The Get Back to the Office Kerfuffle
It speaks to a disturbing lack of imagination among senior government and business leaders, who seem unable to grasp that the pandemic caused a seismic shift in the workplace and that there is no going back.
This essay was written not long after the NSW Government’s ‘back-to-the office’ Circular was first released in August 2024. I didn’t submit it for publication. There were a lot of comments at the time and I wasn’t convinced this piece would add value to the debate. Today, the debate continues. I have put this up for those who might be interested.
The NSW Premier’s Department secretary ordering the more than 400,000 public servants back to the office has caused a minor but instructive kerfuffle.
I have a couple of observations upfront. First, you can mandate employees return to the office, but you will pay in reduced commitment and engagement. Second, the key to successful flexibility in the workplace is employees having the choice to be flexible, even if they never use it. Third, if there are concerns about the performance of employees working remotely, then manage performance.
The kerfuffle is minor because…
The kerfuffle is minor because the Circular issuing the order doesn’t appear to change existing work policy or practice. Instead, it emphasises physical presence ‘in an approved office, workplace, or related work site’. It doesn’t ‘prescribe patterns of attendance’ but stresses that ‘work is principally done in an approved workplace in NSW’.
Three-quarters of the NSW Public Service is focused on frontline delivery, which is, by design, location-specific. Flexibility in these public-facing roles is important for employee well-being and has long been a feature of good management.
Post-pandemic, frontline roles have most likely benefited from a more imaginative approach to flexibility than was available pre-pandemic. However, sometimes, the nature of the work limits the possibilities for flexibility. If you are a nurse, paramedic, teacher, or in a direct customer service job, the role dictates the location of your work.
So, is the directive aimed at the remaining 25% of the public service? These are roles where location is not a fixed determinant of the quality of the outcome.
Over the past four years, public service managers and employees have experimented with hybrid and remote working, and the research and practice suggest they have reached a productive outcome. The key feature of this productivity is that one size does not fit all.
Some employees choose to work full-time in the office; fewer are full-time remote, and many have a fixed two or three-day in-office routine. Others work in the office when the work requires in-person attendance. Others choose the location where they work and when.
Considerable research shows that where remote and hybrid working arrangements are well-led and managed, they work for employees, managers, customers, and the organisation. An evidence-based policy approach to flexible working would suggest that location is but one of many factors influencing workplace productivity and performance in implementing flexible work.
However, evidence-based policy can be subject to confirmation bias (i.e. when we only look for information that supports an existing belief). The NSW Property Council has been publicly crowing about its success in influencing this policy based on office vacancy rates and the viability of small businesses in the CDB. It’s not an argument about improving public service productivity but more about collapsing revenue in Sydney’s commercial real estate sector.
This argument has been coupled with the ‘lazy public servant’ trope often deployed by business leaders. In this case, they ignore the considerable number of private-sector businesses that have successfully embraced flexible, hybrid, and remote working and currently have their pick of talent in a tight labour market.
The kerfuffle is instructive because…
The kerfuffle is instructive because it reveals the Premier’s Department’s view of the workforce. Essentially, employees are objects to be moved about for economic benefit.
As objects, NSW public servants must be housed in approved work locations currently vacant in Sydney’s CBD. This is explained as the ‘effective use of public assets’. Buildings without people still cost money.
Moreover, when public servants are paddocked together, their collective presence magically ‘builds strong public institutions’.
The evidence for groups of public servants being visibly present as a key mechanism in building community trust in government ignores the majority of the workforce in community-facing roles who are already present. It is also a weaker argument than the evidence for efficiently delivering tangible community outcomes to build public trust.
But, here, the authors of the Circular seem to want to have an each-way bet, with each workplace determining the exact work patterns as long as the buildings are well utilised across the working week. The argument for office space utilisation must be stronger as a principal determinant of public service productivity.
The Property Council, the owners of the buildings, have explained that everybody benefits when public servants are released to graze in the CDB. It takes a bit of Olympics-inspired mental gymnastics to see how public servants grazing in the CDB can be more productive than public servants in the hinterland. Apparently, public servants drinking coffee are the beating heart of the CBD revival and the prosperity of the inner city. I’m not sure what that means for workplace productivity.
Move on…
Constantly prosecuting the same ‘back-to-the-office’ arguments is tedious.
It speaks to a disturbing lack of imagination among senior government and business leaders, who seem unable to grasp that the pandemic caused a seismic shift in the workplace and that there is no going back.
It suggests that peak productivity for public servants occurs when they travel for one to one and a half hours to sit in front of computers in office blocks.
It confirms that some senior government and business leaders subscribe to Douglas MacGregor’s Theory X view of the workforce. Employees have little ambition other than what management gives them. They avoid responsibility and maximise self-interest. In short, public servants are inherently lazy and need to be watched closely to prevent malingering. Every employee engagement survey of public service in Australia provides ample evidence that this view is not accurate.
It reveals the NSW Property Council has too much sway in influencing workplace policy in NSW.
Move on. The time spent on this could be better spent delivering good public service outcomes.
