A Tale of Two Tech Companies

How two technology companies are dealing with remote work shows that ‘office culture’ is being completely redefined, and they’d all better catch up. Fast.

By Pauline Wong

Apple, the world’s (second) most valuable company, is in the doghouse. 

Last week, a group of employees calling themselves Apple Together published an open letter to its executives, expressing their dissatisfaction with Apple’s hybrid working pilot of a three-days-in-office work week. 

In the letter, they stated: “You have characterised the decision for the Hybrid Working Pilot as being about combining the “need to commune in-person” and the value of flexible work. But in reality, it does not recognise flexible work and is only driven by fear. Fear of the future of work, fear of worker autonomy, fear of losing control.” 

The disappointment was clearly writ: “Three fixed days in the office and the two WFH days broken apart by an office day, is almost no flexibility at all. Even less so for the orgs who have to be in the office four or five days…We are not asking for everyone to be forced to work from home. We are asking to decide for ourselves, together with our teams and direct manager, what kind of arrangement works best for each one of us, be that in an office, work from home, or a hybrid approach.

“Stop treating us like school kids who need to be told when to be where and what homework to do.” - Apple Together

The backlash that Apple is facing is bruising to its reputation, especially as they advertise their products as the ultimate tool for remote work productivity. As the Bloomberg article put it: “Apple makes it easy to work remotely (unless you work for Apple).”

One thing that stands out as Apple’s reason for returning to office is the office culture of ‘serendipity’-- the idea that you can bump into a colleague at any time and send sparks (the good kind) flying. 

It was also reported that Ian Goodfellow, Apple’s director of machine learning, has quit because he disagreed with the company’s insistence on workers returning to the company’s sprawling office in Silicon Valley.

He is reported to have said: “I believe strongly that more flexibility would have been the best policy for my team.”

Compare this to Airbnb.

On April 28, Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky announced that moving forward, Airbnb will now design for its staff to work from anywhere, and how they want – melding offline and online in a way that would work best for its employees. There will be no change in compensation regardless of where their staff live and work. 

Unsurprisingly, Airbnb received a great deal of praise for their decision to embrace flexibility. They listened to their employees, worked out a way to empower and enable them to be the most productive they can be, and it works.

In its latest earnings report, Airbnb reported an uptick in revenue. This is due to an increase in travel now that the pandemic restrictions have been lifted, but also the increase in remote working overall, Chesky. 

What is ‘Office Culture’?

The two companies could not have handled the challenge of a changing workforce more differently, but the underlying issue is this: What, truly, is office ‘culture’? What defines the experience of being in an office, and at work? Surely the fundamental values of a company is not reliant on its location?

So many critics of remote working raise the issue of at-office connections. They worry that out of office, the connection that drives creativity, ideas, innovation and personal relationships would be lost. It is a valid concern, no doubt. Video conferencing tools can only do so much. 

But in office, the dark tendrils of office politics, harassment, bullying, toxicity, and micromanagement creep into every meeting, every interaction. Being in a physical space with a bully at work or with a toxic colleague undeniably causes a great deal of stress.

Being back to office, too, is an exclusionary affair– with growing housing pressures across the globe, most cannot afford to live in the cities where businesses are located, thus necessitating long commutes that may or may not be accessible to all and which harm work-life satisfaction.

Requiring workers to be physically in office means excluding workers who have limited mobility, are differently-abled, or who have physical challenges. Hiring decisions, then, becomes a matter of who can get to the job, not who can get the job done. Surely, in today’s day and age, this is no longer acceptable?

Not only that, being in an office does not necessarily mean communication is flowing and happening constantly. Two colleagues sitting next to each other could have absolutely nothing to say to one another, and people can end up working in silos. 

Sure, remote or hybrid working brings its own challenges. Sometimes, nothing replaces the energy from being in a group of diverse, yet connected, minds. Isolation and full access to resources is a real challenge for remote workers. 

But office culture means so many different things to so many different people. In a world where inclusion and diversity is  crucial to any organisation, there cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach to work. 

Work as we know it is utterly changed and it’s either accept and adapt, or resist and regress.

What’s the conclusion then?

It’s all down to trust and continuous effort. Effort to communicate, connect, engage, regardless of where or who you are, because the meaning of ‘office’ is no longer the same. 

Companies have to go that extra mile to really evaluate what would work best for their employees. Trust that employees have been working remotely for the past two years now with little change to productivity, and continue to give and foster that trust. 

Employers have to listen and adapt, compromise and be flexible. Managing the needs of each employee is a monumental task, but one that is well-worth the extra effort. Employers can and should organise in-person events, strive to create connections, and empower employees to connect on their own, at their own time. 

And as for employees, they have to communicate their needs clearly, and hold up their end of the bargain: be open about productivity expectations, and be honest about work deliverables. There is no reason it cannot be a win-win for everyone. 

The only way forward, we believe, is flexibility and empathy, and companies that do not take this approach will lose out.