This is one of my rare posts where I’m genuinely after feedback. to discover if I’m just being daft, or is this something more people quietly recognise?
When I’m dealing with tricky client situations or work I find stressful or dull, I gravitate to an office. If the client doesn’t have one, I’ll book a workspace. Making the environment more austere seems to make it easier to knuckle down 1. At home, when the work is unpleasant, I don’t tackle it as well; there are too many nice distractions. The difference between work I enjoy and work I don’t becomes stark, so I remove the comforts and go somewhere “all business”.
That’s my personal pattern. But is it generally true? Setting aside “people only work hard when monitored” (that’s a different debate), is difficult or unpleasant work simply more efficient to do in an office than at home?
It could explain a few things. You often hear aggressive, control-heavy managers say, “People work best in the office.” Well, if the work feels unpleasant, perhaps the lack of distractions helps you just get on with it. Conversely, inspiring leaders and organisations, where the work feels meaningful and motivating, may find remote working thrives, because people want to do the work and can benefit from less commuting and more flexibility.
Are we missing this nuance in the broader conversation? Perhaps some kinds of work , or some leadership cultures, make the office more effective precisely because the work feels less rewarding. If your only option in the office is to work, you might as well get it done.
Has anyone else seen this? Is this a conclusion you’ve come to? I’d love feedback, especially from engineers and delivery teams.
Note: I’m assuming all else is equal, same type of work, similar pay structure, and comparable teams. If the people or the work are fundamentally different, the comparison falls apart.
- I have since learnt that part of this is the known effect that you work harder when you feel you are monitored[↩]