Work from Office
The recent pandemic confined us to our homes. The vast improvement of online video communication technology irreversibly changed how many of us go about our work. As we leave the pandemic situation the discussion in the media has shifted to which is the better working arrangement – working from home or working at the office? I find this angle of discussion unproductive because it commits the either/or fallacy. Much of the media seems skewed toward creating the impression that working from the office or being physically present at the office to be an inconvenient or archaic thing. There is little consideration about how we work in relation to the nature of the work to be done. The shortcoming of that angle is it focuses on the means without any regard for the nature and purpose of the work. The question is not which is better, but which is suitable. My own experience tells me there are two kinds of people at the office from the standpoint of physical presence being necessary: those that have to be physically present, and those who do not. In my office, my administrative colleagues have to be physically present. The nature of their work demands it, not me. My front desk colleague has to attend to phone calls, walk-in clients, and manage the firm correspondence and my notary and commissioner appointments, amongst others. In the cubicle next to her, my conveyancing colleague is back up for phone calls and attending to clients if the front desk is occupied, aside from having to attend to her own work and manage our dispatch colleague. Needless to say, our dispatch colleague has to attend to carry out his work, delivering correspondence. None of them can do their work from home. The rest of our colleagues comprise of lawyers, pupils, and interns – those tasked with intellectual, as opposed to physical labour. The nature of their work i.e., researching, drafting, reading, etc. allows them a degree of mobility because they don’t have to do these things at a specific physical place. The media, however, conflates can with should and concludes from that that working from home (or anywhere really) is superior to working at the office. From there follows the arguments that there is no value to working in the office, it is a vestige of ancient thinking, physical presence is less necessary because of video and audio technology, and the rest. I feel the pitch for working from home has reached the level of propaganda. Anyone who thinks working from office is consigned to the dustbin of failed ideas and condamned as a dinosaur. For myself, I resonate with the phrase, There is a time and place for everything. This phrase means there is an appropriate and suitable location and occasion for us to do something. And we should not blur that distinction. For example, we do not play lively dance music at a funeral. We do not speed like we are on a six-lane highway on a city street. We do not drink alcohol or eat when we do our work. There is a time and place for everything means just because we can do something, doesn’t mean we should do it. It means we must consider the suitability of when and where we are doing something in relation to what we have to deliver, not in relation to our personal convenience. We should organize ourselves in a manner that facilitates being in a position to do our best for the work in our care. My starting point in thinking about work arrangements is with the question, Which arrangement enables us to attend to our work without hindrances, improves the quality of relationships and trust between our colleagues, and fosters a supportive, pleasant, and optimal working environment? I think there is generally no better place to do our work than the office, or the atelier, as I prefer to call our working space. Of course, I work from home on occasion when I have to rush something or need an acute kind of solitude. But by and large, I prefer working from atelier because I believe it benefits not just ourselves and the working environment but the wider community as a whole. Working from home, which is really sitting in front of a computer screen or several (mobile phone not included) for most of the day, is a bad thing for us personally and for the community. Firstly, when we work from office, we are physically together. There is less technological mediation in our interactions. That allows for easier, quicker and more quality and meaningful interactions with each other. The quality of communications is superior. It facilitates and encourages organic and quality discussions. A five minute face to face conversation is more productive and meaningful compared to a half an hour video call. That just makes sense because 70% – 80% of our communication is non-verbal. We lose those non-verbal cues and information with video calls; our focus is narrower – just the head or upper torso – and the quality of experience of our engagement is inferior. When we are in front of each other we get more out of the conversation – it feels more richer and fuller compared to the tin-can communication of video and audio. Secondly, our presence together with the physical space and personal attitudes creates the ‘work environment’, which I think to be an important thing. It’s an important intangible; something we only appreciate when its toxic or non-existent. Our presence at work creates and contributes to the work environment. It is important because it creates conditions for cooperation, learning, excellence and motivation. Working remotely and silo-like does not enable the creation of a real, meaningful and supportive environment. Quality lawyers in a quality work environment produce quality work in a sustainable manner over the long term. A conducive environment fosters relationships of trust, cooperation, and agreeableness that result in the timely production of quality work. The point of that
