The future of the workfrom-home campaign
As the pandemic recedes into the background, the “new normal” of flexible working appears to be under strain today. For a fortunate few (such as employees of Airbnb), pandemic-era norms have been institutionalised, and they are able to work from anywhere. For many other workers, the usual five days a week commute has already begun. For still others, a tough battle looms as they negotiate some kind of hybrid work arrangement with their companies, which allows them to escape office for pre-specified periods.
It may take a couple of years for a new equilibrium to emerge in our work lives. Till then, expect a tough battle between managers and employees in determining the new norms of work. The debate on the future of work has brought attention to several pain points in a typical officegoer’s life: Commutes, urban planning, workplace privacy, and office design. But the debate also raises larger questions about what it means to live and work productively.
In an 1898 research paper, The Instinct of Workmanship and the Irksomeness of Labour, the Norwegian-American economist Thorstein Veblen first drew attention to mankind’s conflicted relationship with work. On the one hand, the spirit of workmanship propels human beings to find ever more efficient ways of making useful products and services. On the other hand, the unpleasant regimentation of an industrial routine generates an aversion to “irksome labour”.
At the turn of the 19th century, when Veblen produced his classic work, The Theory of the Leisure Class, wealthy upper-class males lived a life of extraordinary indolence, without any need to “labour” too hard. They pursued activities such as sports or politics that generated a sense of “exploit”. Routine tasks were relegated to the lower classes and women, who slogged all day.
As capitalism grew increasingly competitive over the course of the 20th century, it began to exact more time from its overlords. Other socio-cultural changes also contributed to the extinction of the indolent businessman. The predominance of the “Protestant work ethic”, believed to be a major driver of capitalism, emphasised thrift and hard work.
Rising life expectancy was another key driver. Industrial barons realised that they would be passing on their savings to their children at a relatively late age. What they could do early was to invest in their children’s education (or human capital). But unlike physical capital, deploying human capital requires the constant presence of its possessor. This meant increasing work hours for the new generation of business scions.
By the turn of the 20th century, the link between leisure and status had been inverted. “Busy-ness” replaced “leisureliness” as a badge of honour among societal elites, wrote Jonathan Gershuny of Oxford University, in a 2005 research paper. Work itself took the shape of an “exploit”, with work achievements becoming the predominant markers of status.
Just as competitive pressures exacted more time from capitalists, they also exacted more time from workers. Growing competitive intensity makes it important for firms to measure each employee’s productivity. But the growing complexity of work can often prevent accurate measurements. This gave rise to a culture of “presenteeism”.
Ruth Simpson, professor of management at the London-based Brunel Business School, defines presenteeism as the tendency to stay at work beyond the time needed to meet job requirements. The fear of redundancy can heighten such tendencies. Insecure or incompetent managers who fail to distinguish between an efficient worker and a slacker can also contribute to the culture of presenteeism. Presenteeism has been especially harsh on women, Simpson’s research suggests.
The pandemic dealt a body blow to presenteeism. Relatively high productivity numbers exposed the myth that workers can deliver only when kept on a tight leash. Time-based assessment of work gave way to task-based assessments.
Yet, the uncertainty in the labour market and the uninterrupted march of automation mean that employees remain insecure in many sectors. Such employees are unlikely to be able to resist the call to return to their offices. It is likely that “presenteeism” will also make a quiet comeback in such offices.
In sectors where the demand for labour outstrips supply (such as tech and software), the rebellion against the return to office drive appears to be strongest. It is not surprising that several software firms facing high attrition rates have been most cautious in recalling workers to their offices.
It is unlikely that remote work will be a universal norm across all, or even most, sectors in the coming months and years. Yet, remote work opportunities are likely to be much more than in the pre-pandemic period.
The social approval for remote work will help it gain popularity. As the father of economics, Adam Smith, had noted many years ago, much of human behaviour is driven by the need to earn social approbation. “Man naturally desires, not only to be loved, but to be lovely; or to be that thing which is the natural and proper object of love,” wrote Smith in his 1759 book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments.
The pandemic’s biggest contribution to our work lives has been to bestow respectability to the concept of working from home. You can be considered a productive being today without having to endure a crushing commute to a soulless office.