It seems that this is a question capable of making strong, experienced leaders, used to using data to come up with answers and focusing efforts on outcomes, drop all of that experience and knowledge for petty arguments and gut-feel vibe takes.
Since the pandemic pushed many of us to consider more carefully where we need to be to do our best work, spurred on by the Government telling us “you must work from home if you can”, much has been learned about the impact, and – it seems – many opinions cemented firmly in their camps, too.
I have no problem with gut-based-decision-making. Sometimes, going with your gut is the right thing to do. But to have found a whole issue on which most leaders seem to have very strong views for one extreme or the other, and on which the evidence base does little to get in the way of the debate, is impressive.
Is one side winning? It seems not, even though continued attempts to delete (or perhaps just ignore) 5 years of real life experiments have become so popular they even have their own acronym: RTO (return to office).
I’ve been considering how leaders should approach work from home for a decade
I first wrote about how to deal with the issue back in 2016, just after I got my first direct report in corporate. Back then, my reflections were that the question “can I work from home?” was worthy of deeper consideration by the person doing the asking rather than the answering.
Reading it back now, while it worked well for me (and the team I was leading) at the time, I’m not sure that it has quite stood up to the test of time. I’ve linked that post so you can go back and see what you think too.
My reality today
I’m an almost entirely remote worker these days, as are my team and many of those we work with are either also almost entirely remote, or so far away and in so many different locations that they may as well be for me.
I work from my home office the vast majority of the time, interacting with people virtually, but I also use in-office (or perhaps in-work might be a better description) more effectively. No longer am I setting just an “out of office” email responder, but increasingly an “in the office” one, creating the freedom to use the in-person time I get with colleagues more deliberately to make the best of what can only be done in person.
It works well for me, though it isn’t without the occasional niggle. My one concern is what extensive remote working means for people at the start of their careers, trying to learn their craft. Office life created a lot of passive learning for me. The overheard conversations, informal feedback and the small cues I didn’t realise I was absorbing at the time, but which I know have shaped me. I’ve yet to find truly effective ways of replicating that remotely (if you have, I’d genuinely love to hear them).
That said, and this is somewhat the whole point of this debate for me, there’s a risk of over-romanticising those experiences. Much like visiting a country where the language you’re learning is spoken, the immersion has a powerful effect, but trying to achieve the experience alone can also distract from the real goal. The challenge isn’t to recreate office life exactly as it was, but to focus on the outcomes we actually care about, and find new ways of delivering them.
One day perhaps I’ll write about why PDFs are a problem and should mostly cease to exist, because it’s a very similar train of thought.
And there are definitely variations between businesses that demand greater judgement and consideration from us, ruling out any kind of blanket approach. A conversation that works best online in one organisation that I work with — bringing together people across multiple sites, perhaps — is far more effective done in person in another. There’s rarely a single, rational explanation for that difference beyond the people involved their history, their preferences and, to some extent, happenstance – or at least I can’t find one.
The arguments
Like any debate where the participants are entrenched, the arguments are well rehearsed but – for me – surprisingly emotional, too, with many romanticising the office or the remote work dream a little more than I’d expect (or think sensible).
Some argue that remote working has permanently improved how work gets done, that it was always inevitable that we’d end up doing more of it and the pandemic’s push was simply an accelerant. They point to gains in flexibility, focus and wellbeing, and to the fact that many people are simply more effective when given control over where and how they work. From this perspective, the office is a useful tool rather than a default setting — valuable for specific moments of collaboration, but unnecessary for much of the day-to-day work that actually moves things forward.
Those that disagree tell a different story. They argue that something essential is lost when people are no longer routinely together: informal learning, shared context, faster decision-making, and a sense of collective momentum that is difficult to replicate online. In their view, culture isn’t something that can be scheduled into meetings or written into principles — it emerges through proximity, repetition and shared experience, and weakens when work becomes too distributed.
What’s striking is how firmly held both positions tend to be. For many, these views are shaped less by abstract evidence and more by personal experience — what has worked, or failed, in their own teams and careers. As a result, discussions about remote work often harden quickly into belief rather than experimentation, with each side interpreting the same outcomes as proof of entirely different things.
Is remote working equitable
I can follow most of the arguments. I understand them, and I can see how experience might push someone firmly into one camp or the other, in spite of any data. I could even be swayed by many of them. The one I can’t accept, though — and it crops up frequently in the UK debate, less so in the American one — is the claim that remote work is inherently inequitable.
The argument goes like this: because some roles can’t be done remotely — pilots are often cited, more commonly cleaners or other lower-paid, frontline roles — then no roles should be allowed to work that way. That isn’t equity; it’s levelling down. It’s the bluntest and meanest way of delivering fairness: banning something that clearly works, not because it causes harm, but because it can’t be applied universally.
Equity shouldn’t be about forcing every job into the same shape. It should be about designing roles, environments and cultures so that people can do their best work within the realities of what that job actually requires.Where roles are lower paid, more constrained or tied to physical presence, equity should be created by improving pay, progression, conditions and opportunity, not by stripping flexibility from other roles. As leaders, our task isn’t to remove flexibility where it’s possible, but to ensure that every role (remote, hybrid or fully on-site) is well designed, well supported and is as good for the human doing it as it can be.
Of course, there is also the point that remote work can even widen access to employment for people who can’t easily travel or work in a traditional office for whatever reason.
But what’s actually happening
Back in May last year, research by Kings College considered whether the increased media coverage of RTO mandates (and there has been plenty of that) were reflecting an actual trend or just (my paraphrasing) the impact of some very vocal, opinionated CEOs. They found that the answer is a resoundingly mundane “not really”.
Despite high-profile CEO announcements and media reports suggesting a “great return” to workplaces, researchers found no evidence of a mass move back to offices, with working-from-home rates remaining stable since 2022.
Return to office mandates report, Kings College
Other signals do indicate that something is happening though. Train use had grown above pre-pandemic levels by July last year, although the patterns seem to have changed: increased leisure use and less demand during the traditional morning peak, indicating that – really – this whole “get back to the office” thing isn’t quite as real as it might seem from the commentary and reporting.
And the data about the impact on actually getting the job done? Well, it’s either disappointing (if you’ve got a strong preference either way) or encouraging (if you haven’t), because it seems the data says it depends.
And even then, the most authoritative source of a House of Lords report used data from the pandemic where remote working wasn’t a choice for the employer or the employee. Hardly the best study conditions.
The great rebellion
So if the data is inconclusive, the mandates are happening and being reported loudly, but the return of the masses isn’t, then there’s only really one thing to conclude: everyone might just be ignoring the mandates.
In fact, that same King’s College study also found that more than half of the workforce would reject a five day a week return to the office mandate, and the majority also said they’d be looking for a new job – with remote working, of course – if forced back to the office.
Others, like the British Civil Service, where 60% in the office time is the mandated minimum for everyone, seem to hold the line firmly outside, and in discussions, but in reality leave most people to manage it themselves. A quick search of Reddit (it seems unkind to link to them, given most of the discussions indicate a desire for journalists and writers not to use the content!) indicates that many perhaps aren’t doing 60% but everyone is committed to saying that they are.
So, can I still work from home Nic?
Ultimately, my core view remains the same.
As a leader, it’s important that you build trust with your team and that your focus is on creating the right culture, while getting the job done, and done well. That’s what will always win for me.
There will always be some work – and some jobs – that can’t be done remotely. That shouldn’t mean we create equality by banning remote work for everyone else, but instead a reminder to create equity by making every job the best it can be for the human doing it.
My experience is that remote work can, indeed, work. But it’s also that human interaction and collaboration are a key part of making it a success, and keeping everyone happy. And it is perhaps my experience, and my development, which means my rules have moved on a little.
Softened around the edges, and grounded even more in the view that managing how people do the work isn’t leadership, here are my updated rules (with tracked changes, of course).
Updating the rules from 2016
You must be able to complete the sentence “I am working from home because…”.I don’t carewhat the last word iswhy you are working from home, unless it’s a problem and I can do something to help.You must be in the office
more often than you are out of the officewhen that’s the best place to do the work.Average it out how you like.If you tell me that’s never, I don’t think I believe you, but I’m open to your argument.You can’t decline an in-person meeting because you’re working from home
If I need you for something critical
between 9am and 5.30pmduring your agreed working hours then you’llbetterbe thereThere must be a clear indication of where you are in your calendar, just so I can know you’re OK
A cop out?
It’s always safe to argue that the answer is in the middle of the arguments, but in this case it genuinely seems like the answer has to be… it depends, and leaders like us have to make the decisions that are right for the people, for the job, and for the organisation.
And if nothing else, reviewing these rules like this has helped me consider how my leadership style has evolved and grown while staying true to my values.
