A Reason to Return to Office That Nobody Wants to Acknowledge
What's in this month's Newsletter?
Main Feature: A Reason to Return to Office That Nobody Wants to Acknowledge
Jobs and Talent
Personal and Professional Updates
The Prodigious Performer Argument
While headlines such as There’s Actually No Good Reason for Us All to Go Back to the Office and Why employees don't want to return to the office have been all the rage over the past year, competing ink with titles like The 5 Reasons You Should Return to The Office and These 6 Benefits of Returning to The Office Will Inspire Your Employees are starting to creep across our various timelines faster than unwanted Instagram Suggested Follows.
Across the articles I’ve read, there seem to be several good reasons for ditching remote-only (or remote-mainly) work:
New-hires lose out on togetherness and identity-building when everyone is remote
Younger employees miss out on network-building and mentorship opportunities
Specific collaborative activities such as brainstorming ideation and training are far more effective in-person
Casual information sharing at unplanned moments is virtually nonexistent (AKA The Water Cooler Argument)
Continuous informal interaction builds trust that helps mitigate unconstructive conflict
There are undoubtedly others. But there is one controversial reason I’ve not seen explicitly stated – perhaps understandably so, as it can be a very uncomfortable idea.
And that is that one reason to mandate returning to the office is that some colleagues whose performance is of prodigious importance to organizations achieving their goals do perform better when surrounded by others.
Plainly, some people are more important to their organizations. And if those people perform meaningfully better when they’re surrounded by colleagues at the office, there’s a very good argument to be made for surrounding them with their desired colleagues in the office! Let’s call it the Prodigious Performer Argument.
There are several problems with this argument, however.
First, it’s reasonable to point out that a model of organizational performance that relies on specific people getting exactly what they want is not very sustainable. It’s often said that a sign of organizational health is that ‘everyone is replaceable.’ Yes, it is true that we ought to strive for a state in which our organizations can withstand departures (after all, everyone eventually leaves, by choice or not…). However, in reality, many organizations suffer tremendously when key people leave.
Imagine a small company of 50 people where one or two salespeople are responsible for a significant portion of the company’s revenue. Yes, great salespeople are out there and in a macro-sense these star performers are replaceable. But if these two superstars were to quit it does not mean that the company could find, hire, and onboard good-enough replacements before needing to cut costs (people) elsewhere or going belly-up. Larger organizations can usually withstand key personnel turnover with more grace, but they can suffer too when specific people walk out the door.
The broad stroke notion that ‘everyone is replaceable’ is a myth. It depends on the context. So it is entirely reasonable that at certain stages of maturity, or certain business models, or given certain external circumstances, an organization might be overly-reliant on specific performers. It may be ‘unhealthy’ but it’s better than dead. Organizations rely on Prodigious Performers more than they’d like to admit.
Another objection to the Prodigious Performer Argument is that rather than catering to them and forcing everyone else (who would rather be remote) to come into the office, wouldn’t it be better to train the star performer and give them the tools to be successful enough in a remote-first workplace?
Fair point! The problem is that this is very difficult to pull off. Supposing their poorer remote performance is a matter of tools, we could try to implement technologies to mimic (or replace) in-person interaction. Indeed, that’s what most companies did and are doing (hi, Zoom!). Perhaps it’s a matter of skill-deficiency in a remote environment? Well, we could train them on communication techniques, work habits, organizational and executive-functioning strategies to help these Prodigious Performers replicate in-person work while remote. That’s hard but it’s not impossible. Indeed, organizations have been making investments in training better remote work practices.
The real challenge, I suspect, is not a matter of an external hill (technology availability) or skill, but a problem of will. What if these Prodigious Performers simply don’t want to revamp their work practices for remote work?
Does this just mean that if your boss believes they perform better with everyone in the office, then the organization should mandate that we all get over it and come into the office? Yes, it does! If – and this is a key if – their performance can be meaningfully, measurably improved by an in-person work environment. If that sounds hard to prove, it is! As it should be. Which is why the burden of proof falls on those who are arguing that in-person work is necessary.
It is here that we’re faced with the hardest question to answer: What if a Prodigious Performer concedes that performance isn’t meaningfully, measurably suffering but they simply just don’t like remote work? Is the Prodigious Performer’s pure preference for in-person work enough to justify a return to office? What if they just want to be working at an in-person organization?
(Here’s the thing: I suspect that many individuals, especially those with hierarchical seniority at their organizations, are instigating a return to office primarily because it makes them feel good to be around others over whom they have authority and power. They like being able to walk the halls and be approached by those that need something from them. They like the feeling of being able to spread out in their office and shut the door. They like having IT support just down the hall when their Wifi isn’t working. Now, few would readily admit to this even if they were self-aware enough to realize it, but I suspect that this pure enjoyment of authority is a key driver of why many like being in-office.)
What then? Well, it depends.
Are they willing to die on that hill? If someone is going to leave simply because they want to work in-person with others… well, it might hurt, but you may have a good case for going in-person if the cost of their departure outweighs the cost of everyone else’s (who prefers remote work) discontent. After all, someone quitting and therefore not performing at all for your organization is an extreme version of them underperforming for your organization.
So yes, if someone is truly a Prodigious Performer and they are demanding we work in-person, that might be sufficient to call folks back into the office.
If you find yourself in this situation, what it really means is that the key organizational problem is not one of remote work but rather it’s one where certain people may have outsized influence on organizational performance. No remote/hybrid solution is going to solve this larger talent strategy issue.
There’s a decent chance that despite its logic you might still find the Prodigious Performer Argument unpalatable. It might just seem unfair and therefore unreasonable. This is interesting because it’s not controversial just to acknowledge that a key role we play is to enable others to do their best work. If performance requires interconnected work then it’s no surprise that we can and should enhance one another.
I suspect that the discomfort lies in acknowledging that the primary benefit of some workers may be simply in service to others and that this reality is never explicitly discussed.
One of my first professional jobs was essentially as an assistant to the company’s CHRO. On paper, my job title was an HR/Operations position, but functionally that was the job. I can remember one day early on in my tenure when the CHRO said to me “Jake, your main job is to increase my bandwidth.” Arrogantly, I was hurt by this (What?! I’m smart! I’ve got ideas!), but their point was a good one. I existed to allow them to work in a way they wanted and this in turn produced results for the company. It was actually bottom-line sensible to have me play that role.
In retrospect, the problem I had was not with this reality, but that the reality was obscured during the hiring process. Had the job been called Assistant to the CHRO, I might never have applied, but if I had then I would have walked in with my eyes open about my role as bandwidth-increaser.
So I suspect that an underlying culprit of why the Prodigious Performer Argument may remain unpalatable is unstated expectations. Very few of us are told during a job search that a primary value of our role is to enhance a specific person’s performance, but many organizations function such that this is a reality for many positions. Solving the remote work dilemma may just be treating the symptoms of a much larger disorder.
Regardless, it’s worth a hard look in the mirror. Perhaps it is bottom-line justifiable to bring everyone back in-person just to optimize for a few Prodigious Performers. If that’s the case, organizations would do well to acknowledge it explicitly. However, I suspect that the organizations struggling the most with this reality will be among the least likely to be so forthright with their people.
Jobs and Talent
Are you – or is someone you know – on the job hunt? Got a job you need to fill? Let me know. Maybe I can showcase them here!
What I’ve Been Reading:
This section has moved to a separate monthly posting on LinkedIn. It would make me very happy if you would subscribe to the LinkedIn version right here.
Personal & Professional Updates
Charlotte had a bit of a rough go on our recent vacation (see: trip) but ultimately pulled through and was her usual goofy, sweet, slightly-stubborn, overly-clever self. However, just last night, on July 18, 2022, as we were getting ready for bed she asked why we couldn’t have carrots… and then preceded to ask ‘why?’ in response to each of my subsequent answers. We have arrived.
That's it for this edition - please reach out if I can be at all helpful.
Be compassionate and intentional.