The Pros and Cons of Face-to-Face Time at Work
Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer made face time a hot topic when she discontinued Yahoo’s work-from-home policy and required that work-from-home employees get themselves into the office. It made no difference that some employees had accepted their positions based on an agreement that they could work from home; work was now to be done on-site.
That change in policy unleashed an overload of media buzz—some supporting a “work at work” policy, some outlining alternatives that would allow employees to continue to work at home. Even though everyone seems to have an opinion on the subject, there are pros and cons to working from home, and the issue isn’t straightforward.
On one hand, when you work from home, you can be more productive because you don’t face the constant interruptions of the workplace. On the other hand, the line between work and home blurs. On the first hand, you’re less hampered by extremes in weather, transportation outages, and other issues faced by those who have to go to work to be at work. On the second hand, there are some things you just can’t do remotely, such as drop in on customers or have lunch with teammates. There are advantages to both ways of working; there are also pitfalls.
The biggest issue, though, seems to be the belief that face-to-face interactions enhance collaboration and innovation. The point of view of this Forbes article is that relationships are the key to collaboration and innovation, trust is the glue that holds a relationship together, and in building trust, there’s no substitute for getting people in the same place.
Yet, innovation rarely takes place in formal settings. So some organizations are creating physical meeting spots, such as break-out areas and coffee bars, to up the odds that employees will meet, linger, and talk.
But Jason Fried, cofounder of the software firm 37signals, strongly disagrees with the idea that people have to be face to face for sparks to fly and for breakthroughs to break through. First, he points out, brilliant brainstorms don’t really happen all that often; rays of enthusiasm should not be confused with rays of brilliance. Second, all it really takes for ideas to fly is a voice connection and a shared screen. Instead of nonstop togetherness, Fried favors rationing in-person meetings so that when people do come together, it’s something special.
Probably few would dispute the idea that occasional face-to-face meetings are valuable. In face-to-face conversations with teammates or customers, you can gain insight into who they are, how they function, and what matters to them, and what you learn can help you better work with them. The issue is whether full-time face-to-face interaction is necessary or occasional face-to-face meetings are sufficient.
What’s your view?
