A tipping point for employee well-being?

Iml" data-src="gi0" data-sub-html="Credit: Unsplash/CC0 Public Domain">

exX" alt="working office" title="Credit: Unsplash/CC0 Public Domain" width="800" height="530"/>

Large companies like Amazon and Dell are enforcing a return to office five days a week, a significant moment for many of their employees. More than a logistical change, return-to-office mandates raise important questions about the balance between organizational goals and employee well-being.

Some employees may face unique challenges that a rigid return-to-office policy does not address. Meanwhile, companies risk alienating talent that values flexibility and work-life balance. They could also disproportionately impact those already facing systemic barriers in the workplace, such as racial and ethnic minorities, individuals with disabilities and caregivers.

Christina Lacerenza, assistant professor in the Organizational Leadership and Information Analytics division at the Leeds School of Business, teaches courses on teamwork and collaboration, organizational development and organizational theory. Lacerenza sat down with CU Boulder Today to discuss the implications of return-to-office mandates for employee dynamics.

What are the potential impacts of returning to the office full time on employee morale?

The return to the office will likely have both positive and negative effects on employee well-being. On one hand, it could potentially lead to an increase in relationship development among employees, particularly in developing effective trust, which is harder to establish in purely virtual settings. Employees may find it easier to connect on an emotional level, which can enhance team dynamics and overall morale.

However, shifting from a flexible, remote work environment to a more structured office setting can create challenges. Moving from a space that has fewer boundaries around work arrangements to a more structured work environment can be hard for employees to successfully navigate. Employees may feel that they’re losing their sense of autonomy and empowerment as well as ownership of how they’re scheduling their day.

Overall, there are pros and cons to working remotely and working in-person—there’s a recent meta-analysis of 108 studies that looks at some of these effects. It’s important to carefully consider these factors and be mindful when planning your work arrangement. The findings were published in the journal Personnel Psychology.

How might these mandates affect women and underrepresented communities?

This has been a topic of much interest lately and so there is some work discussing how remote versus in-person work arrangements impact women and other minorities. Remote work can be somewhat of a double-edged sword for women where it enables women—and working parents more generally—to better navigate job demands and family demands, but it can also have a negative impact on professional or career development.

There is some work discussing how mentorship can suffer when working remotely because it can be more challenging to establish high-quality relationships.

In terms of improving career trajectory, women also benefit more from smaller, tight-knit support groups, whereas men prosper from a large number of contacts (or “weak ties”). Establishing these packs, as I like to call them, might be easier in an in-person environment.

It also depends on career level, too. If you are more junior, you might want to work in an in-person environment so you have easier access to mentorship, sponsorship and support. Your first job out of college, for example, should probably include some element of in-person work.

If you are more senior, though, working remotely can be helpful—especially as a woman—because you’re able to focus more on your individual work, be more productive and also better navigate multiple demands. Because there are benefits to both working remotely and working in the office, I’m a strong proponent of the hybrid work model.

What are the potential long-term effects of these mandates on workplace culture?

We may see greater homogeneity in work preferences and styles among organizations depending on their mandated work arrangement. Employees who prefer flexible work arrangements are going to select out companies that don’t offer those, while employees who value in-office work will seek positions at companies with more structured policies.

The future will likely also look more fluid than it has in the past due to changes in technology as well as changes in employee needs. I also think this flexibility is influenced in part by shifting employee preferences as the generational makeup of the workforce evolves.

How can employees establish a productive workflow when returning to the office?

Having some ownership around what your day looks like is really important, especially as it relates to establishing a “flow” mindset. That’s when we find a lot of meaning in what we’re doing. It’s when creativity just flows naturally. So it’s important as an employee to be more intentional about creating an environment where you can get into that flow state.

You also want to achieve a team level of flow if you are collaborating, demonstrating “burstiness,” where you’re able to create a high level of psychological safety within your team and each individual feels they can speak up without fear of judgment. Effective ideas and discussions are flowing rapidly and effortlessly.

If you’re an employee returning to the office full time, you have to be more intentional about creating the space for burstiness or flow to happen. Working from home offers fewer distractions, making it easier to enter a flow state.

How can companies ensure their return-to-office policies are inclusive?

If your company aims to maximize inclusivity, allowing people to show up in the way that best suits them would be the gold standard. The data suggest having a hybrid approach to your work arrangement is an effective solution because it allows you to harness the benefits of working from home and working out of the office and provides employees with ownership around how they complete their work.

But from an employer perspective, it’s a lot harder to manage because the structure is fluid and you are essentially managing two different types of environments at the same time. This is why I think companies are pushing back—because it takes a lot of resources, and there’s a lot of onus on leadership in a hybrid work model.

In companies with stricter work arrangements, leaders need to consider whether they are creating policies, practices and procedures that allow employees to feel like they belong and that they’re able to bring their unique strengths to the table. Inclusion involves achieving a balance between the two—having a sense of belonging as well as uniqueness.

With a strict policy around how employees show up and complete work, uniqueness might be at risk. So, finding ways that you can allow your employees to demonstrate authenticity and contribute in a way that’s unique to them is going to be really important.