„No, I want to continue working from home or remotely.“

In spring 2020, millions of employees were suddenly only able to work from home virtually overnight due to the pandemic. This change was an organizational and cultural tour de force for companies and their employees: Kitchen tables became desks, video conferencing replaced meetings and digital tools restructured collaboration. However, what began as an emergency solution has now become the new normal for many employees. They are correspondingly irritated when companies ask them to be more present at work again.

Why companies want more presence

The reasons given by the companies for this are mostly understandable. For example, many have found that when working (together) at a distance

• the quality of the service decreases,
• the exchange of ideas and experience is reduced,
• identification with the company decreases,
• new employees are more difficult to train,
• coordination processes take longer,
• the management of projects becomes more difficult and
• conflicts can arise between employees who are required to be present and those who work remotely, jeopardizing the sense of togetherness.

For this reason, many companies consider a stronger presence of their employees - especially in the «white collar area» - to be necessary again.

Employees experience a „role backwards“

For those working from home, however, a return to the office means a new change - and they often perceive a corresponding request as a cultural «role backwards» on the part of their employer. This is because they have learned to appreciate the benefits of remote working and have developed new living and working routines.

For example, most homeworkers now appreciate the fact that they no longer have to travel to the office every day, which gives them more free time. They also appreciate the fact that they can do the laundry, mow the lawn, do the shopping, deal with the authorities, etc. during the day, so their free time really is free time. They also appreciate the fact that they can now look after their children and relatives in need of care more easily. This has all become the new normal for them, which is why a return to the office is synonymous with more stress, less autonomy and higher costs.

And when companies impose compulsory attendance? Then they often interpret this as a signal of mistrust: «I'm not trusted - they want to control me more.» Even if this is not the intention, it usually drives a wedge into the relationship between the company and its employees.

Employees who are particularly sensitive to this kind of change

• have consciously chosen their employer in recent years because of the flexible working models offered or
• have relocated their place of residence in reliance on the remote option.

For them, an increased attendance requirement feels like the withdrawal of a «fundamental right». In addition, they perceive a corresponding demand as an authoritarian change of course by their employer - as for them, the possibility of working remotely is an expression of a modern work culture that is characterized by a focus on results rather than compulsory attendance.

What companies should look out for

If companies plan to increase attendance times, they are setting a new course not only in terms of organization but also culturally from the point of view of their employees. Accordingly, they should approach such plans with caution and prudence.

1. Check the real need: Not all of the problems mentioned by the companies are due to remote working. In many cases, processes have not been sufficiently adapted to the changed framework conditions and managers are not sufficiently qualified to manage hybrid teams and remote employees. It is therefore important to conduct a thorough problem and needs analysis.
2. Argue transparently: Abstract references to «operational necessities» rarely convince employees. Concrete examples - for example from project management, onboarding and service - increase comprehensibility. The more fact-based the justification, the greater the acceptance.
3. Differentiate instead of generalizing: Not all activities require the same amount of presence. Teamwork usually benefits from this, concentrated individual work does not. Hybrid models with fixed team days to exchange ideas and flexible home office days for focused work are therefore often sensible.
4. Dialog instead of top-down: If you announce changes unilaterally, you risk resistance. Surveys, workshops or pilot projects increase participation and identification with the solution.
5. Show a willingness to compromise: Rigid five-day attendance models are often not absolutely necessary in everyday working life. Individual solutions - for parents, commuters or sought-after experts, for example - signal appreciation. Transitional arrangements can make the changeover easier.
6. Making presence meaningful: Office days must have a recognizable added value for employees, for example due to the interaction that takes place. If everyone in the office - as in the home office - just sits in isolation at their laptops, this does not justify the commute from the employee's point of view.
7. Emphasize trust: The increased presence must not appear to be an instrument of control. Individual performance deficits should be addressed individually. Blanket measures quickly create a feeling of collective surveillance.

Risks of a clumsy approach

Companies that ignore these aspects risk a decline in identification, internal resignations and higher staff turnover. Many companies also report a significant increase in sick days following the introduction of stricter attendance regulations - an indication of their low acceptance.

High-performing specialists with good job market prospects in particular react very sensitively to a perceived loss of autonomy and trust. It forces them to change employers.

Keeping an eye on the future of work

The debate surrounding the topic of «working from home or remotely» is not only an organizational one, but also a cultural one. Companies have understandable reasons for being more present and employees have understandable reasons against it. That's why those who treat the return to the office as a question of power lose out. On the other hand, those who see it as a joint negotiation process can achieve both: a higher presence and performance as well as satisfied employees.

When redesigning attendance regulations, companies should focus less on the past and more on the future of work. For example, questions such as:

• Which processes will we largely automate in the near future with the help of AI, among other things? And:
• Which skills will be essential for our company's service provision in the future?“

They should also bear this in mind: The future of (collaborative) work in companies does not generally lie in an either-or approach, but in hybrid models that make intelligent use of modern information and communication technology and take into account both operational requirements and the needs and realities of employees' lives.

Author

Dr. Georg Kraus is the owner of the management consultancy Kraus & Partner, Bruchsal, which specializes in change and transformation (www.kraus-und-partner.de). He holds a professorship at the Technical University of Clausthal and is a lecturer at the University of Karlsruhe and the IAE in Aix-en-provence.