PANDEMIC AND REMOTE TEAMS

The effects of the Pandemic and the new employer's and employees approach is changing the landscape of the business in a very turbulent environment.

Employees are looking for autonomy with how they work in hybrid and remote set-ups

Our employees are 67% of whom chose to work in the office, while the other 33% work remotely or from home.  We ended up having two worlds: one that existed in the office, the other remote and they would only ever connect over Zoom meetings. I had to address issues as they arose. The hardest aspect of the management is that everything has to go through them with a flexible solution. Hybrid was chosen, but it was much easier to say than to do.

Part of the problem was that employee expectations became radically different.

People approach changed with the pandemic: Employees wanted more in terms of salary, flexibility and freedom to work. They became more stressed and sensitive to company changes. Leading hybrid teams through a fundamental shift in how, where and when employees distribute their tasks and assignments proved to be a tremendous challenge.  I personally had a style of communication that needed to change overnight as people worked flexibly.

I had to re-think recruiting processes: hiring a worker that you might never meet in person. I had to accept that a fully remote team would naturally build its own workplace culture. Alongside that, I had less time to learn or make mistakes. It became a recipe for stress, overwork and burnout.

Many managers are indeed struggling in the new work world. Future executives reported 40% anxiety, 20% imbalances in work-life and less satisfaction. This trend was particularly pronounced among managers, with those at large organizations showing the lowest scores for work-life balance, alongside the highest levels of stress and anxiety. 

The figures suggest that many people are having a hard time dealing with shifting employee expectations and working patterns. While employees have relished on a greater autonomy over working models, managers have struggled to adapt as they lead teams through an unprecedented transition.

Management has to deal with the emotional impact on their teams; they also had to find ways of enabling remote work virtually overnight. The processes in which people had communicated, coordinated and shared information in the workplace were suddenly left to figure out over their autonomous set-up and what to do.

As the pandemic has evolved , these leaders ask to implement unpopular measures as return to office or hybrid-working policies. In many cases, managers are caught between two sides pulling in opposite directions, some people have pushed for an office return. You may end up in the middle, having to balance the uncertainty about their working models against the claim among employees for flexible working.

Flexible working requires a shift in the behaviors, processes and systems that enable managers to build connections, assess work and monitor the staff. Nevertheless, the ways in which managers have been trained to offer support and evaluate work require them to monitor the information being right in front of them. This need updating a culture of trust. And trust takes longer to build among distributed teams in which colleagues never meet in person. A manager before the pandemic compared to nowadays is completely different.

Hard skills vs Soft skills

In a sustainable company, managers are often in their role because of hard skills. However, to be a manager with flexible working, requires a focus on soft skills: building trust, connecting the dotes and culture among distributed teams. 

Hybrid working challenges you on a personal level as a worker, and then also on a managerial level. You need to update the company culture, have online routines and place the trust on a completely new level. Besides, flexible working has deepened the issues that make a transition to management; it requires new definitions of what it means to be a successful manager. It is difficult to balance what the executives expects and what the employees want from flexible working.

Managers who found themselves in companies are still standing on to presenteeism and are more likely to struggle leading hybrid teams. When the job is more about monitoring who’s going into the office or not, trust becomes harder.

The long run  

While difficulties managing distributed remote teams remain, hybrid working aren’t going away. This means companies will need to find a way to help the stressed management. It’s not easy: if a manager today is compared to 2019, the job is absolutely more challenging.

Market demand means flexible working will be here. Employers will ultimately have to cede ground. know that employees want flexibility and that they’re willing to walk if their current job doesn’t provide it. So, what we’re currently seeing are likely short-term growth hurdles.  

When the pandemic first hit, and everything turned online, the management believed that the company culture and processes didn't need to change – just online alternatives for everything. I think it’s only now that businesses have accepted they need to adapt, rather than find quick fixes. Leading a hybrid team through the pandemic gave me the opportunity of exercise skills that I have never been able to take forward.

Micromanagement

The micromanagement wasn’t nearly so bad when the team were based in the same office or site. Nevertheless, the main task was to take many technical roles permanently remote. Even though we were busier than ever during Covid-19, it doesn’t seem to get the job done without a constant input.

Micromanagement isn’t a new phenomenon, there have always been people who keep close tabs on their staff. But as the increase in workers performing their roles remotely, the pandemic has birthed a new way of remote control. 

These micromanagement measures invade the staff with constant check-ins and calls, unnecessary Zoom meetings or overly detailed instructions. This is doing significant damage to the employees. Remote workers who feel micromanaged by their managers are less engaged, less motivated and less capable or more dependent.

Ultimately, this can result in resignations. Micromanagement is easier to navigate in an in person setting, as there are less intrusive ways to keep an eye on a project’s progress, such as strolling over for a quick chat which could be interpreted as just being very supportive. In a remote setting, where micromanagement takes the form of constant emails or calls, the impact on relationships can be more significant. It creates more frustrations and more anxiety translated in less motivation. Ultimately, you' will see disengagement and eventually people leaving the company.

Besides, there are also longer-term effects that can follow employees throughout their careers. Micromanaged employees can end up without the initiative to carry out tasks independently, step outside their comfort zones and develop resilience in the face of adversity. The employees that do not learn the skills of being creative, to think critically and have the confidence to try something out will only want to do what feels comfortable.

Micromanagers themselves end up in a stress and they're doing work that others should be doing. As a result, they are not focused enough on strategy as they are stuck in operations, rather than thinking in the long term goals.

Learning to trust

As remote work has changed the workplace, this shift has left managers confused and finding new ways of interacting with their teams, such as how to assess good performance when they can’t physically see work happening in front of them. It is a learning curve. Micromanagement can be detrimental for workers, struggling and figuring out to their knowledge how or what it is right.

Frustration and strategy

The complexities of hybrid work are a key factor pushing companies into fully remote set-ups. Hybrid work is really hard to manage. There is a lot of scheduling complexity. The downsides in-and-out hybrid schedules have started to become more clear, from awkward Zoom calls in conference rooms to emotional exhaustion for workers and logistics ensuring team members are on the same page.

Most of the workers don’t want to lose this autonomy, companies know, so doubling down on remote work may be a tactic to fight attrition and boost worker engagement. Companies that double down are simply following the numbers, making sure their employees would not leave for other remote-first jobs.

The move is not possible for all industries: customer-facing sectors that have been resistant to remote work. However, for companies with the flexibility to take such a dramatic decision, the option is becoming increasingly appealing.

Significant risk

If a company could double down on remote work, not everybody believes it is the right move, especially when data points benefits to personal work.

Equally, while going remote does expand a firm's talent pool, it also risks alienating potential talent who dislike working from home for a variety of reasons. It does limit the pool to people that are willing to work from home. A problem is the youngest Generation Z.

Formerly empty desks are starting to fill as workers are back into offices

Bringing workers back to their desks has been a difficult road for employers and employees alike. The evolution of the pandemic has meant that best plans have often not materialized and the flow of workers back into offices has been more of a trickle than a stream. This has meant a lot of uncertainty around what a wide scale return to office might look like in practice.

While plenty of companies are still working through their new policies, some employees across many countries are now back at their desks, whether on a full-time or hybrid basis.

Inflation and economics are putting stress on employees 

As costs rise throughout the world, workers being called back to headquarters are feeling the squeeze.  The key lessons on heading back are rising prices of commuting and running expenses. Consequently, return-to-office-related costs have shot up. The wages have not kept up with inflation, despite the salary growth that workers have enjoyed during the pandemic labor market.

This reality is putting stress on employees who have to pay for transport, desk lunches, more childcare, clothing and the role of socialization costs.

Workers and Employers are playing a new role

As much as pandemic waves have steamed the return to office, there is another reason to consider with the widespread return: neither the workers who are enjoying remote work or the employers who want staff in seats are willing to back down. At some businesses, employers are trying to incentive to their workers to come back with increased salaries, fringe benefits or perks.

Not everyone is at odds, a notable group of workers are relieved and even thrilled to get a break from the remote -work grind. For some, the isolation has taken a toll, and others report less productivity at home. These differing approaches and attitudes mean returns have been happening with inconsistent basis. It’s a very mixed picture, companies are really having to find the way through what is suitable for all the parties involved. The process has been slow, and it's set to drag on at least a little while longer.

Some employees report that management are taking advantage of the situation, insisting that employees shall come in, while they work remotely. The absence of bosses is causing some chaos among employees, who don’t have the organizational culture such as mentorship and networking. However, and statistically wise, managers were the most burnt-out, according to data from a survey. Some may be staying behind because they are not quite ready to lead again. Some companies have switched to a very committed desk system, which means that the private spaces of the former office are no longer available.

 Conclusion

Many returning workers are struggling with an adjustment period, this means planning commutes and collaboration are having to learn how to behave in a shared setting. Most of the businesses have not figured out the long term, permanent return-to-office plans. Consequently, many companies have done a poor job of communicating their intentions and drive the workforce into uncertainty. 

If not properly addressed, this will have long term consequences for the planning and social distribution of the active population. Social effects like delayed moving forward in careers, moving houses or even settle a family. Other groups have already made big changes, such as buying homes outside commuting distance or waiting for instructions on coming back to find out whether they will have a more friendly and consent with a remote role.