Jobland vs. Careerland: A Corporate Culture Clash

The latest battle line in old-school management techniques and modern reality is the debate about remote work policies. Corporate messaging during the pandemic and (now), has made for interesting reading: Early in the pandemic, companies scrambled to offer newfound flexibility to employees, while promising a ‘return to normal’. As successive variants continued to strike, companies found themselves moving the goal-line on ‘normal’ to accommodate. Many companies openly discussed ‘resetting expectations’ to allow long-term remote work or hybrid accommodation for employees, only to walk them back as the pandemic began to fade in 2022 and continue now in 2024 to negotiate with employees on returning to the office.

Morgan Stanley’s CEO, James Gorman, offered his perspective during the initial return-to-office roll-out, “Employees who want to continue working from home are in ‘Jobland’ and need to return to the office – ‘Careerland’ – if they want to focus on building their skills.” He suggests that a desire for remote work is proof that someone is less ‘serious’ or ‘committed’ to their career. Frankly, it’s hard to parse whether Gorman is making an observation or a threat.

David Solomon, the CEO of Goldman Sachs, made a similar decision to bring his employees back to the office full-time. He referred to remote work as an “aberration that needed to be corrected as quickly as possible.” His theory being that the financial sector is an innovative, collaborative apprenticeship culture, and the work-from-home option is not ideal and should not be considered a ‘new normal.’

Though the concept of ‘careerland’ and an ‘innovative, collaborative apprenticeship culture’ seem like an enticing ‘promised land’ to leadership, statistics show that nearly 72% of workers believe that working from home has not affected their ability to be promoted or make upward connections in their company.

Why do employees and executives disagree?

In a study conducted by Slack’s Future Forum, executive leader Brian Elliot made this conclusion between employees and executives, “Executives have a better setup at work,” said Elliott. “They probably have an office with a door. They probably don’t have the same childcare issues as many employees. The risk that we run, as a society, even in a hybrid-work setting, is executives don’t listen to employees looking for flexibility and a real proximity-bias sets in among people who are at the office and those that aren’t.”

In an article by MSNBC, human resources professional Gia Ganesh spoke about the shift in psychology between executives and employees during this transition, “Humans have a need for control and as an executive, you feel you have better control and visibility if everyone is in front of you.” Ganesh also believes that there is a real chance for a dip in productivity if executives require a hard line of returning to the office. Are companies willing to compromise their productivity for the sake of having employees return to the office?

What do employees really want?

In the Future Forum Study, Elliott said “the data shows hybrid settings allow for better work/life balance while also increasing workers’ sense of belonging among the colleagues. Modern technology connects co-workers — including those who may have worked remotely before the pandemic — that levels the playing field among employees. That sense of fairness, not based on face-time or who happens to have a chance meeting in an executive-suite elevator, boosts overall work satisfaction.”

Pew Research put together a study on the topic of workers and their decisions to remain remote or return to the office. At the time of the study, they found that 61% of employees voluntarily choose remote work, while 38% work from home because their workplace remains closed. Interestingly, these numbers have swapped from earlier in the pandemic when only 36% of employees working from home were doing so by choice. Clearly, the battle for “return to normal” is far from over.

Everybody gets to choose!

There is great value to be found in a corporate office environment. For some, working in an office is practical and productive, for others the buzz of a busy office can be exciting and motivating. Offices can provide real and valuable apprenticeship opportunities, work collaboration, or the comradery of seeing co-workers face-to-face. And yet, for many, the pros and cons are more nuanced. Both home and corporate office environments offer solid opportunities. The question is: What works best for you?

At Colmina, our mission of ‘Curating well-being’ extends to our advisors as well as our clients. As part of that mission, we endeavor to offer our advisors as much work flexibility and work-life balance as possible. As a result, we consider virtual work to be foundational to our organization. We believe that a positive work-life balance is necessary – especially in a business that elevates the value of advice.