The New York Times (NYT) discussed with American employers issues related to remote work. It turned out that corporations are increasingly refusing to make predictions of an exit from a remote location. Moreover, they believe that it is unacceptable to voice specific terms in this matter. Instead of creating a sense of certainty and stability among employees, forecasts escalate the situation even more due to constant transfers.
As the NYT points out, by the end of the year, office occupancy in the United States increased from 33% to 40%. However, employers are reluctant to actively return people to their jobs or announce specific deadlines for returning to offices. The publication also cites a survey by Gartner in August this year, in which two-thirds of 238 companies surveyed refused to consider plans to leave the distance due to the emergence of new strains of coronavirus - organizations are putting this question on the back burner. In particular, taxi aggregator Lyft said that it is not going to return employees to the office before 2023. Prior to that, most of the organizations surveyed expected to remove people from remote locations by early 2022.
Due to the still existing uncertainty over the coronavirus pandemic, most companies surveyed by NYT have stopped making loud statements or making specific plans for remote working hours. Moreover, this practice at the start of the pandemic backfired. The organizations expected to show that they were in control of the situation and had clear plans for the future in the face of global uncertainty. However, due to the constant transfers, it soon became clear that they were not really in control of the situation, and unambiguous statements only harm the reputation. Flexible dialogue with employees in terms of building work regimes turned out to be more effective than setting rigid deadlines.
Announcing specific deadlines for returning to offices demotivates employees not only because of constant transfers. Companies interviewed by the NYT noted that news of the cancellation of the remote control has sometimes caused panic among people concerned about their own safety due to the emergence of new strains and the increase in the number of cases in the United States. The management received requests with many questions, how this decision relates to the current epidemiological situation. There were also cases when employees very much asked the management to determine the mode of operation and take them out of limbo. According to representatives of organizations, such "emotional swings" exhaust workers.
bbabo.Net