On a September day in 1994, 32,000 AT&T employees telecommuted from home in an alternative work experiment widely heralded as the wave of the future. Almost 30 years later, in June, AT&T ordered 60,000 managers working remotely to return to the office, forcing 9,000 of them who do not live within commuting distance of AT&T’s nine regional offices to relocate or resign.

Flexible work can make employees happier and more productive. But seemingly every time it is tried, employers do a rapid about-face and return to business as usual. The cycle is repeating itself, this time in the recent wave of return-to-office directives, or RTO. Although most employers cite concerns over productivity, there is a deeper reason for the continued refusal to embrace alternative work.

Americans are culturally hard-wired to define work as incompatible with flexibility. If employees are happy and relaxed, they must not really be working. Any attempts to transform the workplace crash into this harsh reality.

I am an anthropologist who studies the cultural assumptions that shape how humans think about work. Americans define work as a form of virtuous sacrifice, which makes discomfort a cultural prerequisite for work. Long commutes, unforgiving hours and 24/7 availability are not the unfortunate side effects of the modern workplace. They are the prerequisites of work in America.

Office misery is a dominant motif in American pop culture. Everyone from Mr. Incredible to the hapless intern in “The Devil Wears Prada” is saddled with the same combination of mind-numbing tasks, dastardly office politics and impossible deadlines because, well, that’s what work is. We chastise one another with the adage, “If it was fun, it wouldn’t be called work,” and anyone who simply meets, rather than exceeds, their job requirements is deemed a “quiet quitter.”

The most visible manifestation of this cultural assumption is the tendency to associate flexibility with laziness. Tech leader Elon Musk didn’t leave room for doubt when he declared that remote workers “should pretend to work somewhere else,” but most CEOs consistently imply that individuals who seek flexibility are doing so to dodge work. Long before COVID-19, employees who took advantage of flexible work policies were viewed as not committed to their work, even if their performance remained high. Perceived laziness strikes a deep chord in a nation defined by the Protestant work ethic, and it creates a blind spot in the way that Americans value types of work.

Yet, employees have myriad reasons for needing flexibility. Working parents who ask for flexible hours so they can pick up their children at school are not lazy. Dual-earner couples who struggle to find jobs in the same geographic location are not lazy. Adult children caring for elderly parents across the country are not lazy. People of color who want to avoid constant microaggressions are not lazy. They are trying to do their jobs despite the many obstacles in their path. They are 21st century employees with 21st century needs working according to early 20th century norms.

And research backs this up. The COVID-19 pandemic was a real-life experiment in flexible work, and the results were overwhelmingly positive. Research shows that flexible work arrangements increase employee satisfaction, improve work-life balance, support diversity and boost labor force participation of working parents with minimal impact on productivity. Depending on the type of work, they can also increase productivity. Nevertheless, butts in chairs is the new metric for corporate productivity. Ninety percent of companies intend to have RTO policies this year, at significant cost to the diversity, morale and vitality of the workforce.

Undoubtedly, certain professions and tasks require in-person work and set schedules. Some jobs are not amenable to remote work, but that does not mean they can’t embrace other forms of flexibility. The need for in-person collaboration and career development opportunities for new employees are also legitimate concerns in remote and hybrid workplaces that must be addressed. But sweeping RTO orders that impose rigid pre-COVID-19 work styles foreclose the possibility of meaningful dialogue between employees and employers about mutually beneficial work arrangements. Many CEOs who have issued sweeping RTO edicts have outsourced flexible work to other countries. They should embrace that same ethos with their U.S. employees.

We must challenge these assumptions by embracing bold new experiments in work that go beyond the in-person versus remote debate to consider innovative new models that advance the twin goals of productivity and employee satisfaction. A revised concept of work would recognize that work-life balance is the mainstay of employee productivity. It would reward employees based on outcomes, not face time or perceived commitment to work. It would encourage employees and employers to experiment with new models of work, such as radical flexibility, which empowers teams to decide not only the location of their work but also their daily schedules (e.g., nontraditional work hours), their effort and their activities. Technology consultancy Gartner recently found that when organizations deliver radical flexibility, “the percentage of employees defined as high performers increases by 40%.”

A recent report by Moody’s found that U.S. gross domestic product could grow by $1 trillion over the next decade if women’s workforce participation reached levels in other developed economies. Imagine what the figure would be if we unlocked the potential of the many different employees who want to work but require flexibility.

We must confront our punitive assumptions about work and embrace bold new experiments in when, where, how and how much Americans work. Otherwise, we will just repeat the AT&T cycle all over again and miss the opportunity to create a more just, productive and dynamic workplace.

___

©2024 Chicago Tribune. Visit at chicagotribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Copy the Story Link

« Previous

Douglas Rooks: Union revival no longer a pipe dream

Next »

Maine Compass: We can’t rely on historic context for contemporary gun laws