieved in the course of your attendance. I was once on an internal management training course where one attendee said she felt compelled, as manager, to be the last one on her team to leave at the end of the day. She did so with good intentions. The training course included 360 feedback from our teams. Guess what her team said? Overall a supportive manager but there was a culture of long hours and team members were embarrassed to be the first to leave at the end of the day. To this end, I'm occasionally guilty as well and it can manifest itself in my reaction to distractions. Offices are not without distractions and neither is remote working - although there are differences. I'm still overly receptive to the ping of an alert when I'm trying to concentrate on work that requires my attention. Time to respond to these electronic pings, rings, buzzes, and beeps I suspect stems from a desire to be seen to be alert and active. As if I need to actively prove that I'm present and 'on it' when, in fact, I should be concentrating on the more immediate task in hand. The era of hypermobility should allow us space when we need it and deliver us a meaningful and fulfilled working life.
Despite the stigma that does still exist I believe and hope that this type of mindset is starting to dissipate. Employees are increasingly striving for a better work/life balance and employers are seeing the benefits of a healthy, happy, motivated workforce. I'm fortunate enough to be writing this blog post at my family's holiday home in Wales, whilst I watch the tide come in. Earlier in the day, from this same seat, I helped a project manager in her set up of a large multi-country study with some complex segmentation calculations. My office is where I choose it to be and why should that matter?
