Post by taslimakhatun12 on Jan 18, 2024 6:17:47 GMT -3
After the pandemic and despite the successful role played by teleworking in providing continuity to work activity in a tremendously exceptional and difficult situation, we are witnessing a constant trickle of strategies for returning to face-to-face work by companies. Thus, there are numerous companies that require their employees to return completely to the office; and, surprisingly, among them are many technology companies that championed the paradigm of modernity. Why are companies again demanding, as was the case previously, 100% presence in the office? This decision is due in many cases to a bad experience with teleworking during the pandemic. Here it is important not to lose sight of the context in which this 100% remote work had to be launched, forced by circumstances and deployed in a time of great social and economic uncertainty. It was a time when there were no remote work processes or policies.
There were no robust performance monitoring systems, nor, in many cases, laptop computers available to all employees. All of these factors have greatly affected the fact that this teleworking experience has not been satisfactory for many organizations. To this we must add that today we find a fairly widespread feeling among companies: that of loss of control. So, if we add that feeling of lack of control to that bad experience during the pandemic, we have the perfect couple that is driving the decision to demand a return to the office. A decision that is also made, assuming the cost that C Level Executive List this may entail in terms of attracting and acquiring quality talent. And, currently, workers/candidates ask to be able to work hybridly or remotely as a non-negotiable condition. Are we sure that the solution is to return to past models when the world has undergone such a radical change? And, above all, can we ignore the preferences of professionals at a time of such a high shortage of talent? Are we solving a problem or condemning ourselves to an even bigger one? The answer is clear: we cannot in any way ignore the motivations of talent, unless we want to annihilate in one fell swoop all our ability to seduce and conquer it, much less simplify the world of work to a bichromatic reality, where we have to choose between white -in-person- or black -remote-.
Choosing to force this dichotomy leaves us with endless possibilities because there is no perfect formula, each of the work ecosystems, in-person and remote, has its advantages and disadvantages. On the contrary, opting for flexibility and establishing hybrid models opens up a more real and enriched range of greys, because it gives us the possibility of taking advantage of the advantages and minimizing the disadvantages of each model, and adding benefits for both employees and employees. as for companies. What are the benefits of the hybrid model for the employee? The book “The Psychology of Money (Morgan Housel, 2020)” mentions that there is no clear correlation between money and happiness (that is, the more money, the more happiness), but there is a direct correlation between the ability to control your time, doing what you really want, and happiness. It is proven that people who prioritize time over money end up being happier than people who do the opposite.
There were no robust performance monitoring systems, nor, in many cases, laptop computers available to all employees. All of these factors have greatly affected the fact that this teleworking experience has not been satisfactory for many organizations. To this we must add that today we find a fairly widespread feeling among companies: that of loss of control. So, if we add that feeling of lack of control to that bad experience during the pandemic, we have the perfect couple that is driving the decision to demand a return to the office. A decision that is also made, assuming the cost that C Level Executive List this may entail in terms of attracting and acquiring quality talent. And, currently, workers/candidates ask to be able to work hybridly or remotely as a non-negotiable condition. Are we sure that the solution is to return to past models when the world has undergone such a radical change? And, above all, can we ignore the preferences of professionals at a time of such a high shortage of talent? Are we solving a problem or condemning ourselves to an even bigger one? The answer is clear: we cannot in any way ignore the motivations of talent, unless we want to annihilate in one fell swoop all our ability to seduce and conquer it, much less simplify the world of work to a bichromatic reality, where we have to choose between white -in-person- or black -remote-.
Choosing to force this dichotomy leaves us with endless possibilities because there is no perfect formula, each of the work ecosystems, in-person and remote, has its advantages and disadvantages. On the contrary, opting for flexibility and establishing hybrid models opens up a more real and enriched range of greys, because it gives us the possibility of taking advantage of the advantages and minimizing the disadvantages of each model, and adding benefits for both employees and employees. as for companies. What are the benefits of the hybrid model for the employee? The book “The Psychology of Money (Morgan Housel, 2020)” mentions that there is no clear correlation between money and happiness (that is, the more money, the more happiness), but there is a direct correlation between the ability to control your time, doing what you really want, and happiness. It is proven that people who prioritize time over money end up being happier than people who do the opposite.