It’s time to talk honestly about home working and isolation
As a psychologist, I’m profoundly interested in understanding the needs and behaviours of humans. From that perspective, it’s a particularly worrying time in the world of work — one which has led me to declare that I don’t think working from home is very good for people. Or businesses.
I have no doubt whatsoever that if possible it is in employees’ and businesses’ best interest for them to work with others, rather than alone, for the majority of the working week.
Why? I do workplace research and strategy, for all sorts of businesses across the UK; big, small, corporate, creative. For many years when engaging with clients during our research and engagement process, we have been asking their employees what they like most about their workplace. The outstanding reply, regardless of the business or industry, has always been ‘the people’.
Do we think that this has changed since the Covid pandemic? Do we believe that people are no longer interested in spending time with people? Equally, do we think a stilted, Dalek-like video call adequately fulfils our needs for human connection?
The answer is a resounding ‘no’. So why are businesses making decisions based around the assumptions that human beings are not social animals? That their employees will not only survive but will thrive working from home alone for the majority of their working hours?
Many of the businesses that previously boasted strong leadership and decisive management are now cautious and uncertain about their workplace strategy. I believe this is because many of their leadership now have quite opposing views on how to approach workplace, and this is very closely related to their own circumstances and preferences.
Do we think businesses should allow their employees to decide where they want to work? Does the choice really sit with the employee? Or is it that businesses are (understandably) looking for savings? And if they can show that it was their employees’ choice to work from home then it’s a win-win situation.
But does that make financial sense? Employee costs are typically 10 or 20 times those of workplace overhead. Without inspirational places that create culture, community and creativity, as well as support learning, knowledge sharing, and wellbeing, won’t businesses be guilty of not investing in their key asset?
The danger, a real and serious one, is that businesses are likely over time to lose their heartbeat, their community, their home. Yet few people seem to be acknowledging this.
Do not underestimate isolation
Let’s think about social isolation. This is something that has been forced upon us during the pandemic lockdown. The majority of us have suffered from it in some way. It has been cited as a key reason for avoiding further lockdowns in order to prevent mental health problems. Yet many businesses are considering high levels of homeworking when we emerge out of a year of lockdowns. Unfortunately it tends to be the types of businesses or organisations where their employees do high levels of procedural or reactive work, such as banks, insurance companies and housing organisations. This is understandable as it is easier to measure their productivity and their roles are not generally collaborative or on a steep learning curve. But these tend to be the very people who rely on others for motivation, who crave social interaction. Who may not be on a major career journey, those for whom work only becomes fulfilling when they are in the company of like-minded people.
When did isolation become a benign issue — something to ‘be aware of’, while persisting with the very behaviours that cause it?
The power of community & physical health
Humans are social beings; we have evolved to survive and thrive within groups. The impact of lack of human connection on our mental health is instinctive but just the tip of the iceberg. Social risk factors are not benign. They can increase the likelihood of early mortality, even more than lifestyle and environmental factors such as smoking, inactivity and pollution. Recent scientific studies have investigated the link between social isolation and physical health, with alarming findings.
Being socially isolated can increase the risk of premature mortality (1), activate a chronic stress response leading to increased inflammatory activity (2), diminish immune functioning (3), increase risk of coronary heart disease and stroke (4) and increase blood pressure (5). One study even found that having few social connections has the same impact as smoking 15 cigarettes!(6). With social distancing in place and having to stay at home, loneliness and social isolation has moved from a wellbeing issue to a global health crisis.
Knowing that isolation increases our risk of developing disease, we would expect that combating it would have monumental benefits on public health and wellbeing. There are some fascinating accounts of how this has been tested, including one from the sleepy town of Frome, in Somerset, UK in 2013. After the 2008 financial crash, Dr Helen Kingston saw many people in her town struggling with the effects of isolation, which sparked an idea for a new project. The idea was to weave compassion into the community by connecting people. GPs, nurses, ‘health connectors’ and volunteers started pointing people in the direction of practical and social support. From cooking, cleaning and shopping for others to signposting choir, walking groups and craft clubs, residents were provided with joined-up support and informed on all the town had to offer. In 2013, emergency hospital admissions rose by 29% in the rest of Somerset yet reduced by 14% in Frome, with the power of community, social connections and a sense of belonging behind it (7).
We are more aware than ever of the value of our relationships. The first lockdown plunged us into the ‘blitz spirit’, where we united and rallied round each other, utilising the power of social connection; helping our relatives and neighbours in need and making an extra effort to check in on friends and colleagues. Since being instructed to stay apart almost a year ago, we have harnessed and relied on the remedial potential of being connected to others. This is what makes me really concerned that we are going to blow it totally by encouraging such high levels of home working.
People, all types of people from every walk of life, meet lifelong friends and partners at work, developing a depth of trust and understanding that rarely comes from ‘virtual only’ relationships. There’s something special about that face-to-face physical interaction that’s difficult to put your metaphorical finger on.
Many say ‘we are getting on just fine working from home, our relationships our good’. There is a strong distinction here. Existing relationships, i.e. ones that were already established, may be good. We have already developed a connection, we have already done the small talk, we know at least some of the ins and outs of our colleagues’ personal and work histories. But developing a solid and meaningful relationship with someone virtually, or predominantly virtually, does not achieve the same end result. And even established work relationships have suffered. In summer 2020 a large survey by the CIPD found that almost half of employees felt that social connections at work had worsened. This is not at all surprising. And it’s also not something to ignore.
The senior people who decide their business’s workplace strategy tend to be self-motivated, driven, can work independently, and usually have a good homeworking set up. They have a lot of people in their networks so are relieved to not have the distractions they had in the office. Yet they are exactly the people who need to be in the office — there to transfer knowledge, to lead, to inspire. Not to be hidden away and only spoken to during a pre-arranged video call or meeting. Many are failing to see it from others’ point of view, or they are failing entirely to look at what is important.
The complex but fundamental maze of wellbeing and productivity
I strongly advise any business that is considering full-time or majority time working from home (aka working alone) to think again. There are two main factors to consider:
1. Employee wellbeing. And that doesn’t just mean getting to do some yoga occasionally. It means everything that encompasses their psychological and physical health and existence as a human being. Their confidence, self-esteem, anxiety levels, mood, level of motivation, sense of fulfilment and achievement. Their relationships with their family, friends and colleagues. Their financial wellbeing, both now and in the near and distant future. How physically active are they, how much do they move during the day, what is their seated position, are they fridge grazing, what is the heat, light, and air like? The psychological is closely entwined with the physical. How much they move and are physically active will have direct consequences on their energy levels, how well they can concentrate, on their mood and their motivation.
2. Productivity. For the last few years we’ve switched the focus from productivity to wellbeing. After all, unless you stood over your employees constantly or held a gun to their head, they were unlikely to achieve optimum levels of productivity unless their wellbeing was good. But with the huge increase in home working we are going to need to develop new ways of measuring productivity. Trust is fundamental. But often it simply isn’t there and it’s probably unrealistic to expect to be able to trust everyone. Even if you can confidently trust all your employees to get their work done, without motivation and stimulation as well as all the other aspects of wellbeing, their productivity is likely to wane, or even drop off a cliff.
So how do we measure productivity when we can’t see our employees? What has been the predominant measure? Self-report. We have been asking people how productive they are. Does that make sense? Will that give us an accurate picture? Or a vaguely accurate picture? How honest will they be? Who is likely to tell their employer that they are not very productive? Self-presentation will undoubtedly come into play: in very uncertain economic times with high job insecurity, many are not going to admit that their productivity is struggling. It may be due to lack of variety, drop in motivation, distractions, lack of work/life boundary, or simply missing the social aspects of work. Many people go to work simply to earn money and to feel like they’re part of something, that they belong.
Going forward, if we are to maintain any significant level of home working we will need objective measures of productivity. That is not to say that employees’ perception of their productivity is not important. But we need to look at both subjective and objective measures. The cottage industries of the 19th century, closed down and transferred to factories due to issues with social isolation and poor working conditions, were all done by piece work. Easy to measure, as perfected by Taylor. Knowledge work is a different matter. We need to look at each individual’s contribution as well as their output. Procedural roles such as call centre operators is relatively simple, but most roles are not.
Once we’ve fully and objectively researched wellbeing and productivity within our business, and acted honestly on our findings, then we can devise the best workplace strategy.
I want to be very clear here …
I am not suggesting that businesses shouldn’t have some element of home working. Let’s envisage the workplace as an ecosystem of physical, virtual and social, not as a binary of office and home. We have the technology for people to work anywhere and it simply doesn’t make sense to spend time commuting to another place if all we are going to do that day is have our heads down writing a report.
One or two days a week home alone will suffice for most people, then spend the rest of the working week together with others. It might be in a hub destination workplace, or a local spoke, co-working space or café. The destination hub needs to be a vibrant, collaborative, inspirational, tech-enabled workplace. Somewhere people want to go to rather than feel they have to. Where collaboration and creativity are the mechanism through which to share knowledge, engendering diversity of thought and experience. That’s not to say there shouldn’t be any quiet working in the shared workplace. There will continue to be many people who simply can’t work from home on any day, due to their domestic or psychological circumstances, and they should not be denied a place to work. Or those that go there to collaborate, but also need to spend an hour or two on quiet focus in between meetings.
The workplace of the future will be welcoming, varied, and highly tailored to employee experience and wellbeing. Just as long as the decision makers can see beyond their own desires and circumstances to what their people need, and make brave decisions about what is best for them.
Interested in digging deeper? Here are the references …
1. Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Baker, M., Harris, T., & Stephenson, D. (2015). Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: a meta-analytic review. Perspectives on psychological science, 10(2), 227–237.
2. Eisenberger, N. I., Moieni, M., Inagaki, T. K., Muscatell, K. A., & Irwin, M. R. (2017). In Sickness and in Health: The Co-Regulation of Inflammation and Social Behavior. Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, 42(1), 242–253.
3. Cole, S. W., Capitanio, J. P., Chun, K., Arevalo, J. M., Ma, J., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2015). Myeloid differentiation architecture of leukocyte transcriptome dynamics in perceived social isolation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(49), 15142–15147.
4. Valtorta, N. K., Kanaan, M., Gilbody, S., Ronzi, S., & Hanratty, B. (2016). Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for coronary heart disease and stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal observational studies. Heart, 102(13), 1009–1016.
5. Hawkley, L. C., Thisted, R. A., Masi, C. M., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2010). Loneliness predicts increased blood pressure: 5-year cross-lagged analyses in middle-aged and older adults. Psychology and aging, 25(1), 132.
6. Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010). Social relationships and mortality risk: a meta-analytic review. Plos Medicine, 7(7), e1000316-e1000316.
7. Abel, J., Kingston, H., Scally, A., Hartnoll, J., Hannam, G., Thomson-Moore, A., & Kellehear, A. (2018). Reducing emergency hospital admissions: a population health complex intervention of an enhanced model of primary care and compassionate communities. The British journal of general practice: the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 68(676), e803–e810.
