COMMENT When news emerged that the government would encourage workers back into the office, my Twitter feed duly erupted into outrage – with only some considered reaction. How dare they do this when the virus is still at large! I can do my job just as well from home and avoid commuting costs! It is all being done to save Pret a Manger/property developers/property investors (delete as appropriate)!
Apart from depicting a world I don’t really recognise – London seems to me to be full of independent places to buy sandwiches or a more interesting lunch, for that matter – the arguments and reactions seem so full of myths and misconceptions that I feel duty-bound to address them. This is not just because of who I work for, by the way – and nor am I saying that now is necessarily the right time for everyone to be back in their usual place of work.
“I am just as productive from home as in the office”
Yes, people work just as hard at home – if not harder. But “working just as hard” is not the same as “being just as productive”. Productivity in the long-term is not just the sum of what all the workers in an organisation do independently each day.
It is about adopting new technologies, new methods of doing things, launching new products and projects, working and collaborating. It is about growing in other ways, such as bringing in new skilled workers.
The office and the city around it are the physical media by which some of this is achieved. They enable the face-to-face and accidental contact that leads to innovation and growth; and the office in particular helps builds teams and trust. Networking tools such as Teams and Zoom are fantastic additions to our lives – but so much human communication and emotional attachment is based on non-verbal communication which is not (yet) picked up online.
Accepting long-term, permanent homeworking implies that many advantages would be lost. There would be a gradual relative reduction in the productivity of companies. That means lower levels of economic growth, lower levels of tax take and poorer-quality public services, among other things.
The content of your job will not change in a fully homeworking world
If the productivity of individual companies drops, then eventually they will have to cut costs and potentially jobs. But there are other ways in which the nature of work could change.
Some managers may react to a more distributed and flexible workforce – particularly if productivity looks shaky – by trying to monitor what people do much more. But a further solution might tempt bosses: if jobs are easily definable and routine, then why not reach for an algorithm, or – if the job really can be done anywhere – cheaper workers elsewhere in the world?
This would be a huge loss, to companies and the UK economy as well as individuals. Without cities and the offices in them, productivity would be lower, even if managers automated and offshored as much as possible. In a world of knowledge-intensive industries, UK cities – the networks and people within them, their transport networks, education facilities and the range of arts, entertainment and food options – are the UK’s competitive advantage. Take much of this away and the business case for the country might not look as strong.
All this is just to benefit commercial landlords
The argument goes something like this – the government is only intervening because it is worried about a handful of hyper-affluent property developers/investors and private equity funds.
Of course, landlords are benefiting from these effects; but I would argue that we all benefit, that the investment provided adds value to businesses, the economy and society as a whole.
The most erroneous part of this argument, though, is the characterisation of the commercial property sector. According to the IPF in 2013, private investors owned only around 3% of the UK’s shops, offices and warehouses. Far more are owned by pension and life insurance funds, or – in the case of many regional centres – the public sector in the form of local authorities.
If these revenue streams are cut off, it’s not just a few billionaires who suffer; it’s the man in the street with a pension scheme, or central or local government revenues and services. And that doesn’t just mean affluent private sector workers’ pension pots; many of the big public sector pension funds – some local authority ones, for example – are also heavy investors in commercial property.
But the office and cities will change
None of this is to say that everyone should be back in offices five days a week.
There are huge advantages to flexible working – from my point of view, I am better able to combine family life and my contribution to housework with my job. I also find concentrated work easier at home. Zoom calls reduce commuting and other business travel, reducing our environmental footprint while enabling people with different backgrounds and points of view to come together more easily.
But I need the office too – to meet colleagues and clients, to get some variety away from my home, desk and local café. The end result will be a mix of the two. That, of course, will lead to its own management problems: how will you save on office space if everyone wants to come in on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday? Do certain days have more status because that’s when the CEO or team leader is in?
Whatever the problems, this shift will fundamentally change cities, their neighbourhoods and commuting patterns.
Jon Neale is head of UK research at JLL
