Another week, another salvo in the future of work wars. This time it seems to be in favor of work traditionalists.
With the hiring slowdown that has hit the tech sector combined with the increasing number of layoffs that are hitting startups of all shapes and sizes (i.e. Netflix, Gemini, Skillz, etc.), there are a number of commentators stating that the pendulum has swung back in favor of employers. The loudest and latest voice is billionaire Elon Musk who has tweeted that all salaried employees should return to the office 40 hours a week or quit.
Whether one agrees with Elon Musk or not, the economic downturn has emboldened work traditionalists to state that the reckoning has been a long time coming. No longer will employees “in the driver’s seat” but there will be a return to the natural order of things where employers are primary. Or will it?
Just as with any long war, they are not won or lost in one or two battles. It will be a series of battles that will determine the outcome. Indeed, this is the case with the future of work.
The reality is that the future of work is definitely changing. What the final outcome will be remains to be seen. All that we are seeing right now are opening salvos between the two factions with the outcome still in question.
In many respects, the future of work may be more determined on an individual employee and employer level than by uniform blanket statements or tropes. At the end of the day, individual employees and employers, if given the opportunity, will find the optimal work culture and environment that they will thrive in.
Indeed, the issue at hand is much more than whether or not individual employees should be “returning to the office” but how individual employees are valued by employers. It is a battle of beliefs concerning whether an individual employee is merely a “widget” or is an integral part to the growth and development of the organization. Elon Musk and work traditionalists have made their stance clear.
The office environment is one that for Elon Musk and work traditionalists is an environment where strong work culture, work ethic and innovation are born. Indeed, Musk has stated that with regards to Tesla where an in-person work environment is needed to be innovative and it can’t occur “by phoning it in.” While this may be true of Tesla it is not the case with every organization.
While there is no doubt that in-person collaboration is still optimal at this point in business history, the reality of the situation is that the pandemic and Silicon Valley itself has proven that it is not the only way to innovate. There is no doubt there is some loss of serendipity and randomness due to the lack of an office environment but that loss increasingly seems overrated.
Ultimately, we need to recognize that the majority of work is to execute on organizational vision and strategy. That is the reason that in Silicon Valley we state that “ideas are a dime a dozen”. Ultimately, what matters more than an organization’s vision and strategy is its ability to execute.
So what does this mean for the future of work? At the end of the day, the need for execution neither proves benefits or detracts from the argument. It is ultimately the purpose of work.
For all the talk concerning the need for in-person serendipity and innovation, those talking points are distractions from the majority of an individual’s work which is to execute. Yes, there is no doubt that innovation can drive work to be completed more efficiently and effectively but at the end of the day it is a small part of someone’s work product.
Ultimately, the requirement for in-person work is less about innovation and more about control and the supposed benefits of having a “focused work environment”. There is no doubt that the previous model of work has powered human civilization to its current level. However, we may be reaching the limits of its usefulness, particularly as we consider the next phase of socio-economic technological evolution.
Indeed, the purpose of humans at work is slowly less about tactical execution and increasingly about creating new ideas to be executed on. There is no doubt that we are still in a transition phase when it comes to tactical execution but automation, artificial intelligence and new forms of fabrication such as 3D printing are challenging existing norms.
As the need for creative thinking increases at organizations, there requires a different approach and mindset when it comes to management and culture. It is less about “command and control” and more about “collaboration and execution”.
How does this influence the war for the future of work? In many respects, it influences the side of the divide that one stands on concerning the future of work. The work traditionalists believe in the power of conformity is required to drive progress whereas future of work adherents believe that collaboration will win the day. At the end of the day, both sides are right and what we need is an acknowledgement that depending on an individual’s and an organization’s circumstances will determine the optimal outcome.
In some respects, the war for the future of work seems to have been caught up in the general culture wars that dominate human society today. The pervasive need to be “right” in order to feel a semblance of normalcy in these dynamic times. This need to be “right” though neither represents what we are as a society today nor what society was in the past.
Everyone views society through “rose colored glasses” and today’s culture wars are no different. While it is nice to believe that society was uniform and orderly in the past with only one viewpoint, the reality is far different.
If one takes the energy and effort to truly understand history, while there may be one dominant narrative that is espoused, there are always different perspectives and viewpoints of history. This is no different now than it was in the past.
How does this apply to the future of work? If one ignores the prognostications and overhyped tweets, the reality is that the future of work already existed in the past. If one looks throughout history, one can always find examples of “remote work” or “hybrid work” but they were more one-offs versus the norm. The only difference between the past and the present is that we are living in an age where more individual employees can make such requests thanks to technology.
At the end of the day, the “Great Reshuffling” isn’t only about employees increasing their salaries and opportunities but it is realizing what they truly value from a work experience and whether the organization they work for values them as more than a widget. There is no doubt that for some, particularly white collar workers, they have more flexibility to change and find a work environment that appeals to them but that increasingly is the desire of every employee. As such, employers will have to decide where they land on the future of work debates and live with the consequences of said decisions.
Leave a Reply