Flywheel Mama

Work from home (WFH) vs. return to the office (RTO) has been a hotly debated topic even before the Covid-19 pandemic struck.

Past experience with RTO

I still remember when IBM called all their remote marketing employees to relocate to the 5 main hubs/offices. These employees needed to relocate to the office their portfolio of products ended up stationing without pay adjustment, which meant that employees with families had to uproot their entire lives and move to a new city the entire family had to adjust to. New home, daycare, schools, everything.

Regardless of whether it was a call to increase productivity or a hoax to reduce the workforce, the move to RTO created a huge gap for those who ended up relocating/staying and was detrimental for many who were left without a job.

I know this because it happened to me even though I wasn’t a remote worker. But I’ll dive into the details in another post.

So fast-forward to 2023 where Covid-19 cases are decreasing but it is still around. We just have to live with it. Does it still warrant WFH?

Probably, probably not.

My personal preference is that I still mask my toddler each time he sets foot into his preschool, and I still keep my younger one at home with a nanny. This is the extra precaution that I take with kids because Covid-19 is still around and it’s better to protect my own, regardless of what others say.

I still mask when I go into the office and that’s to protect myself and my children. We cannot afford to be out sick.

But should I RTO?

My entire marketing team is currently remote so if I drove 1-hr to the office, I’d still be zooming in with my coworkers. In order for RTO to be effective, we’d need my co-workers to relocate closer to the South Bay or they’d end up commuting a few hours each way.

In addition, our marketing work doesn’t require face time 24/7. We actually do morning stand-ups via Zoom each morning whenever there’s a huge event or launch coming to situate ourselves.

So we’d be better off WFH from a productivity standpoint. In addition, our personal/family lives are so much better since we can be flexible in how we use our time, like going to the gym in the morning instead of commuting, taking a stroller walk with children, or going right into the pool after a hard day.

But what if there is an RTO mandate?

The name itself – RTO mandate – is a bit too extreme and takes me back to the same IBM experience I mentioned earlier. Companies have invested in hiring top talent, wherever they reside, in the past 3 years. Calling remote employees back to the office can be a huge distraction and hurt the company’s near term roadmap.

Some remote employees may not return to the office due to their distance, and those who do return to the office will bear the burden to cover employees who have left.

Even though the pendulum has swung to the employers side with the Fed-induced recession and market turbulence, employers will need to spend time backfilling employees with rounds of interview loops to top talent. And on top of searching for the right candidates, employers need to wait for ~6 months period before employees ramp up and become productive.

What’s the fate of WFH?

WFH will still be around depending on the company’s culture and priorities. Even when I worked at a Big Tech (AKA Amazon), I’d work about 3 days in the office and most of that time was spent looking for office rooms so I can Zoom (in Amazon’s case, Chime) with my co-workers in Seattle and Boston. I could have done that in my home office. My co-workers in Boston would work out of their homes or vacation homes up north.

Did our productivity drop? No.

And given that we have a fed-induced recession and market turbulence, employers will keep a closer watch on expenses, including leasing office space. A lot of companies are leaving or have left SF, which is not great for the city’s economy but there isn’t much need to go into SF. Companies need to protect their cash and reduce burn rates so they can survive and overcome this downturn.

Keep the momentum going,

Flywheel Mama