WFH: The Real Trade Off

---

It’s hard to believe that we’re approaching the fifth anniversary of Covid and the UK’s first lockdown. On 23 March 2020, the Prime Minister Boris Johnson issued the “stay at home” order, and overnight, working from home became the radical new status quo for many.

Since then, we’ve seen workplace trends come and go - ‘The Great Resignation,’ ‘Quiet Quitting,’ and ‘Resenteeism’—but one debate has remained constant: where should we work? The push/pull between employers and employees over remote and office work has never truly settled, ebbing and flowing with macroeconomic trends and shifting power dynamics.

Most recently, companies like Barclays, Asda, and Boots have revised their hybrid policies, increasing office days from 2/3 or 3/4 per week. These shifts reignite familiar discussions that are often framed in binaries: older generations versus Millennials and Gen Z, traditional work ethic versus modern flexibility. But this oversimplifies a complex issue, ignoring variables like job type, personality, economic necessity, and company culture.

The ‘Flip-Side’ to Personal Time Sovereignty

There’s another angle we rarely discuss. In Four Thousand Weeks: Time Management for Mortals, Oliver Burkeman explores our quest for control over our limited time—a battle, he argues, we are destined to lose.

One of his insights, however, is particularly relevant to the WFH debate: the tension between personal time sovereignty and collective synchronicity.

We often seek full autonomy over our schedules and aim for complete freedom: to decide exactly what we do and when. But Burkeman argues that the freedom to choose when and where to work makes it harder to forge connections through our jobs.    He points to persuasive research that shows how shared rhythms bring deep psychological benefits; a Swedish study found that the more people who had time off simultaneously, the happier they became and that this applied even to retirees and the unemployed. 

It would seem that the reasons for the individual and collective benefits of such synchronicity lie deep in our human psyches.  We see this demonstrated in simple ways: we can’t help but fall into step when walking alongside one another – even when we’re in competition.   Studies of Usain Bolt and Tyson Gay show how Bolt’s strides – even over the short distance of 100m and despite being rivals – fell in with Gay’s.   And it was the Romans that first discovered that soldiers marching in synchrony, marched further.  

Five years ago, technology allowed us to break free from the rigid 9-5 office structure that had dominated for a century. But tech can’t replace the psychological and social benefits of face-to-face interaction. Burkeman describes the “curiously isolating” experience of online collaboration, and I think we can all relate to digital teamwork that somehow feels more disconnected and unsatisfying.  

So perhaps the WFH/RTO debate needs another layer, one that considers the trade-off between individual control and collective well-being because synchronicity – working in person alongside each other in coordinated action – has the potential to increase well-being and happiness.  

But for leaders and managers, the key takeaway is this: asking employees to sacrifice personal flexibility must come with a real payoff. A return to the office should foster deeper collaboration, stronger relationships, and a culture that makes the trade worthwhile. 

 

---

Share

---

Comments (2)

Leave A Comment

Name:
Comment: Characters left: 1000