Remote Work Survival Guide

"Proximity bias": out of sight, out of mind

It wasn't that long ago that an employee who tended to be more talkative and "annoying" their colleagues was seen as a problem for the manager for productivity reasons. Today, simply being present in the office can be a great way to advance one's career... even for employees who are not performing at their full potential! That's according to a study conducted by Alina Polonskaia, Barbara Rosen and Miriam Nelson, PhD, three researchers from the consulting firm Korn Ferry1. They looked at the fact that many employers are currently waging a war on telecommuting and that those who return to the office are rewarded. More interesting projects, favourable performance reports (even when performance is not better!), etc.

This is called the "proximity bias", the preconceived notion that people who are physically close to you necessarily work harder and are more productive. The study also reveals that this cognitive bias is not new and that promoting or judging favorably employees you "see" can become a risk to company performance. We also see a large number of employers arguing that there is no substitute for the experience of experiencing team chemistry and collaboration in the presence. For them, what could be better than having the ability to turn to a colleague when needed? The majority of employees surveyed strongly disagree with this statement. In fact, they claim to be much more empowered than before, when they had to respect a fixed work schedule when they came to the office.

Should we rethink our definition of "proximity"?

According to Polonskaia, Rosen and Nelson, employers would do well to broaden their definition of proximity. From their perspective, proximity is as much about two colleagues exchanging ideas in a shared document as it is about being able to reach a colleague at any time via video. For them, the ideal formula is not to find the one you can "physically" call on, but rather to find the right person to collaborate with for greater efficiency.

Even in the professional world, emotions and subjectivity are present. For example, we have colleagues with whom we prefer to work, even if they are not the best... which does not mean that they are bad.

Hybrid work: "just" finding the right formula

It seems like a given that many organizations will continue to use a hybrid arrangement. However, it is a headache for employers to determine which model will work best for their organization. Éric Brunelle, a professor in the Department of Management at HEC Montréal, states in a recent article2 in the Revue Gestion that "telework has been managed in disaster mode. Now, it is important to ask what are the real advantages of going to the office or staying at home". This article by Anne-Marie Tremblay shows that a majority of workers want to keep a part of their schedule in telecommuting in the future. It is therefore time to find a formula that will please them while maintaining team synergy, company performance, solidarity, personal development and all those aspects that would usually be found in the office.

What are the possible models?

In order to guide this reflection, a study by HEC Montréal has identified four hybrid or completely individualized work models. These formulas are rather tools to help employers better identify their situation and rethink their work environment.

The classic organization: The employer is tasked with choosing the weekly meeting or key times of the month when all employees should meet as a matter of course in order to nurture the team spirit. Outside of these specific times, the employee is free to manage his or her schedule in person or remotely as they see fit. However, there is still work to be done by companies to clarify what they expect from their employees in this formula, what they really need and how employees benefit from it.

The nomadic organization: This model is strictly centered on telecommuting, where office presence is not marked or required at times. It is therefore the result of a relationship of trust between the employer and all members of the team. Does this open the door to a certain disengagement of employees? The question arises.

The collaborative organization: Employees are free to work wherever they want. This makes the office a meeting place, a great place to work and a place we want to stay. Collaborative places focus on the employee experience and on conditions that not all companies could necessarily offer: coffee is available to all, a terrace is nearby, meeting rooms are set up to foster creativity, Wi-Fi is very efficient everywhere, etc.

Individualized organization: Employees have complete freedom to choose their own schedule and work environment. In short, there are no guidelines in this sense; trust between the employer and the employees is the key word. However, it has been shown that this model only works if a strong and very agile organizational culture is already present. The "connection" between employees is therefore easy and within a very flexible framework.

Finding the right fit

The "for" or "against" debate about telecommuting or hybrid work is a bit outdated. We now know that it is here to stay in many organizations.
Companies are now trying to find the ideal model that will allow the organization to continue to increase its performance while offering great working conditions and increasing their attractiveness to talent.
However, it is important to be realistic: some companies do not have the capacity to offer optimal working conditions due to their high costs and others have favored telecommuting in order to save costs on common space rental.
Let's not forget that being in the office can be the ideal choice for someone suffering from anxiety disorders, isolation, or simply not having the space at home to participate in videoconferences in the best conditions.
The personal reality of each person must be taken into account.

It is important to mention that not all researchers agree on the benefits of telecommuting. Indeed, the article "The importance of informal exchanges at (tele)work" written by Alice Gascon and Audric Mazzietti (HEC Montréal) reveals that several scientists are concerned about the erosion of social ties between colleagues or of those informal places (the coffee machine, corridor exchanges) that researcher Paul Fustiera calls "interstitial time-spaces". Does telework necessarily compromise employees' sense of belonging and expose them to a feeling of isolation?

Whatever the case, everyone agrees that the key is to strike a delicate balance between employee happiness, employee freedom and company productivity.

What formula will ensure that employees feel valued and motivated? Studies show that employees are increasingly choosing jobs that match their values and interests. They will choose what makes the most sense to them and "connects" with who they are. Whatever model you choose to implement, make sure you stay "connected" in presence, virtually, but most importantly, humanly.

To go further: