A recent article cites Bill Gates who several years ago predicted that in the search for talent it would be important for organizations to offer employees the flexibility that comes with working remotely. The article goes on to note the advantages of remote work, including savings for both the employees and the organizations for which they work, and greater flexibility, productivity, and happiness for employees.
But what is “remote” work and what are “remote” workers? “Remote” from what or where? The use of remote signifies that the employee is not present in some central organizational workplace, perhaps an office, a studio, a laboratory, etc. This seems like a very limited and perhaps biased way to describe what might not be remote at all if the point of departure is the home and not the office. For much of human history, a good deal of work and a good many workers were located at home so perhaps the current shift to remote work might be viewed as a return to a more normal and integrated pattern of living.
An interesting perspective on this is provided by the case of Gitlab, which has only “remote” workers, 850 of them spread across 55 countries. The Gitlab example is informative because after years of only remote workers, an attempt prompted by investors to create an office for certain units was short-lived when people ended up not coming in and the office was abandoned. A culture that embraced widely distributed work and workers from the start did not naturally support a workplace.
Gitlab leaders offer several lessons for maintaining operations with a far flung staff. These include focusing on results instead of hours worked, documenting everything as you go, and viewing the challenges that accompany a workforce that is not located centrally as opportunities to learn how to operate under those conditions.
Some more general lessons may be drawn for organizations intentionally designed to take advantage of the talent available when the geographic constraints of a central workplace are removed. First, there seem to be advantages to an all-remote workforce because leaders can focus on creating conditions optimized for such an arrangement without being distracted by the demands of a central office. Second, when all members of the team are remote, even the leadership, those not in an office are not viewed as suspect or deficient. Third, providing digital tools and platforms to organize and scaffold work is essential. Fourth, in the absence of the visibility afforded by a common workplace, efforts to make work visible are essential.
LatrLab is committed to remaining totally online and drawing on the lessons learned from other such efforts to cast the widest possible talent net. The challenges of this path offer many learning opportunities that are sure to be engaging and informative. And, of course, it will be important to understand the impact of working outside a central workplace on the appeal of located-based learning institutions. Will workers who work at home be less likely to seek a learning center or campus for their education or will the absence of physical proximity to co-workers lead individuals to seek the close social relations of a traditional learning institution?
Finally, although there are substantial advantages of working without a central office, I am skeptical of one often cited advantage of working at home, namely a better work-life balance. Other than a reduction in commuting hours, working at home does not eliminate the dual demands of home life and a job. In fact, in some ways it brings them to the fore. After all, the office facilities team handles plumbing problems in the office, but at home I either handle them directly or supervise the plumber – if I can reach one!
Be the first to comment