by Robert
Two weeks ago, Stefanie wrote that her department chair no longer wants to allow remote work. Last week, a news ticker announced that Amazon is eliminating the option of home office for all employees.
And I can’t help but feel like this is a step backward…
Before and during the pandemic, I worked at a company where many managers had a hard time accepting the idea of hybrid work, even though it was explicitly encouraged by senior leadership. Then COVID hit, and all admins had to work from home.
Office hardliners predicted the collapse of the system. But what happened was exactly the opposite: average productivity increased. So, what has changed that there is now a wave of employees being forced back to the office?
I believe several factors are driving managers — whether in academia or the corporate world — to eliminate home office and hybrid work. Here’s a personal reflection on why I believe this is a mistake.
Why Managers Want Their Team Back in the Office:
To Strengthen Company Culture
Andy Jassy, Amazon’s CEO, justifies the requirement to be in the office full-time by saying that it strengthens company culture. …and decreases employee efficiency. While a friendly chat at the coffee machine is socially beneficial for most of us, it is still part of work time and is not productively spent. A little chit-chat here, lingering a bit longer after a meeting there, walking from one meeting location to another — all of that takes time. And the list of time wasters in the office is long, much longer than at home. There’s also something Stefanie mentioned in her post about hybrid work: Here in my home office, I can write a blog post in two hours. In the office, with all the small distractions, it would surely take at least double that time.
Perhaps when Jassy talks about strengthening company culture, he means this: It’s unfair to allow some employees to work hybrid when others must be present to perform their tasks. Imagine a hospital — all administrative work can theoretically be done from anywhere in the world, while nursing staff can’t exactly provide remote care to patients. In Amazon’s case, logistics workers like order pickers versus admin staff like accounts managers. And the argument isn’t without merit. But there is a flaw in this thinking.
People who must be physically present should be compensated for this lack of flexibility or, put another way, for this additional obligation, either with money or time. What if employees who are required to be on-site had the right to paid time off for important appointments? In Germany, there is no legal right to this, but many companies have such agreements.
To Get Full Productivity From Employees
Another ineffective argument: Employees aren’t working their full hours at home. While this may be true for some, the argument is inappropriate for several reasons. Working hours are not a measure of productivity! Productivity is the product of working time and work intensity. We are not all equal in what we can accomplish in one hour. Everyone has things that come easily to them and things that are more challenging. This becomes clear when we do something at home, like painting a room. We can either do it ourselves, which takes a lot of time, or leave it to a professional who does this for a living. Similarly, some people, for instance, are faster at writing (that’s definitely not me!) than others, and therefore can deliver a “product” like a paper much faster than others. They are more efficient — at least when it comes to writing.
Do you think it’s fair to give more tasks to someone who completes their work faster than others, just so the effective working time is the same? I don’t.
And here lies a central issue: we too often use working time as a measure of productivity. Honestly, so do I. If I haven’t spent 8 hours at the computer in a day, I feel guilty, like my day wasn’t productive enough. Only when I consciously reflect on what I’ve accomplished that day does the feeling go away — or intensify if I’ve had an unproductive day. So why do we measure our performance by time worked?
The answer is quite simple: because we are trained to. It’s easy to measure working hours or, more precisely, time spent at work, and demand this in exchange for a salary because it’s how we were trained to receive validation for our productivity in the educational system.
Unfortunately, this measure doesn’t take into account how we spend our time and is therefore completely useless in assessing the performance or value of a team member. I am convinced that the push to return to the office is driven largely by managers’ loss of control over this meaningless, non-productivity measure. Surely this doesn’t sound absurd to just me, right?
My Solution: Shift How Productivity is Measured
Instead, we need proper productivity management. Clear goals that are both ambitious and achievable. The basis for this is that team leaders and managers have a clear idea of what creates the most value over, say, the next week, and communicate this as a clear expectation.
With such a system, we don’t need to control working hours because we can measure productivity — and that’s what really matters. It then becomes each individual’s choice whether they achieve their productivity through high intensity or long hours.
And by the way, this is a system that should apply regardless of whether it’s office or remote work. It would just prevent the perceived loss of control, especially in remote work.
And then there are the bad apples. We all know people who try to exploit systems with unclear or vague rules. People who pretend to work from home are clearly doing this. But I see two reasons why this isn’t a valid argument for forcing everyone back to the office:
First, these are isolated cases. Punishing the many for the actions of a few isn’t a solution. So punishing those who work more efficiently at home, who can better integrate their work into their daily lives, and therefore often work more than their contract requires, harms Amazon just as much as it would harm your research team.
The second and more important point is this: It doesn’t make a difference. It doesn’t matter whether someone isn’t working at home or in the office. The bad apples who pretend to be productive while working remotely do the same thing at work. And again, it creates a sense of control that doesn’t actually exist. I know many people who always look busy, who let everyone know they’re on the brink of burnout and that the company would collapse without them, and yet they achieve nothing. These people have to work even harder to fake busyness in remote work.
The Benefits of Remote Work Outweigh The Perceived Drawback
Helping align personal and professional life is especially vital in research because, let’s face it, we already work far more than a typical 9-to-5 job. Research is a demanding field that often stretches into evenings, weekends, and holidays. Our work doesn’t shut off when the office lights do — we’re thinking about problems, reading papers, and analyzing data long after official working hours.
Remote work allows us to balance this reality by integrating our work more naturally into our lives. Whether it’s taking a break to have dinner with family or stepping away to attend a child’s recital, remote work acknowledges that researchers are people with personal lives and responsibilities. It helps prevent burnout by letting us manage our time and energy more sustainably.
Academia is traditionally viewed as a place where a free-minded community of intellectuals comes together to explore ideas, challenge norms, and push the boundaries of knowledge. So why shouldn’t this freedom extend to where we do our work?
The academic world thrives on creativity and autonomy, and confining researchers to a specific physical space feels counterintuitive to the very spirit of academic inquiry. If we truly value free thinking and innovation, we should also respect the freedom to choose the environment that best supports our individual ways of working. Whether that’s a quiet home office, a bustling café, or a remote cabin in the woods, researchers should have the autonomy to create the conditions that spark their creativity.
Academia Should Lean-in To The Remote Work Benefits
In academia, we are constantly competing with better-paid jobs in the industry. So why shouldn’t we offer an environment that is more family-friendly and flexible? Unlike corporate roles, where higher salaries are the primary draw, academia has always offered different rewards — the pursuit of knowledge, intellectual freedom, and meaningful contributions to society. But in today’s world, these benefits aren’t enough to retain talent if the work environment doesn’t accommodate the realities of modern life.
Many researchers are parents or caregivers, and without the flexibility to manage those responsibilities, academia risks losing some of its best minds to industry. By offering a higher degree of flexibility and a better work-life balance, we can make academic careers more attractive to top talent, who might otherwise be swayed by the higher paychecks in industry. Flexibility can be our competitive advantage in this ongoing battle for talent.
Every leader has a responsibility to provide their employees with conditions that enable high productivity. Therefore, they should figure out where tasks can be best accomplished and then “force” team members into remote work where it’s beneficial.
So, tell me what I’m missing, what’s the point of returning to the office?
– Robert