The pandemic wreaked havoc on the workplace. In the sudden immediacy of threats to continued existence only the most essential of employees were required to leave their homes and attend work at a designated site. Office workers overnight became remote workers. Many, if not most, are now hybrid workers, working from both home and office.
Now that we have vaccines, and most conduct their daily affairs, including air travel, without donning masks, it would seem reasonable to expect we would, simply enough, return to our former ways. That would include working at the office five days a week.
The return to the office could, at least conceivably, have occurred just as abruptly as the work-from-home order. There is an element of inertia here, and lingering concerns about safety, but the more critical factor seems to be that employees like remote work. That includes bosses, since they are just as likely to have errands to run, kids to care for, and recreational activities, all of which can be integrated into a day’s activities far more flexibly at home than in an office setting.
The personal preferences of those receiving wages, however, should not be the sole factor in addressing the attendance issue. I’ll limit this discussion to the public sector, where advancing the public good is the bottom line. Does remote work advance, or impede, efforts to achieve this goal?
There is no simple answer to this question, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t the right question to ask. The question is broad enough to allow consideration of myriad relevant factors. Returning workers to downtown Sacramento, for example, would boost the local economy, and support local businesses, especially restaurants. This is public good, isn’t it?
What about new employees? Attendance at the office provides immediate (and unavoidable) personal interaction with other employees. This includes meetings in which the body message of co-workers can be seen up close and personal, and tips on who can be relied on for good information and support, and who should be avoided, can be gleaned from your supervisor or fellow trench dwellers as you convene around the water cooler.
Not all employees seek remote, or even hybrid, work. There are many employees who enjoy coming into the office. Some are motivated by desire for social interaction, but the interest in professional development is, I suspect, a substantial motivation.
There are health considerations. There is no question, for example, that detecting signs of an employee in trouble, whether due to alcohol, drugs, or mental state, is immensely more difficult on Zoom than with the personal contact that takes place in the office.
Setting aside essential workers, the reluctance to return to the status quo ante of five-day-a-week office toil is widespread. It is worthwhile to explore alternatives, especially with a workforce that has now known relative freedom. (If you like you can hum How Ya Gonna Keep ‘Em Down on the Farm as we consider the question.)
I suggest we consider an approach that would be effective in overcoming the resistance, intransigence even, of the workforce, and would be likely to gain support: adopt a two-day work schedule. Monday and Tuesday would be a complete work week, as would Thursday and Friday. This would provide employees with the accustomed time (on Wednesday) for running errands, taking care of sick kids, and playing golf. It would re-introduce critical opportunities for employees to achieve the symbiosis that should occur in the office setting: we are better together than apart.
Most importantly, it would, in effect, give employees two weekends and add Tuesday as an additional end-of-the-week party day. I’ll grant that employees are hard working, but TGIF (and we’ll be adding a TGIT) and time off are golden.
This isn’t perfect, of course. Kids get sick on any day of the week, and the return of commuting would bring back all those greenhouse gas emissions that we bragged about reducing. But a two-day-week would be a real improvement over the five-day-week, and still provide the benefits of the office environment.
My approach would also provide bosses with a substantial benefit. One of the agonies of supervision is evaluating performance, and remote work eliminated one of the measures that even the most obtuse of bosses could apply: punctuality. We will have enough of a challenge in the future knowing whether an employee is attending online meetings via her AI hologram—at least with the two-day work week we can look over and see whether she is still in her chair at quitting time.
Some might object that my proposal does violence to the definition of “week.” Others might point out that I am actually making matters worse by adding a work week. Still others might suggest that employees are smart enough to know that this is form, not substance, and the expectation of total work, total hours, hasn’t changed.
If the old system of working five days a week at the office was really efficient and achieved important goals, though, it would be back in place as we speak. It isn’t. Instead, we are experimenting. I suggest that as long as we are in that mode, we experiment with a work week of just two days, ignore any hue and cry over details, and enjoy the company of our fellow employees.
What do we have to lose? At the least it will make it easier for non-working members of the public to get a space on the golf range on Friday afternoon. That sounds to me like definite public good.
Write on Tom. I love reading your 'food for thought' pieces.
MB
I always enjoy your writings even if I am no longer a WORKING member. of society.