This might be a controversial article, but let’s get into it. Let’s talk about what working looks like, and more specifically, who gets to decide what it looks like. Because oh boy, there are some upheavals going on about what counts as productivity, and how that productivity should be performed. If there is one thing that we can probably all agree with: the pandemic of 2020 has been a significant disruption across all aspects of our society, and we are still feeling the ripples that it brought to our workplaces as we navigate various return-to-office models being implemented.
One of the greatest disruptions for many of us in 2020, was working from home. Prior to the pandemic, working from home was a unique arrangement for a handful of white-collar workers, simultaneously viewed as a new frontier for knowledge workers who benefit from increased flexibility, to something considered with extreme suspicion and offered (if at all) in small, measured doses. Then, March 2020 hit and we were forced en masse into a new paradigm of working, setting up spaces in living rooms, kitchen tables, bedrooms, and on balconies.
Work seeped into the home, and vice-versa—we became more familiar with our colleagues’ lives, spaces, and routines. In many instances, our workplaces became multi-purpose office-classroom hybrids for those living with school-aged children. Some battled extreme loneliness and isolation while others wondered if they would ever again have a break from constant activity and limited personal space.
And just as we were settling into the new groove, another upheaval happened.
With the widespread availability of vaccines, the pandemic started feeling a whole lot less urgent and scary, and organizational leadership began getting antsy about employees working to the office. The “return to office” (RTO) started as a rumour, then a rumble, and then a reality. RTO mandates are generally couched in the need for in-person interactions to help build culture and relationships, completely side-stepping the fact that culture and relationships were built quite effectively virtually during the pandemic.
This is the result of not directly addressing the other disruption the pandemic caused; our understanding of what work can look like, and our understanding of productivity.
Many organizations are still clinging to the idea that productivity requires employees to be together in a space where they can be monitored. But is this encouraging productivity, or is it encouraging performativity and presenteeism?
The thing with disruptions on the scale of the pandemic is that we can’t just go back to the way things were before.
There have been profound shifts in the physical, intellectual and cultural spaces of work that are not being fully discussed, and in fact are being ignored by blanket RTO mandates. We cannot unlearn the value of being able to structure our day in a way that accommodates our life and working style. Being forced into a conventional 9-5 format sacrifices that value. While there are other benefits to being “back to the office” (e.g. in-person time with colleagues), the loss of the flexibility is painful. Reliance on public transit that is unable to accommodate ever increasing demands is stressful, especially for anyone with accessibility challenges or tight childcare pickup times.
We have a valuable opportunity to take a critical look at work, culture and what is possible, and to be honest with ourselves about what really counts in our workplaces.
We need to ask: what we truly value, what trade-offs we’re willing to make to achieve our objectives, what difficult choices we may face, what realities our colleagues are facing, and what we are able to negotiate with other stakeholders. Ultimately, it behooves organizations and their leaders to acknowledge that tradeoffs are part of the business of leadership. Surely, we will see the greatest successes from those who make decisions based on evidence, acknowledging complexity and a constantly shifting environment, and still chose to act with integrity, transparency, care and respect.
Katherine Scott is a prospect research and development professional with over a decade of experience working in philanthropy for a range of organizations including MSF Canada (Doctors without Borders), Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation, Canadian Red Cross and Toronto Metropolitan University. She recently completed a successful six-year term as President of Apra Canada, the professional association for research, data, and prospect development professionals, and continues to be a mentor, speaker, and leader in the sector. Katherine has presented at conferences including Apra Canada, OLA, CCAE, and to organizations including AFP Saskatchewan, Apra-PA, and CAGP.
Sarah Marcotte is a librarian by profession and by choice, and has almost 20 years of experience in the nonprofit space, focusing on prospect research, prospect management, and data management. She is currently Senior Specialist, Data Steward at SickKids Foundation, and has previously held senior roles in prospect research at Weizmann Canada, Canadian Red Cross, and SickKids Foundation. Sarah holds a BA from McGill and an MLIS from Western University, and has been a member of Apra Canada, Apra International, and the Special Libraries Association. She served on the Board of Apra Canada from 2018-24, and continues as a mentor, volunteer, and speaker. With Katherine, she has presented at conferences including Apra Canada, OLA, CCAE, and AASP.
