Hi Zee. Is working from home actually a perk?
Nobody should be forced to sit in a cubicle just to prove they're working... unless it actually makes sense.
Dear Zee, have you noticed return-to-office (RTO) mandates seem to be a hot topic lately?
It’s interesting. While some companies are doubling down on remote work, others are demanding everyone back five days a week and somewhere in the middle are thousands of organizations awkwardly trying to figure out what the hell ‘hybrid’ means.
If you're just entering the workforce (or you’re one of the unlucky ones looking for a job in this ridiculous market) , it probably feels like working from home is this mythical prize everyone is fighting over.
As someone who has worked remotely for years, let me tell you something that might surprise you (and that you should remember as you’re negotiating contracts)... Working from home should not be treated like a perk, it's an operating model. And yes Zee, these are two very different things.
From what I’m seeing online, we seem to have turned remote work into an emotional debate instead of a business conversation. Employees see flexibility while employers see productivity. Then we have politicians who see struggling downtown cores and commercial landlords that see empty buildings. In my humble opinion (ha!)... everyone is spending too much time arguing about where people should sit, and enough time talking about how work should actually work.
Why is RTO such a hot topic?
A little while ago I asked the all knowing Threads community why they thought organizations were suddenly pushing so aggressively for return-to-office mandates. I expected the usual answers about collaboration and culture, but dozens of people offered a much more nuanced picture.
Yes, some people blamed control… of course. I expected this and it’s a legitimate one. For decades, management systems were built around monitoring activity (hours worked, desk time, being available, etc). Remote work exposed how many companies never actually built systems around outcomes, accountability and trust. Leaders are genuinely questioning whether they can maintain management practices in a world where workers expect more autonomy.
I read an article last week about a study suggesting that leaders with stronger narcissistic traits are more likely to support strict office mandates. While it’s an interesting piece of research, I still don't think it's the whole story. I’m thinking blaming everything on bad bosses is too easy. It ignores some of the much bigger systems shaping these decisions.
Here’s a few other, hot takes (man I hate the phrase hot takes):
Many organizations are locked into expensive commercial real estate leases that suddenly look very difficult to justify if nobody is using the office.
Corporate organizations are under pressure from municipal governments trying to revive downtown economies that were built around office workers buying coffee, paying for parking and grabbing lunch every day.
Some companies have quietly discovered that mandatory office attendance encourages resignations, making it an inexpensive way to reduce headcount without formal layoffs (this is super gross and I hate it).
There is some evidence that certain types of creative work benefit from proximity and that innovation happens through spontaneous interactions.
Some organizations are genuinely worried about IT security, data protection and compliance in a distributed workforce. Remote work changed the threat landscape and some companies discovered their systems, policies and employee training weren’t built for people accessing sensitive information from home networks, personal devices or coffee shops.
There is an argument about trying to rebuild ‘culture’ by recreating the physical environment where culture used to happen. Lets be honest though, the office was never the source of culture… it was just the location where culture showed up.
The other awkward part we have to acknowledge is that sometimes we workers did this to ourselves. Let’s be honest, remote work has been abused (by some people!). I've seen it firsthand. I've worked with people trying to homeschool children while working full-time and I've seen employees quietly juggle two full-time jobs, half-assing it at both. (Talk about the ultimate double-dipping!)
These people piss me off because they’re taking advantage of flexibility and potentially ruining it for others. And the fact that managers allowed the abusers to ruin it for everyone else, pissed me off even more! Why do we redesign an entire operating model because a handful of people abused it? We don't eliminate expense accounts because someone submitted a fraudulent receipt. We don't cancel vacation because one employee lied about being sick. We deal with the individual problem.
Perhaps outside of the list of reasons, what fascinated me most about the Threads conversations was realizing that everyone seems to be defining productivity differently.
Many leaders described productivity as visibility, you know, talking, ideas bouncing around, quick decisions and energy in the office.
Employees described productivity as focus. Like fewer interruptions, less commuting and more time spent actually doing the work instead of preparing to do the work.
Neither perspective is inherently wrong, they're simply measuring different things.
Stop Calling Work From Home a Perk
The Threads community brought up another interesting discussion surrounding accessibility. As great as it might sound to you, remote work isn't a luxury for everyone. For many people with disabilities, chronic illnesses, neurodivergence or caregiving responsibilities, it's what allows them to participate in the workforce in the first place. Calling flexibility a "perk" ignores the fact that, for some people, it's simply good workplace design.
And so I’ll say it again: Working from home isn't a perk. Neither is hybrid. AND, neither is working in an office. They're all different operating models. Just like Agile isn't a perk, shift work isn't a perk and being a travelling consultant isn't a perk. They're simply different ways of organizing work to achieve a particular outcome.
Every operating model comes with trade-offs. Every one requires different systems, different technology, different leadership skills, different communication habits and different ways of measuring performance. You can't build an office-first culture and expect it to magically function remotely. You also can't force everyone back into an office if your work is fundamentally asynchronous and distributed.
And this is why I think the discussion we’ve been having around remote work is all wrong. The question isn't whether companies should be remote, hybrid or in-office. The question is whether the operating model actually supports the business strategy while creating an environment where people can do their best work.
Sometimes the answer will be five days in the office. Sometimes it'll be fully remote. Sometimes it'll be something in between. And guess what, none of those choices are inherently better than the others. What actually matters is whether the decision was made intentionally.
The modern workplace isn't broken because we can't agree where people should sit. It's broken because we're still designing work around buildings instead of outcomes. Until we stop confusing geography with strategy, we'll keep arguing about desks instead of designing work that actually works.