WFH v/s WFO: The debate is still on!
Ever since the COVID-19 pandemic forced lockdowns, companies globally had to shift to the work from home (WFH) format. But now the situation seems to be getting better. So, many offices are returning to the traditional work from office (WFO) setup. But, this has left people divided as to which one is better—the water cooler talks or the Zoom ones? We explore both sides.
Talking about remote work, Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon earlier said, "It's not a new normal. It's an aberration that we are going to correct as quickly as possible." His opinion was echoed by Barclays CEO Jes Staley who felt WFH was not sustainable. Several companies are looking for candidates willing to work from offices only, as they feel WFH isn't a long-term substitute.
Many companies also feel remote working affects the employee-employer relationship. However, they admit that WFH has delivered an efficient work rate with a holistic approach and enabled international hiring. When one is working from home, there is no traveling involved. Hence employees are able to afford an additional 2-3 hours. Also, companies have saved a lot in electricity, real estate, snacks, and coffee bills.
Due to the lack of socializing, it'll be hard for companies to build a healthy culture among employees if WFH becomes permanent. The interaction between employees is declining and surveys reveal WFH employees are more distressed due to a lack of mental support from companies. ADP Research says on-site workers "enjoy crucial advantages over their remote counterparts," such as social interaction and work boundaries.
As is understood, choosing between WFH and WFO doesn't have a solid conclusion, because individual perceptions differ. For now, tech giants like Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, and others are inclined toward a hybrid office model. However, financial companies will likely go for the WFO format. Ideally, the WFH v/s WFO debate rests on the demands of a particular company. Which one do you prefer?