In a recent article for the Financial Times, Andrew Hill sharply critiques the United Kingdom government’s handling of remote-working civil servants during the pandemic. He argues that public criticisms of employees’ productivity levels, particularly during such trying times, reflect poorly on the management rather than the workers themselves.
Hill points out that if, after 15 months of remote work, government officials still have only a “suspicion” about their employees’ activities and struggle to identify top performers, it indicates neglect or mismanagement on the part of leadership. He suggests that such shortcomings in management likely predate the pandemic and will persist regardless of whether employees return to the office.
Drawing on insights from Carly Moulton of Zapier and Phil Libin of All Turtles, Hill emphasizes the need for a fundamental shift in management practices. He advocates for a “zero-based management” approach, akin to zero-based budgeting in finance, where leaders reassess their management strategies from scratch.
According to Hill, the push for employees to return to the office reflects a misunderstanding of what truly fosters productivity, loyalty, and creativity among staff. He argues that effective management techniques for hybrid or remote work are essentially the same as those needed for in-office settings.
Highlighting examples like GitLab’s comprehensive online manual for remote work and the Advanced Workplace Institute’s emphasis on clear working agreements, Hill underscores the importance of trust, training, communication, and performance assessment in any work environment.
Ultimately, Hill asserts that remote or hybrid work arrangements are not inherently flawed; rather, it is inadequate management practices that undermine productivity and morale. He advocates for a more thoughtful and equitable approach to management, regardless of where employees are based.
In the realm of zero-based management, every aspect of traditional workplace dynamics undergoes scrutiny, challenging long-held assumptions about productivity and effectiveness. Andrew Hill underscores this by questioning commonly held beliefs such as equating long hours in the office with hard work or assuming that in-person interactions always lead to better mentorship.
By adopting a zero-based approach, managers are prompted to reassess ingrained practices and biases, including the perception that face-to-face encounters are inherently superior. Phil Libin’s provocative question about mentorship highlights the need to challenge conventional wisdom and rethink outdated modes of interaction.
Hill cautions against managers succumbing to nostalgia for the pre-pandemic era, where face time and vocal presence often dictated perceived value within a team. He emphasizes that the true measure of productivity and emotional well-being among knowledge workers is not always readily apparent and requires proactive management.
As organizations navigate a landscape transformed by remote and hybrid work arrangements, managers are tasked with translating lessons learned during lockdown—such as effective communication, clarity, and empathy—into sustainable practices for the future. Rather than scapegoating remote work for shortcomings, managers must look inward and address underlying issues within their leadership approach.
In essence, zero-based management encourages a critical examination of established norms and a commitment to fostering inclusive, effective, and adaptable work environments, regardless of physical location.
