Thanks for another insightful edition. One of the things I find frustratingly lacking in a lot of the conversations around remote work and WFH is the impact that the pandemic had at the start (in a positive way) on disabled people who were unable to work in the office, and how this rolling back of WFH provisions is bringing back some of the issues so many people were pushing against for so long.
I worked at the BBC (I went to one of your lunchtime talks!) and was almost entirely fully remote before the pandemic. I found it emotionally very challenging and although was really lucky with my team, I still felt like I was missing out. When everything suddenly went remote I felt, for the first time in years, like I wasn't alone. Like I could connect and be part of things.
I'd been forced into offices in previous roles I'd done (for work that could be entirely remote), eventually getting too unwell to work at all for periods of time. And I wonder whether we're going back to excluding people from the workforce who could work, even a little bit, if the benefits of this flexibility was recognised.
Of course, this is not the case for everybody, but there are so many people with health issues who could work if given more flexible options, people who are carers who need that extra time they'd otherwise spend commuting, etc.
I know of people who finally felt able to participate only to have that taken away from them in a push to "get back to normal", businesses that are offering lower salaries to those who want to work fully remote (I wonder if this is discrimination if that full remote is not a choice but a medical need?) and all sorts of other things that are making the job market inaccessible again.
I don't know the answers, but it's something I've been thinking a lot about recently.
Absolutely. Plus, we all know physically being in a place has no relation to mental focus. Workplaces prioritizing performative busyness aren’t terribly productive, either.
I consult with a portfolio of projects in an industry where people are mostly masters level and above. Those projects that don’t prioritize flexible options have low staff retention and are seeing positions remain unfilled for months. They have zero chance of meeting their annual goals.
On my own team there are flexibilities and people are doing great work. Some of them could not or would not go to an office every day, so by being flexible we have older people with years of insight, young people with new ideas, parents, students, caregivers and they all contribute more than we ask because they are respected. We are innovating.
Employers can try and dream the pandemic away, but it has drastically changed the way people see work.
Hi Bruce,
Thanks for another insightful edition. One of the things I find frustratingly lacking in a lot of the conversations around remote work and WFH is the impact that the pandemic had at the start (in a positive way) on disabled people who were unable to work in the office, and how this rolling back of WFH provisions is bringing back some of the issues so many people were pushing against for so long.
I worked at the BBC (I went to one of your lunchtime talks!) and was almost entirely fully remote before the pandemic. I found it emotionally very challenging and although was really lucky with my team, I still felt like I was missing out. When everything suddenly went remote I felt, for the first time in years, like I wasn't alone. Like I could connect and be part of things.
I'd been forced into offices in previous roles I'd done (for work that could be entirely remote), eventually getting too unwell to work at all for periods of time. And I wonder whether we're going back to excluding people from the workforce who could work, even a little bit, if the benefits of this flexibility was recognised.
Of course, this is not the case for everybody, but there are so many people with health issues who could work if given more flexible options, people who are carers who need that extra time they'd otherwise spend commuting, etc.
I know of people who finally felt able to participate only to have that taken away from them in a push to "get back to normal", businesses that are offering lower salaries to those who want to work fully remote (I wonder if this is discrimination if that full remote is not a choice but a medical need?) and all sorts of other things that are making the job market inaccessible again.
I don't know the answers, but it's something I've been thinking a lot about recently.
Absolutely. Plus, we all know physically being in a place has no relation to mental focus. Workplaces prioritizing performative busyness aren’t terribly productive, either.
I consult with a portfolio of projects in an industry where people are mostly masters level and above. Those projects that don’t prioritize flexible options have low staff retention and are seeing positions remain unfilled for months. They have zero chance of meeting their annual goals.
On my own team there are flexibilities and people are doing great work. Some of them could not or would not go to an office every day, so by being flexible we have older people with years of insight, young people with new ideas, parents, students, caregivers and they all contribute more than we ask because they are respected. We are innovating.
Employers can try and dream the pandemic away, but it has drastically changed the way people see work.
Yes!