The remote work debate is asking the wrong question
A study, an academic, and an artist walk into a bar...
Ok. This week has been slightly overwhelming.
One of the questions I’ve been grappling with as I research The Collective Code is the balance between remote and in-person collaboration.
At a very high level, the arguments can be summarised like this:
(In-person) - In-person is the gold standard, and virtual can only go so far. We need to be in situ with other humans to create magic, we need serendipity, and our very humanness requires that we see them (and their mannerisms, in-between meeting asides, and body language) in person.
(Remote) - Technology can broaden our worlds as well as better fit around our lifestyles. It gives us access to a broader range of collaborators than would ever have been the case, unlocking new breakthroughs (hello vaccines!) and diversity of perspectives. It can be more inclusive and can give us work-life balance.
Just as I was mulling this over (for the millionth time in the last 18 months), three new data points were beamed into my brain, with the same erratic energy of London buses arriving at the same time.
As an advance warning - this week’s essay will in no way provide answers, but I do want to provide a provocation and would love to hear your thoughts.
In no particular order:
1/
A huge new study came out about remote work and its impact on mental health and social isolation. Published in Science magazine, it was picked up by all manner of news outlets and started a big discussion online.
Rather than paraphrase, I’ll quote the Editor’s Summary so you get the gist:
“Remote work skyrocketed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Research since has prioritized studying the impact of working remotely on productivity and job satisfaction but neglected other consequences such as loneliness and mental health. Emanuel et al. examined pre- and postpandemic population-level changes in well-being among workers in remote-capable jobs versus jobs necessitating on-site presence (see the Perspective by Zang and O’Brien). After the pandemic, workers in remote-capable jobs spent more time working alone and avoided social activities with their friends, remaining more isolated both during and after work. This pattern was most pronounced among remote workers living alone: They spent entire days without human contact and their mental distress, use of mental healthcare, and antidepressants increased acutely”. (Ekeoma Uzogara)
The interesting thing about the paper is that while the headline (‘remote work can lead to more isolation and mental health challenges’) is stark, the findings were a little more nuanced than that.
For one thing, the effect is a lot more pronounced in people who live alone.
For another, it actually found that hybrid work can produce the best outcomes (at 1-2 days per week from home).
And (most interestingly for my purposes), there was no exploration of the impact of work design on loneliness and isolation, only a binary of remote vs non remote work.
Intrigued, I emailed one of the study’s authors, economist Natalia Emanuel, to ask whether work design might be part of the story. She replied that “workplace design matters tremendously” and said that she and her co-authors explore these questions in more depth in a forthcoming book (I am excited to read it!).
In my own work (and in the conversations with experts I’ve interviewed), I’ve seen significant variation in the quality of remote experiences depending on factors such as team rituals, facilitation practices, community-building efforts, and the broader design of collaboration.
2/
I interviewed an academic who specialises in virtual collaboration. I won’t go into the whole conversation (it was vast, and fascinating, and deserving of its own essay), but one thing she said really lodged in my brain. In her field, there is an influential idea that I will try and explain here without overly butchering it. The interfaces in virtual collaboration have historically been thought of as being like crutches. They compensate for absence. We can’t meet in person, so we use Zoom and Miro, and individual screens, and monitors attached to meeting rooms as a substitute - our crutches. Instead, the provocation goes, what if we thought of these interfaces as shoes - things that enhanced life, rather than compensate for limitations?
If the study asks whether remote work affects remote connection, the virtual collaboration researchers are asking a different question - assuming people are going to work remotely anyway (at least some of the time), what if we could design virtual collaboration that was additive rather than a poor substitute?
3/
I spoke to an artist friend who is trying to create more accountability in her own practice, as well as build community. She talked about the lack of third spaces where she lives (I should probably mention she lives regionally), and the impact that has on her creative work and community. She’s doing a couple of things about it. One will be a virtual meet-up, with friends and colleagues around the world. The other will be applying for a local grant to activate a local, in person creative space.
Increasingly, I suspect the future of work isn’t a choice between remote and in-person. It’s learning how to design intentionally for connection across both. This is particularly important as the data shows us that fewer people will be working in companies in the future, and more will be working for themselves and in portfolio careers. In other words, a lot of people won’t be able to just rock up to an office every day and have in-person collaboration just happen - they will need to curate it themselves.
For example, members of a global collective of experts, selected because of their expertise in a particular field, may choose to co-locate with others in the same city, while regularly connecting with the broader group in carefully designed sessions.
A team working for a big company, all based in the same place, could choose to have two days at home each week for deep work, as well as some virtual meetings (all joining on their own devices) to allow a different mode of communication and make space for different communication styles in the team.
A solo freelancer, working for a global company headquartered on the other side, could curate a local community and co-working environment to provide a richer local experience, while creating a better experience with their global colleagues through thoughtful remote collaboration practices.
More on these thoughtful remote collaboration practices very soon… and in the mean time (and as always), would love to hear your thoughts.
(Also, I have to admit the voiceover audios have fallen off my radar a little. No reason other than I forgot! I am a fallible human after all. Curious if I should start them again? Substack doesn’t tell me if people listen to them, so I have no idea if they’re worthwhile.)