‘WFH is a luxury’: Has the NSW government done the right thing in summoning staff back to the office?

NSW Premier Chris Minns has poured gasoline on the firestorm that is the work-from-home discourse by calling upon public servants in NSW to return to the office.

This previous week has been another chapter in the long-winded argument on whether employees should return to the office or continue with their hybrid working arrangements, which were implemented in the COVID-19 era.

It’s a topic that has been extensively covered on HR Leader for years now, with the assortment of differing opinions that were echoed across the globe being covered throughout a number of our articles.

A standout, of course, was Elon Musk’s claim that it was “morally wrong” for employees to work from home, scolding workers across a number of industries for their selfishness of wanting flexibility.

This tug-of-war affair primarily resided in the realm of think and opinion pieces within online forums, minus a few organisations in Australia implementing an RTO.

Yet here we are with the NSW Premier Chris Minns making the announcement just last week that all public servants in the state will be returning to the office.

As has been widely reported, a directive was issued from Minns’ office to various departments, outlining the “starting position” for all public service employees is to “work principally in an approved workplace”.

Thus, marking the line in the sand for the widely adopted status quo of hybrid and remote working arrangements.

The directive, which received a mountain of criticism from workers, is being implemented with the goal of prioritising the culture of the workplace.

“The more our experience of work is shared, the more united we become,” said the email.

“That means being physically present in our organisations.”

Minns echoed this sentiment, stating: “This is from the Premier’s department. This will apply across the public service in NSW, so I’m confident that we will change it, and we’ll get people back in.”

“This is about building up a culture in the public service.”

Mixed reception

Not surprisingly, the Premier’s decision has lured in the opinions of individuals stretching right across the Australian workforce. Unions and other employees affected have let their disdain be heard throughout the media, with some claiming that the decision-makers are “stuck in the past”.

This was especially evident in a recent episode of The Project, where old-fashioned pundit Steve Price shared his disgust towards anyone who was fighting for a WFH arrangement to reside.

“Why has it taken so long?” he said. “No one should be able to work from home in grimy tracky dacks and put their feet up on a desk and go out the back and feed the dog while they’re supposed to be working – you get to work. Go to work.”

As reported by News.com.au, another speaker at the roundtable replied to Price, saying: “The game has changed”. Yet Price wasn’t hearing it, saying: “Why don’t we get you to work from home?”

This sums up the on-the-surface debate that is taking place across Australia. However, a more in-depth analysis of the flow-on effect that this decision could have on hybrid working conditions has stoked some fear in workers who have fallen in love with flexibility.

Analysis

HR Leader reached out to diversity, equity, and inclusion specialist and campaigner Michelle Redfern about the potential ramifications of this decision and whether the change on its own is warranted.

“High-trust organisations that focus on achieving strategic outcomes understand that work is an activity, not necessarily tied to a specific location. In these organisations, leadership prioritises measuring outcomes based on who is driving the strategic goals, rather than who is physically present,” said Redfern.

“Is there any evidence to suggest that trusting people to work from anywhere has led to a decline in outcome delivery?”

A recent study by Stanford University on 1,600 workers found that hybrid work had zero effect on workers’ productivity or career investment and that it boosted retention rates.

“The results are clear: Hybrid work is a win-win-win for employee productivity, performance, and retention,” said Stanford economist Nicholas Bloom.

The fixation with productivity has often been a focal point of this debate, but in this instance, Redfern highlighted a bit of hypocrisy on the NSW government’s behalf, in regard to their inclusivity policies.

“The NSW Public Service Belonging and Inclusion strategy states its purpose as ‘Inclusive for all. A world-class public sector where everyone belongs’ and includes a focus on creating employee experience policies that include the lived experience of PSC employees,” Redfern said.

“It also has a heavy focus on leadership providing ‘thought leadership and direction in tackling the most challenging and important issues related to belonging and inclusion across the NSW government sector.’”

“The decision to mandate a return to office by the NSW Public Service does not appear to align with elements of its strategy, including thought leadership on what makes for a great employee experience, the key to which is trust, autonomy and support.”

Another glaring yet warranted criticism of this decision by Premier Minns is the potential health and wellbeing implications that it could have. For workers with health issues, a hybrid or remote working arrangement can be a godsend, and has been a catalyst for opening up more opportunities for the neurodiverse community in the workplace.

“The Premier’s office memo states, ‘We will consider people’s individual circumstances.’ My experience informs me that few organisations have invested sufficiently in upskilling their managers to be inclusive and equipped to manage the many and varied requirements of diverse teams and people with broad lived experience,” said Redfern.

“If the NSW PSC had done this, great. If not, then there is a world of pain for managers who will be further burdened with unnecessary administrative tasks because of an outdated view of ‘The starting point is that work is done in a workplace’.”

‘WFH is a luxury’

The other side of the argument is based on the need for workers to have constant collaboration with each other, more importantly, in person. As social beings, we thrive off interaction, something that arguably is lost when communicating with colleagues through a screen.

HR Leader reached out to Sue Parker, career strategist, communications expert, and owner of DARE Group Australia, who threw her support behind the Premier’s decision, citing the need for social interaction in the workplace as a big reason.

“It was reported by research from Job Sage USA that 95 per cent of respondents felt having a work friend made them happier, and 76 per cent indicated creativity improved and 74 per cent felt productivity increased,” said Parker.

“The research also found that the COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on workplace friendships, with 48 per cent having less friends post the pandemic and 33 per cent feeling lonelier at work than before the pandemic.”

Parker believes that the hybrid/remote working arrangement is having a detrimental effect on workers, with loneliness growing among the workforce due to the social confinements of these arrangements.

“I observe Aussie workers across all generations are growing lonelier in general. And this also impacts work engagement with an over-zealous focus on technology and hiding behind screens and keyboards,” said Parker.

“Also, the dogged discipline required to work from home effectively and productively is just not in everyone’s capability [or] preferences (especially for most younger people). Shame and pressure can be placed on people to admit that they struggle here but thrive with workplace personal interaction.”

The link between younger workers struggling in a hybrid/remote working arrangement has been a commonly referred to argument throughout the WFH debates.

Parker, however, stressed that these arrangements should remain for workers who struggle with various mental or physical health issues, but went on to say that a WFH arrangement is a privilege that often does not expand beyond “white-collar workers”.

“For the vast majority of office workers, unless there is a physical disability, illness onset, mental health issue or family caring need, etc., being in the office is mentally healthier,” said Parker.

“WFH is a luxury only available to privileged white-collar office workers. All other workers (grey, pink, blue, etc.) have no choice but to front up in person.”

As public servants return to the office, the question must be asked: Could this result have a flow-on effect on workers in the private sector being told to make those changes and get back into the office more frequently? When we asked Parker this same question, her quick response was “absolutely”.

With flexibility being high on the prioritisation list for workers across Australia, movement to other workplaces or other states could see an uptick. Regardless, as the debate exits the talking stage, we could be on the cusp of a real seesaw affair between employees and employers over the right to flexibility.