A while ago, I came across an article on LinkedIn that quoted former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, who blamed Google’s tertiary placement in the AI race on work from home (WFH) arrangements. He did go back and correct his statements, admitting that he “misspoke about Google and their work hours”. Schmidt had previously stated that “Google decided that work-life balance and going home early and working from home was more important than winning”. It’s interesting that Schmidt has always equated work-life balance with an obstacle to business progress; those earlier comments align with his (eventually amended) critique of WFH.
All of Schmidt’s statements fall in line with his opinion that remote work prevents business innovation and effectiveness, and he’s committed to sharing this opinion in various ways, on multiple occasions. His decision to walk back a “misspoken” statement doesn’t change the fact that he speaks the opinions held by many business leaders. The general consensus from some of the most high-powered, visible CEOs is that work completed outside of the office isn’t conducive to business growth and innovation. They have drifted away from the attacks on productivity, after a number of studies confirmed that many employees completed more work while at home. Businesses and their leadership teams abandoned the criticisms against WFH that could be objectively verified via data, in favor of one that is more nebulous and qualitative. In the case of many CEOs, the chosen argument is that remote work is a hindrance to innovation.
Here’s where I offer a more nuanced take on the real reason why businesses have a distaste for WFH arrangements. I think there is a not-so-subtle underlying reason why so many CEOs have taken an anti-remote work stance, and no, it has nothing to do with the fact that a select minority of workers are doing the bare minimum on the clock, or that the lack of innovation or collaboration are causing the business to lose money and opportunities. It also isn’t as closely tied to the expensive unused office leases as many (including myself) originally thought. I think this may have been hinted at before, but I haven’t yet seen it explained in the way that I will.
The truth is, anti-WFH sentiments are heavily rooted in an anti-family, and a uniquely anti-feminine, ideology. It is based on the belief that valuable work – with a paycheck as an end result – can only happen outside of the home. Work that happens in the home is perceived as intrinsically less important and not worthy of financial compensation. The ability to do office tasks effectively within the home is incongruous with what our society has taught, which is, things that happen in the home don’t deserve pay. It is an unwritten rule that work that happens within the confines of one’s personal residence isn’t “real work” and should not be directly compensated.
It’s important to remember that most businesses were thrust into a WFH culture before they were adequately prepared for it. And, funnily enough, most of them would have NEVER prepared for it, had it not been for COVID intervening. Business, in general, is considered something that doesn’t happen at home. For many years, it was something that could only happen in offices, away from the distractions of domestic life. Even with the advent of the internet and the ability to collaborate with teams across time zones, there was still a hesitance to implement remote work arrangements.
The reason is not as simple as what we’ve been told, particularly, the stories that have been pushed heavily since 2020. Yes, there were some underperforming employees that abused WFH provisions: most of these employees were ineffective and doing the bare minimum when they were showing up into the office daily. And absolutely, the cost of leasing spaces that aren’t being used regularly is tremendous. That being said, it is unwise to look at this push against WFH and not see how it is tied to the belief that “work” done in your home isn’t deserving of direct financial compensation. It’s downright malicious to gaslight workers – who have been happy, productive and effective while working from home – into thinking that they will somehow be better performers if they spend time commuting to and from a building, then sitting in a cubicle for eight hours.
I suspect that, as businesses try to revert to the pre-2020 way of work, there will be many employees who simply walk away from these jobs and never look back. These employees will figure out how to monetize their other talents and will be able to support themselves through their own online businesses. With their newfound location freedom, they’ll be able to move to places that are more affordable and offer a better quality of life. And then we will see businesses finally start to realize that the innovation that comes from their remote workers is far better than having no employees at all.
