How to ensure that the future of work is fair for all

By Sacha Nauta: Deputy executive editor, The Economist

Greater productivity, happier and healthier workers and lower emissions are just some of the benefits of the great work-from-home experiment. Another hoped-for upside is increased workplace fairness. With workers stuck at home, appearing in similar-sized, randomly arranged rectangles on video calls and unable to suck up to bosses in the office, diversity-and-inclusion types had hoped that the pandemic would be the “great leveller”. It would finally destigmatise remote work and give all employees a fair chance to flourish.

Whether that really will be covid-19’s legacy depends on what happens next. Fairness—essentially, lack of favouritism—is easier to track when everyone is working in similar circumstances. But the vast majority of knowledge workers, and most employers, now prefer a hybrid approach. Before the pandemic 5% of work in America was done remotely and 27% of employers offered flexible hours; today the numbers are 40% and 88% respectively. The hybrid workplace will be a messy concoction. Left to develop organically, it is more likely to exacerbate existing inequalities than reduce them.

That is because workers have different preferences about office work, and those differences are not distributed randomly. Given the choice, women, minorities and parents with young children will spend less time in the office. If the past is anything to go by, they will pay a price for this, losing out on pay rises and promotions because employers—often subconsciously—value physical presence. Women and minorities are also more likely to quit if an employer insists on full-time office-based work. A two-tier workforce could emerge, with a highly rewarded “in” group and a less rewarded “out” group.

A two-tier workforce could emerge, with a highly-rewarded “in” group and a less-rewarded “out” group

To avoid that outcome, employers need to engineer the workplace. Fairness will happen only by design. First, bosses will need to define whether they want procedural fairness (same rules for everyone) or fairness in outcomes (no group suffers as a result of a policy). Next, employers will need to be honest with themselves about when physical presence adds genuine value. Conflating physical proximity with productivity, and rewarding workers accordingly, does not make sense.

Even more important is to be clear with workers. Apple was berated for demanding that workers return to the office three days a week, but at least its rules were clear. Many employers promise that workers can work flexibly, but leave them to decipher unwritten rules. Such pledges are understandable in today’s hot labour market, but ring hollow without clarity.

Firms that promise not to penalise remote workers must ensure that such workers have access to the same resources as everyone else. This also means investing in fair processes. Covid-19 has not wiped out biases about people who work from home. Workplace design that circumvents such biases will be even more important than before. Decisions about pay and promotion must be made in clear and measurable ways.

Companies that value presence should consider setting fixed “in” days to ensure nobody gets left behind. Leaders can help reduce the presenteeism bonus by working from home on non-mandatory days, or by specifying that on some days, everyone works from home.

Employers who demand a full-time return to work will lose talent and probably become less diverse. A survey by wfh Research found that 39% of white men were a flight risk in such circumstances, but 47% of non-white workers and 48% of women said they would resign or start looking for a new job. Mothers were two and a half times as likely as fathers to say they would quit.

Phoning it in

One firm’s flight risk is another’s opportunity. Now that many jobs can be done flexibly, or fully remotely, employers can recruit from a wider pool. One study found that offering flexibility in a job advert increased applications by as much as 30%. It should also help with retention. In America black knowledge workers report much greater improvements in workplace satisfaction when working remotely than do white employees.

Technology has certainly reduced the cost of working remotely, and with that some of the stigma. But there is little evidence of the hoped-for “Zoomocracy”, where all voices would be heard equally. One-third of surveyed women working in tech said they were interrupted or ignored more often in virtual meetings than in person.

In all the plans to reopen and bounce back, the need to address inequities that widened during the pandemic is often overlooked. Men are nearly twice as likely as women to say that working from home has positively affected their careers. Women are more likely to say they feel burnt out. Caregivers have been less likely to flourish. And new starters have missed out on crucial on-the-job training and networking. Any employer who wants to get off to a fair start in the hybrid world would be wise to deal with recovery and catch-up first.

Sacha Nauta: Deputy executive editor, The Economist■

This article appeared in the Leaders section of the print edition of The World Ahead 2022 under the headline “Ensuring a fair future of work”