A few thoughts- right now I work for a company that is almost 100% in person, but with the flexibility to work from home around appointments, fly to relatives for a week for Thanksgiving and work Mon-Wed remote, and just general flexibility when needed. We are also a small company (~35) which means it is easy for people to sync up for in person meetings or sit in a huddle room with an outside the company person on a Teams call.
My old company- people were either remote, hybrid, or in person. What I found incredibly challenging was who was approved to be hybrid / remote vs. who had to stay in person- there was little direction or understanding. This was coupled with the fact that there was no structure around hybrid work, which resulted in in person employees coming to the office and then sitting on Teams calls all day (which was not enjoyable).
I'm not sure there is a 'right' way to work- from my experience it seems like in person / hybrid / remote works best for different people and companies in different situations. What I do find, however, is that there is benefit to having structure to the arrangement. For example, remote work but 2 hours a day where every one is expected to be online and available, or a company / team wide hybrid schedule with certain days being in office that prioritizes in person time and flexibility. Or like my current workplace where in person in the default, but they understand that life happens.
Your comment flags so many important elements to all of this: the lack of either transparency or consistency in some remote-work approvals, the importance of flexibility for humane working expectations no matter the formal arrangement, the clarity of purpose and expectations for in-person time, etc. I think your comment about the need for some structure, either way, is spot on!
I accepted a fully remote therapy role two months ago with some apprehension. The "mother ship clinic" is 300 miles away, and the expectation is that I am invited to informal gatherings as desired, but if I have to be on campus for any reason, they will pay my mileage and hotel so they will try very hard to minimize any of that. Would I be able to give the same quality of care? Miss the clients who aren't great telehealth candidates? Feel connected to a multi-state team when our only contact is monthly only staffings via calls?
There have been some hiccups with figuring out how to shift some of the ways I practice, how to get my books and handouts accessible without a copier and snail mail, how to set up my home office in a way that works well.
And I LOVE it and am so grateful that this organization took a leap in a creating a telehealth only team. I'm able to stay in the tiny town that my spouse's job requires while working in a metro-based agency that better aligns with my values, with support for research and access to scholarly journals, and with a team of really quality colleagues (because they could do a multi-state search and be picky in their hires) who share my limited tolerance for socializing and agenda-less meetings. I have more flexibility to set my hours in a way that I can take care of myself well. My colleagues and manager are in many ways more accessible than ones I have had in office and I have consistently had folks reach out quickly if I send a bat signal for help.
I appreciate the value of some in-person connection but also would be really sad if I had to give this up for "back to office" mandates. I know this path isn't for everyone but I am also hopeful that there could be more space for agencies to actually allow for healthier, happier, loyal employees through more remote work.
That's fantastic, Rachel! It sounds like you truly struck gold (and they did the same, in hiring you). In a perfect world, the range of job arrangements available would mirror the range of folks out there looking for those same conditions to be available. We must be inching toward that, but absent more intentional planning (and what would that even look at, at the economy-wide level?) there's bound to be some disconnect for many. Glad you (and I!) are not among them!
A few thoughts- right now I work for a company that is almost 100% in person, but with the flexibility to work from home around appointments, fly to relatives for a week for Thanksgiving and work Mon-Wed remote, and just general flexibility when needed. We are also a small company (~35) which means it is easy for people to sync up for in person meetings or sit in a huddle room with an outside the company person on a Teams call.
My old company- people were either remote, hybrid, or in person. What I found incredibly challenging was who was approved to be hybrid / remote vs. who had to stay in person- there was little direction or understanding. This was coupled with the fact that there was no structure around hybrid work, which resulted in in person employees coming to the office and then sitting on Teams calls all day (which was not enjoyable).
I'm not sure there is a 'right' way to work- from my experience it seems like in person / hybrid / remote works best for different people and companies in different situations. What I do find, however, is that there is benefit to having structure to the arrangement. For example, remote work but 2 hours a day where every one is expected to be online and available, or a company / team wide hybrid schedule with certain days being in office that prioritizes in person time and flexibility. Or like my current workplace where in person in the default, but they understand that life happens.
Your comment flags so many important elements to all of this: the lack of either transparency or consistency in some remote-work approvals, the importance of flexibility for humane working expectations no matter the formal arrangement, the clarity of purpose and expectations for in-person time, etc. I think your comment about the need for some structure, either way, is spot on!
I accepted a fully remote therapy role two months ago with some apprehension. The "mother ship clinic" is 300 miles away, and the expectation is that I am invited to informal gatherings as desired, but if I have to be on campus for any reason, they will pay my mileage and hotel so they will try very hard to minimize any of that. Would I be able to give the same quality of care? Miss the clients who aren't great telehealth candidates? Feel connected to a multi-state team when our only contact is monthly only staffings via calls?
There have been some hiccups with figuring out how to shift some of the ways I practice, how to get my books and handouts accessible without a copier and snail mail, how to set up my home office in a way that works well.
And I LOVE it and am so grateful that this organization took a leap in a creating a telehealth only team. I'm able to stay in the tiny town that my spouse's job requires while working in a metro-based agency that better aligns with my values, with support for research and access to scholarly journals, and with a team of really quality colleagues (because they could do a multi-state search and be picky in their hires) who share my limited tolerance for socializing and agenda-less meetings. I have more flexibility to set my hours in a way that I can take care of myself well. My colleagues and manager are in many ways more accessible than ones I have had in office and I have consistently had folks reach out quickly if I send a bat signal for help.
I appreciate the value of some in-person connection but also would be really sad if I had to give this up for "back to office" mandates. I know this path isn't for everyone but I am also hopeful that there could be more space for agencies to actually allow for healthier, happier, loyal employees through more remote work.
That's fantastic, Rachel! It sounds like you truly struck gold (and they did the same, in hiring you). In a perfect world, the range of job arrangements available would mirror the range of folks out there looking for those same conditions to be available. We must be inching toward that, but absent more intentional planning (and what would that even look at, at the economy-wide level?) there's bound to be some disconnect for many. Glad you (and I!) are not among them!