Remote Work

"It's not the plane; it's the pilot." - Top Gun 2

Let me start off by saying this: I am a huge Elon Musk fan. What is parked in my garage and my interest in all things space will tell you that. But I want to chime in with my perspective on remote work. While he is allowed to have a perspective on whatever he wants, well, so do I. For context, my wife and I have been working remotely for about six years now, and in my opinion, very effectively. I can confidently line up what she and I have contributed to the organization over the last six years with anyone who has been religiously showing up to the office daily. 

I am beyond thankful for the leadership of the organization I work for. They saw not only the value in decentralizing and working remotely but were self-aware enough to understand that while challenges do come with it, they can be overcome. They invited feedback and communication on the process. They also recognized that value and production are not a zero-sum game based on where you are located every day. 

Back to Elon. If you have not seen the interview, I suggest you watch it. Here is a quote from the interview.

"There are some exceptions, but I think the whole notion of work-from-home is a bit like the fake Marie Antoinette quote, 'Let them eat cake,'" he said. "You're going to make people who make your food that gets delivered [that] can't work from home; the people that come fix your house, they can't work from home, but you can? "Does that seem morally right? That's messed up," Musk said. 

If anyone was on a moral "high horse," Elon was here. This is what bothers me the most about his comments. 

This statement once again confirms to me that my worldview is accurate. At some level, everyone wants control and power and, unfortunately, feels they are cornering the market on what is best for everyone. I believe it is deeply flawed to use the term "morally wrong." He has an opinion; he has a preference. And he has every right as the leader of his organization to require workers to come to the office. But to make this a moral argument is ridiculous. I wish he would have just said what is true: "Nah, this is my preference, I'm the boss, and I can make this decision. And if people employed by me do not like it, they can find another job." Okay, that is not what he said, but if he did, I can get behind that. Because that is true. It is his preference, and he can make that decision.

While wildly disappointed in his views here, I was equally encouraged to see the significant pushback against this position from those who are fans of him. Just scroll down Twitter, and you will see how differently most view his statement, even those who love him the most. I was going to list some tweets here, but I would not do it justice by handpicking a few. Look for yourself; he's very much in the minority here, even with his own "fans." The "morality" aspect is way out of bounds.

I am thankful for the intelligent response here by Kevin O'Leary. I do not know much about Kevin O'Leary, but his response articulates my viewpoint well. You can watch it here.

It is amazing how we will attach morality to things we think others should do without holding ourselves to the same standard. Some might say it is morally wrong to work from home, but not morally wrong for CEOs to make hundreds of millions of dollars while requiring workers to show up to a building, making significantly less money. At the same time, those same policymakers do not adhere to the policies they require of everyone else. Let me be clear before you assume I do not believe in capitalism. My statement is not about money; it's about positioning oneself in a morally superior position. That is my issue.

Based on my perspective, I find it interesting that those making these requirements are the most inaccessible, physically absent people in the organization. This is a harsh statement, but it boils down to power. I pray that my generation and those behind me revolt against this mindset. Hierarchy is good; it serves the purpose of order. I believe in capitalism; people should try to make as much money as possible and then be personally responsible for how they use it. I believe in leadership; bosses have demanding jobs and reserve the right to make hard decisions. But I just as much believe in humanity. I think you should consider the "human element." Let's open our eyes to what technology has allowed us to do. For many of us, that is to be more efficient and effective, which in many instances can enable us to work from anywhere, to have balance in our lives, and to be more present in the other areas of our lives we value.

Now, remote working has some downsides: At times, you can feel a bit disconnected. That's true. But you can also feel the same way in the office. I've been there. But here's the thing: your feelings and productivity are not dependent on one another. I'd rather feel a little disconnected at work so I am fully engaged at home, as opposed to pleasing a man's preference for control. Control also does not equate to productivity. Physical presence does not equate to performance. Two kids can sit in the same classes in the same school with the same teachers and "perform" significantly different. And frankly, much of that comes from what they do after leaving the classroom.

Yes, not all jobs can or should be remote. That is true. Every office environment is different. What is effective for one may not be for others. All industries are different. Your bartender or waitress needs to be physically "at the office." There are dozens and dozens of examples where you need to be "at work." But let's not pretend everyone else does or should. Returning to the "morality clause" used by Elon, what are we judging worth based on? Being somewhere, or what you provide to the company? If it's just being somewhere, we should all be paid the exact same way because if physical attendance is what is valued, well, then that's how we should get paid... but that's not how it works, right? (this was my point of bringing in CEO compensation)

Yes, you miss out on some relationship-building opportunities. It's true. However, this can also be minimized significantly with appropriate leadership and by prioritizing gatherings several times yearly for team building. I have found that prioritizing these environments a few times a year can be considerably more effective than just hoping it happens daily. And while you may miss out on some relationship building, you also miss out on workplace drama and gossip. That can be real, too. Let's not forget that some workplaces can be toxic. I've never experienced one, but I know some who have. 

I am sorry, but in my experience, and for others I know who work remotely, it is significantly easier to be more efficient when you are not in the office. You are focused on what you are doing and not being disrupted or distracted by the environment around you. There can be a lot of wasted time in an office environment. You can sit at a cube for six hours and do nothing as you can at home. It is even more so that you can get deep work done at home in half the time it takes sitting at an office. So, what are we actually talking about here?

Lastly, yes, not everyone is disciplined enough to work from home. So here's the thing: hire well. Lead well and have accountability for one's performance, not attendance. The thing is, attendance is easier. I have found that, over time, those who are not disciplined to work at home are not disciplined to do work at the office. I love the quote in Top Gun 2, "It's not the plane, it's the pilot." Well, it's not the location, it's the person.

To me, Elon's perspective is being driven by ego, which is unfortunate. He is usually very thoughtful in his responses. I say this because of what he said and how he said it. It was very black and white, a strong reaction in emotion and language. To me, his response does not come from someone thoughtfully considering what he is saying. It's coming from universal disapproval that he cannot control the masses and the culture shifts in the work environment because it is not what he prefers. 

Some of us do not desire to live out our one existence in an office every day, but we are still driven and deeply care about what we do, and cannot be equally, if not more, effective, efficient, and collaborative. There can be more than one way here. It doesn't have to be either or. Let's be honest; we've all known some office rats that provide little value. So let's not make it about that. Technology has changed the way we work, and we should embrace it. 

Here is my concern, Elon has influence. People are sheep, even those with the most significant job titles. People grab onto what others of influence say and use it to justify their preferences, regardless of the logic or thoughtfulness behind it. Let's evolve here as humans. Most of us do not work in a factory on an assembly line. And let's be honest, if you do, as soon as a machine can do what you are doing, you will no longer be told to "come to the office." You will be told, "You are no longer needed here."

I want to close with this: there are pros and cons to everything in life, and personally, the world would be a much better place if we identified a healthy balance between what is best for an organization and what is best for people. The economy matters, but so does the quality of life. Sometimes, they can conflict, but let's not place the morality of what is best for a company over what is best for society. It's wrong. Just call it what it is: Some leaders want you there so they can see you because it makes them feel better. I'm glad I have not encountered this in my life, and I hope more and more people begin to see these two worlds can exist for the betterment of both the economy and humanity.