Work From Home vs Face-to-Face

This is one of those topics where many people seem to have an opinion, so I thought I would add to the chorus. Not wanting to sound like a nay-sayer or a know-it-all, but it is a bit of a red herring. The real question is what motivates employees, not, where should employees sit.

Working in the office under a micro-managing over-bearing boss is demotivating, whereas someone working from home (WFH) with a supportive boss can be motivating. Whether the work arrangements are WFH or a hybrid model, it is missing the point: the question is, how do you manage and lead staff to increase their intrinsic motivation

Developing intrinsic motivation in your staff is the goal, and face-to-face vs WFH is missing the point. The main factors to focus on for developing intrinsic motivation is three-fold: people need experiences that connect them to colleagues in a meaningful way (relatedness), empower them to feel like they have some say in how they do their job (autonomy), and grow their skills (mastery). This model of motivation is called “Self-Determination Theory” and implementing it can be done independent of where the employee works. These three variables can be nurtured and developed in all staff irrespective of whether they are WFH, or full-time in the workplace.

There was an article in the Guardian recently (14.6.24), titled, “Drum kits and kombucha: how some Australian firms are enticing Gen Z back into the office.” The article cited various firms who were offering a range of perks, or unusual office design, as a way of encouraging people back to the office. This approach has face validity, i.e., on the surface it looks like a good idea and how could it not make employees happier. But, putting aside the research that demonstrates the futility of this approach apart from a short-term benefit, we all know from our own experience, literature and popular culture, materialism does not make us happy. We are driven by other needs, and in the workplace, that is a sense of connection, autonomy and mastery. People want a humane workplace, not a pinball machine.

The same article cited a survey of 3000 workers and more than 75% of the respondents wanted a hybrid model and when asked what they cared about the most in the workplace, learning and progression, i.e., mastery, rated the highest.

There could be a more unintended and sinister side to the trinkets approach, and that is once they are in place, the boss expects the employees to respond positively to them and be more productive, but when the razzle dazzle wears off, as it will, staff go back to where they were beforehand. But the boss expects otherwise, and it could cause resentment to build because it has not had the desired effect. In addition to that, it is difficult to take something off employees due to a hard-wired bias called, “loss aversion”. So then you are stuck with these silly ineffectual gimmicks and have wasted time and energy, i.e., opportunity costs, when the time and resources could have been better spent towards building an effective motivational framework for your employees.

Compare that pseudo-scientific approach with a study published in Nature (12.6.24) out of Standford University, titled, “Hybrid work is a ‘win-win-win’ for companies and workers.” This was a well-designed study that was a randomised controlled trial involving two groups over six months; one that worked as a hybrid model versus the other that worked full-time in the office. The authors found that employees who worked from home for two days a week are just as productive and as likely to be promoted as their fully office-based colleagues. Resignations fell by 33% in the hybrid group compared to the office group, which they attributed to the hybrid workers having to commute to the office less. The authors concluded with the following:

“For business leaders, the study confirms that concerns that hybrid work does more harm than good are overblown. If managed right, letting employees work from home two or three days a week still gets you the level of mentoring, culture-building, and innovation that you want. From an economic policymaking standpoint, hybrid work is one of the few instances where there aren't major trade-offs with clear winners and clear losers. There are almost only winners."

These are informative experimental results that significantly contribute to the ongoing debate. Just reducing people’s commute times to two or three days a week, instead of five, is significant and something that they are reminded of daily. For many people in cities, commuting is expensive and time consuming, thus, reducing this is tantamount to a pay rise for some, but also frees up their leisure time so they can pursue what they like, not what their boss likes.

Some established workers who are not ambitious and are comfortable at their level, would benefit from WFH, but even then, they still need to interact with their colleagues face-to-face on a regular basis. However, ultimately, it should come down to the individual needs of each employee and not a de-humanising one-size-fits-all approach.

Treat people as individuals in an autonomous supportive environment that values mastery and meaningful working relationships. Then use WFH and a hybrid model as a working condition to help improve the morale and motivation of your staff.

About the Author:

Christopher Apps is an Organisational Psychologist and the owner of Fermion. He stays updated on the latest psychology research and shares evidence-based insights. The focus of Fermion is "Psychometric Testing for Recruitment" and “Recruitment to Retention: How to Select Good Staff & Keep Them”. If you would like to learn how to select good staff and keep them, please feel free to contact us at Fermion.

“Learn from the mistakes of others. You can’t live long enough to make them all yourself.”

Eleanor Roosevelt.