To be a bit pissed off about colleagues' lack of enthusiasm to return to the office?

[spuddy56]

About 6 months ago I joined a large organisation in a fairly large team (15 ish). Since covid the company have introduced flexible working. Whether or not you go in is down to individual people and their managers. Barely any of this team ever go into the office, particularly those who worked there pre covid, although there is a newer bunch tend to go in once a week and seem to be developing really positive working and social relationships out of it. My particular role doesn't overlap theirs at all but does overlap the with the more longstanding members who are refusing to go in. Although I get on well with everyone as far as I know (but who really knows from behind a screen!), I'm also aware that they are having social meet ups without me and it just feels so hard to get a grasp on the culture and the ins and outs of working with particular people. We currently have a high turnover too, and I wonder if people feel less loyalty because they are not forming face to face relationships? The managers want to encourage creativity and collaboration but this seems to difficult to me when there's no casual conversations and bouncing around of ideas outside of zoom and emails.

Am I being unreasonable to think that people should head in to the office occasionally or do we just need to get used to this?

P.s. I actually love working from home and the flexibility, I just think some face to face collaboration would be helpful too.

YANBU and lots of people are bringing huge amounts of their own baggage to this conversation!

I worked from home pre covid with a team that were based in an office elsewhere. I did go to meet up with them every couple of months, but my job got a whole lot easier when they were all working from home, and not taking things forward based on informal chats in the office, that obviously I wasn't party to.

I started a new role a month ago, it's loosely hybrid. We can absolutely do our job from home, but it's been recognised that we're limiting learning opportunities, so we have an informal agreement that we'll go in once a week on the same day. People try to make sure they have f2f meetings set up that day, rather than zoom and it seems to be plugging the gap.

I work in marketing, and there's always been team building away days etc. I think we're seeing this as similar, building those relationships is valuable in a work context but we don't need to be sat with each other all the time.

I think every industry/company is going to have to work out a balance for themselves. I have friends who are storming work from home, their job means there's really no need for collaboration, and freed from office distractions, things are working much better. Conversely other people who have raced back to face to face because WFH just doesn't cut it for all areas of their role.

What seems to be most important is a manager who is really thinking about what you need to get the job done (not just day to day but long term) and how to facilitate that fully for the whole team.

It was one of the questions I asked in my interview, and so far, they've absolutely lived up to what they said they would do re onboarding etc.

Maybe, if that isn't something you have OP, then maybe the organisation isn't quite the right fit for you.

zabindya

YANBU, I can't stand this mentality that "only micromanaging bosses are forcing us to go back, everyone loves WFH!". Some people may love it but it's 100% not for me.“

So the people who do and are finding it a much more productive way of working should be forced in to suit those who don’t?

Yanbu to want a particular working environment for yourself, yabu to have any expectation that other people should make their work choices to allow you to have it. Work discussions in social meetings outside work, depends on what those work discussions are really and if actual decisions are being made.

Sounds like you're not a great fit for the culture of where you are, nothing particularly wrong in that. It just happens sometimes. I'd have a look for opportunities in places that have more in person working if that's something that's important to you, in the same way that I'd advise someone who isn't up for a mandatory amount of time spent in the office to find something more suited to them as well.

What's emerging is that working environments have never been comfortable for all employees - one group or another is always miserable or uncomfortable or inconvenienced or less able to do their jobs well. Parents with young children have to pay ridiculous childcare fees because employers refuse to consider their needs. People with insomnia are impacted by non-flexible working hours. People who are extrovert have totally different needs from people who are introvert. One-size-fits-all working means there's always someone who's struggling.

I guess those of who like to WFH have had it our own way for the very first time in our lives (30 years of work for me) and are reluctant to give that up! Plus employers have saved huge sums by downsizing offices and having lower utility bills etc.

But obviously, compromise and hybrid working is the only fair solution in the long run. Even introverts need to see the whites of other people's eyes occasionally.

What's emerging is that working environments have never been comfortable for all employees - one group or another is always miserable or uncomfortable or inconvenienced or less able to do their jobs well. Parents with young children have to pay ridiculous childcare fees because employers refuse to consider their needs. People with insomnia are impacted by non-flexible working hours. People who are extrovert have totally different needs from people who are introvert. One-size-fits-all working means there's always someone who's struggling.

Yep. And there were people talking about this before March 2020 too, but the issue was much less discussed.

Unfortunately it's difficult to have a sensible discussion about this issue, which is a real shame because it's incredibly important. Too many people refuse to see beyond their own limited experiences and feelings, and there's a weirdly moralistic tendency sometimes too. The reality is that different workplaces and conditions suit different people.

Office or no office, child are fees are really unavoidable unless one of the parents is available to look after them (so not working).

They are, but I assume what was meant there about young children is that when people aren't having to travel to work, they don't need as many hours so can often pay less. Or even just avoid late fees because they've been stuck in traffic or the train was delayed!

@IceVolcanoes well, yes and no. Babies need full time care. Children at school can mostly cope pretty well just so long as there's a sensible adult in the house (who can be sitting at his/her desk working). When I was a single parent with younger kids, being able to WFH most of the time probably saved me thousands in childminder fees and holiday clubs. Sometimes it meant I took some time out during the day and made the time up later on in the evening or at the weekends, but thankfully my boss was ok with that - not many are. (Was fine in the context of my work as well, won't be for all jobs.)

Not working at the same time.

Thing is, business do have legitimate needs too. It’s not unreasonable to have daytime core hours that enable people to actually schedule meetings. Having people decide that they’d rather work 7pm to 3am or 5am to 8am then 7pm to 11pm (or whatever) isn’t necessarily useful to the business - even if it suits the individual employer.

It’s not unreasonable to decide that some face to face interaction is desirable - whether because it makes the direct work task easier or for less direct reasons, like their need to support new or junior staff.

There are a whole set of different needs to be balanced. People taking an ‘I’m alright jack’ attitude about home working (or office working) doesn’t help at all.

Individual employee. I need to learn to proof read.

I think the childcare savings can likely be split into two groups.

One, younger children who still require care while the parents are working, but the saving comes from reduced hours due to not commuting. Two, older kids who would previously have been in ASC because they can't reliably get themselves too and from school, but who also don't need anything other than an adult in the vicinity when they get back. So if a parent who is wfh has the flexibility to take their lunch at 3pm or whatever, there might be a significant saving on wraparound care for their 10 year old.

Obviously some families fall into neither category even when a parent is WFH though.

@IceVolcanoes

Not working at the same time.

Thing is, business do have legitimate needs too. It’s not unreasonable to have daytime core hours that enable people to actually schedule meetings. Having people decide that they’d rather work 7pm to 3am or 5am to 8am then 7pm to 11pm (or whatever) isn’t necessarily useful to the business - even if it suits the individual employer.

It’s not unreasonable to decide that some face to face interaction is desirable - whether because it makes the direct work task easier or for less direct reasons, like their need to support new or junior staff.

There are a whole set of different needs to be balanced. People taking an ‘I’m alright jack’ attitude about home working (or office working) doesn’t help at all.

It just completely depends.

The things you've written above could all be applicable to an individual business, or they might not be necessary at all. It might be reasonable to want everyone in every day, it might be unreasonable to require any face to face interaction simply for the sake of having it. Additionally a particular business might well need to make compromises for the sake of ensuring they get the best staff- usually that's going to look like more flexibility but perhaps not always. There is so much variation.

I went into the office for a day recently and hated it. I loved the getting up and out the house, the exercise walking to the station, getting a coffee, reading on the train.

What I didn't miss is the noise in an open plan office, the constant interruptions about very minor things. The noisy eating, the smelly colleague .... I got far less done than at home.

I sound a miserable cow reading that back, I'm really not .
I did enjoy the drinks after work with a couple of colleagues who are friends now.

I agree with you that for new starters and staff retention, work from home is a disaster

Really? I left my last job (in 2018) because my then boss would not let me work from home as much as I wanted to (he then backtracked when I handed my notice in, but I'd already moved on mentally by then).

I think flexibility is crucial for staff retention. I have colleagues who are in the office every day, others who have no desire to go into the office at all or for except for important meetings (like me, I only want to go in twice a month) and everyone else inbetween. A good employer will aim to accommodate everyone as far as is reasonable. It obviously won't work for all roles and sectors, but for most office work it is completely do-able. Lots of companies have more than one office anyway, so you already had conference calls before covid - the difference is that they've moved to Teams.

I also think that on the whole, WFH is better for women. You get people saying that if you are not visible in the office you won't get promoted. Well if promotion is important to you, you make yourself visible.

But it definitely helps with childcare issues, especially with older children who can entertain themselves but need an adult around, it is easier if you have elderly care responsibilities, and it also helps if you eg have horribly heavy periods and being close to a loo for 2-3 days a month is important. Also people with certain disabilities might find it easier to work from home, or close to home in a co-working space.

I think flexible and hybrid working is very good for diversity and inclusion.

We are insisting that everyone now comes into the office a minimum of three days a week. And that they work core hours, 9-12 and 2-4. Remote working (and returning to the office) has shown a lot of people shuffle in at 1100 or midday and a significant number have gone by 3. Failure to comply with this is a disciplinary matter.

There has been a lot of unhappiness about this, as some people sold up and moved to the country, assuming that remote working would continue. But a lot of what we do involves personal interaction and building relationships, and this suffered during lockdown, as it’s harder to do this on the phone or on Zoom.

We have a designated day per week where attendance is strongly encouraged, it rotates through Monday to Friday so different working patterns can accommodate it - seems to be working pretty well.

YABU. People are employed to do a job, they should work wherever they are best able to do it as efficiently as possible.

Was just thinking about the heavy periods point @yellowsuninthesky God what a nightmare that was, sitting in meetings feeling yourself leak through your second level of sanpro. Scurrying to the public loos in Waterloo (nasty as hell) to change everything before I dared embark on the second leg of my long commute. Having to take wet wipes everywhere. Never mentioned any of this to my boss or colleagues because I'd have looked like a weirdo.

Thankfully I'm an old gimmer now although I suspect menopause symptoms aren't always huge fun in an office either...

None of this is to say new starters/young people/employers' needs aren't important. Just that there are other groups of people whose needs have been routinely overlooked for decades.

I like hybrid, it is up to us to make it work as i can also see employers deciding enough is enough and dictating attendance, if people want the freedom they need to approach this in the spirit it is offered imo.

If people have moved further away then one day in is still doable, it is just one long commute as opposed to every day so still a winner imo.

@yellowsuninthesky

I also think that on the whole, WFH is better for women. You get people saying that if you are not visible in the office you won't get promoted. Well if promotion is important to you, you make yourself visible.

But it definitely helps with childcare issues, especially with older children who can entertain themselves but need an adult around, it is easier if you have elderly care responsibilities, and it also helps if you eg have horribly heavy periods and being close to a loo for 2-3 days a month is important. Also people with certain disabilities might find it easier to work from home, or close to home in a co-working space.

I think flexible and hybrid working is very good for diversity and inclusion.

I think an office going full WFH is good for those with caring responsibilities, but leaving how much/whether to work in the office to individuals is going to prove very bad for them. In that scenario the focus is likely to shift back to the office over time and groups who don't return or don't return much will gradually get overlooked.

YABU

@spuddy56

I don't even see it as being social...I would just love more in office time working together, talking about work, bouncing around problems, hearing informally about the best way to deal with certain situations etc. I don't care if I know what a colleague had for dinner or about their favourite hobby but I would like to know how they've worked effectively previously. I suppose things like small tips on meeting a particular senior stakeholder for the first time or shortcuts in the systems etc.

In fact YAB even more U here and sound like one of those far too over enthusiastic collegues that everyone rolls their eyes about.

You can 'bounce' ideas over chat/zoom calls. Not everyone needs to travel in, sit in an office then travel home to do exactly the same thing!

@Dazedandconfused10

Personally for me I don't socialise with colleagues outside of work, they're my work colleagues not my friends.

To go into an office to spend a day on zoom meetings to me seems pointless, the collaboration side is no different to me being at home and with global workforces now, this won't change. So there will never be the whole team in one room together.

Indeed. I get on with them, some more than others, obviously. But I'm paid to talk to them, not going to waste my precious personal time on people I wouldn't ordinarily choose to spend time with. I already spend 5.5 days a week with them.

To go into an office to spend a day on zoom meetings to me seems pointless, the collaboration side is no different to me being at home and with global workforces now, this won't change. So there will never be the whole team in one room together

This makes perfect sense for teams that are global, but that's not the case for most UK employers. OP's colleagues all live close enough together that they still socialise together, so they obviously could all be in a room together. I'm not saying that means they should or must be.