Remote and In Person
Lots of companies are attempting to determine whether they should bring employees back to the workplace they ran out of last year. To be safe, we followed the world’s protocol to fight, flight or freeze. Employees flew home and hunkered down to fight. And now some of us are frozen in place. We don’t feel that same rush to run back to the workplace. There are any number of reasons not to go back and an employer’s reason to return has to be bigger than an employee’s why to stay safely at home. The newness of how to handle the workplace during this type of crisis wasn’t on the drawing board.
Remotely satisfied
Many companies like to proclaim that they care about their employees. This is usually rationalized by the usual business credo of pay, benefits and pizza on Fridays. It’s difficult to tell how this method was originally determined but it was thrown into the copy machine and accepted as the way to show appreciation. During the pandemic, if the remote work tasks were completed successfully, it is crucial to accept that the old proofing model was limited. New thought is what makes business change, possibly for the better. Even if the first remote weeks weren’t without fault, it paved the way for different ideas that would improve business solutions in other ways. Satisfaction is what makes freezing at home so popular.
Remote Fear
Many companies let their fear toward their employees show when they discuss why they want their employees under their noses. If you feel like you need control, you like to keep employees close. Being able to shout “present” used to mean something in elementary school. It did not necessarily mean that you were paying attention. But trust was well established in the last year in a new way by the employees who demonstrated their ability to surpass the obstacles of working remotely. No studies were necessary; real life provided the outcome. Look at how well most adjusted; can an employer fight that reality? And if an employer wants to discount real life, that says more about them than about their employees. Some may need to return to an office to perform better. It isn’t really that difficult to figure out who needs to collaborate in person unless we make a big deal about it through false thoughts.
Remote Bravery
The best way to determine who should return to an office should be based on the thoughts of an employee. Holding an employee accountable when they determine their performance parameters helps a business understand what the employee will contribute and allows the employee to make their own work goals. It clarifies the accountability and removes subjectivity from a manager’s determination of a worker’s value. When that is in place, you don’t get managers telling subordinates that their expectations of an employee are higher than someone else performing the same work. It eliminates unfair treatment. It provides clarity to directors of what role a good manager plays in an employee’s performance. And helps to weed out the managers who could never get the whole evaluation and motivation thing right. When an employee decides whether they will perform or not, they have made their choice. The manager may have had little to do with it. A brave employer equips each employee with the best set of circumstances for them to produce and shine whether they see them in person or not.
When an employer creates imbalance in the workplace, does the workplace suffer? Can employers treat workers like grown-ups and hold them accountable and properly appreciate them for predetermined tasks? How many more ways can business improve that feel safe to employees?
