Editorial
A tug-of-war is taking place between employers and employees. As we move further from the upheaval of the pandemic a new battle has emerged: The fight to keep flexible work.
Most of us would like to forget about the pandemic, but its undeniable impact remains. COVID brought about a seismic shift in how we work, transforming employee expectations and reshaping our ways of working.
By far the biggest change is how employees have grown accustomed to the flexibility and autonomy that remote work provides, and this has fundamentally changed their expectations about what work should look like. However, now that the dust from the pandemic has all but settled, many organizations are pushing to return to pre-pandemic norms, creating a tension between employee expectations and employer mandates.
The Evolution of Employee Expectations
Pre-pandemic, five days a week spent in a traditional office setting was the norm, with remote work a perk reserved for a select few. As we know, the pandemic flipped this model on its head, forcing companies and employees to adapt to remote work en masse whether they liked it or not. Employees quickly embraced the benefits — no commute, better work-life balance, and for many, increased productivity. These changes highlighted a new way of working and set a new standard, with employees now expecting flexibility as a given rather than a bonus.
And yet, many driving forces are challenging this expectation — sunk cost bias, visibility, lack of remote management capability and more. Regardless of what is driving organizations to pull the trigger on office time mandates, expecting things will simply revert to the way they were pre-COVID is unrealistic and naive. The pandemic permanently altered the landscape and attempts to force a return to the old ways will continue to be met with resistance. But has our familiarity and fondness for workplace flexibility become a fair expectation or has it evolved into a twisted sense of entitlement?
Related Article: Let's Not Go Back to 'Normal'
Expectation vs. Entitlement
I believe it's reasonable for employees to expect a level of flexibility, particularly in places like Melbourne (where I live), which was subjected to the longest lockdown period in the world (262 days). However, there's a fine line between expectation and entitlement. The distinction is crucial. When employees view work-from-home (WFH) as an entitlement rather than a privilege, it leads to friction. It can prompt employers to push back harder, fearing a loss of control or a decline in productivity.
Entitlement is not a win-win scenario. One party always has the upper hand. Expectation, however, is more like bartering. It’s all about striking a balance.
Employers should recognize the legitimate needs of their employees, but with the understanding that flexibility is a benefit that comes with responsibilities. Employees need to meet employers halfway when it comes to delivering what’s expected of them. This will require a pinch of self-awareness, including acknowledging that WFH is not for everyone. If you are working from home, you need to actually work. Employees will need to be honest with themselves and their employer about whether being in the office is better for their productivity, mental health and/or their ability to collaborate.
So, what is driving this expectation or sense of entitlement? It may be more than just a resistance to change.
The Financial and Logistical Realities
Adding a layer to this complex dynamic is the rising cost of living. Employees are feeling the pinch, and the idea of returning to the office feels like an additional financial burden. The additional expenses of commuting, particularly in cities with a burgeoning strain on infrastructure like Melbourne, where gridlock and overpacked trains are the norm, make returning to the office feel more like a pay cut. For many, this is not just about the inconvenience but also about the economic strain, further deepening the sense of disconnect with their employers.
Moreover, during the pandemic, many employees relocated to more remote areas, enticed by the promise of permanent remote work. For these employees, returning to the office isn't just inconvenient; it's impractical. The longer commute times and the costs associated with them add another layer of dissatisfaction.
Employers need to be aware of these dynamics and acknowledge them before or as part of mandating employees back into the office, otherwise the message will sound tone-deaf. When inflation is squeezing household budgets, forcing employees back into the office without addressing the increased cost of living or exploring some form of support will come across as a lack of self-awareness or lack of care.
The pinch is not exclusively being felt by employees though. Many businesses are trying to find ways to remain profitable. The cost-of-living crisis is impacting the entire supply chain which leads to cost-cutting.
Related Article: What Happened to the Promised Future of Work?
Opportunism in a Tightening Job Market?
As the employment market tightens and the power dynamic shifts back to the employer, it's worth questioning the timing of the push to return to the office. Have employers been waiting for this moment?
Without a doubt this is a strategic move by some employers who see an opportunity to reassert control, knowing that employees have fewer options. With job opportunities growing scarcer, there is a sense in the market that employers feel more emboldened to make demands that would have been met with resistance during the height of the remote work boom.
Notably, job listings on platforms like Seek and LinkedIn increasingly specify the number of in-office workdays required, signaling a shift in what companies are willing to offer. The transparency may benefit job seekers by setting clear expectations upfront, but it also reflects the broader trend of employers recalibrating the balance of power in the workplace. For some organizations, this could be a calculated effort to consolidate control as the job market becomes less favorable for employees.
So what does the middle ground in the future of work look like?
Drop Anchor and Collaborate with Purpose
The debate isn't (or shouldn’t be) about abolishing the office. It's about using the time in the office more effectively. I believe in the importance of "anchor days" — specific days when everyone comes into the office for purposeful collaboration. These days are valuable for team building, brainstorming and maintaining a sense of connection. Office days are about dedicating time to this, not just working as you would at home.
Requiring employees to come to the office just for the sake of it, or to have greater control and oversight, does not drive meaningful collaboration or improve management. In truth, if you don’t coordinate office days effectively it can lead to scenarios where half the team are dialed into a meeting whilst others are in the office further adding to frustrations for all parties.
The push for a part or full-time return to the office may also highlight what I think is a deeper issue: a lack of remote management capability. Managing a remote workforce requires different skills and tools than managing an in-office team. Some organizations will be pushing for a return to the office because they have yet to develop the necessary capabilities to manage a dispersed workforce effectively. For some it falls into the too-hard basket, others don’t have the time, money or perhaps the interest in exploring the cost versus benefits.
Conference
Sep
16
HR Tech Conference Las Vegas 2025
Register
Conference
Oct
27
Gartner HR Symposium/Xpo Orlando 2025
Register
But let’s not fool ourselves — this is not a productivity battle. It may be a perceived productivity issue because, for every research paper on flexible work’s positive impact on productivity, there is an equal and opposite counterargument. For every “hanging the washing out” while WFH is a “let’s pop downstairs for a coffee” when in the office.
This is a battle of autonomy and control.
Are anchor days and purposeful collaboration the key to solving the challenge? Unlikely, they are merely a thought starter and suggestion. However, there is one thing that must be non-negotiable: consultation and communication.
Related Article: Thriving From Work, Not Thriving at Work
Back to Basics, Not Back to the Past
If you were hoping for some panacea-esque ending to this, I’m sorry. I love a shiny toy as much as the next person but I‘m afraid at the heart of this issue lies a need for clear and open consultation and communication. Employers and employees have to work together to set and manage these evolving expectations.
Ultimately, this is about mutual respect and understanding. Employees should have expectations about their work environment, but these need to be balanced with the realities and needs of the business. Likewise, employers need to be mindful of the evolving needs and concerns of their workforce. The old guard is changing and the way we viewed and approached the office for decades past is simply that … in the past.
Whatever the work model — be it remote, hybrid or in-office — it boils down to communication and accountability. Employers and employees need to clearly communicate their expectations and hold each other accountable.
The Wrap Up
The future of work can’t be a return to the past. Instead, it has to be an evolution towards a more balanced and intentional approach. Thankfully, the future of work is still being written. The chapters ahead will be defined by how well employers and employees can communicate and align their great expectations.
Until next time and as always.
Hooroo.
Learn how you can join our contributor community.
