Victoria Sehgal, Managing Partner at Peyton Ames | Ex VP Global Talent Acquisition Rocket Internet/GFC | Ex Investment Banker J.P. Morgan
Getty
In the past few weeks, we have heard tech giants far and wide declare the positive benefits of remote work during times like these, giving their employees the option to work from home until the end of the year or, in some cases, permanently. Amazon and Microsoft have work-from-home options until October. Many at Facebook will be able to work remotely until the end of 2020 while the company considers a permanent option. Twitter has declared working from home a permanent option for all employees.
Pundits have sliced and diced the unit economics of remote work, citing increased productivity, flexibility, location-independent talent pools, office overhead cost savings, higher employee retention, elimination of long commutes and/or even pollution. However, the biggest advantage of remote work is the elephant in the room: the power of remote work to become the greatest equalizer since the Equal Opportunity Act of 1972.
As someone who works in talent acquisition, I am often responsible for actively seeking out the most diverse pipeline possible. I often am asked how we can get more women or minorities. The culprits blamed for a lack of a “diverse” candidate getting a job usually fall into three categories:
1. Pipeline: There were not enough diverse candidates who were qualified in the market.
2. Bias: The interview process was biased, and we need more bias training for interviewers.
3. Talent acquisition: Recruiters didn’t do enough events or direct outreach.
Do I agree that, in some instances, one of these is the case? Yes.
Nevertheless, many times, it is because the system has created a working environment (i.e., “the office”) that caters to the 30- to 40-year-old white male. Compound this office requirement over years, and you get various groups dropping out of the workforce or failing to rise up the ranks.
So what is so bad about “the office,” and why has it set back so many specific groups? Let’s discuss subgroup-specific themes that affect diverse groups.
Women
As most women bear the responsibility for most household chores and child-rearing, the commute and time spent at the office represents an opportunity cost in flexibility that allows them to complete other tasks related to the above.
Physical proximity in the office also provides an opportunity for unwelcome advances and sexual harassment.
In addition, the office is often set at a temperature designed for a 40-year-old, 155-pound male.
Parents
If a child is sick or has an important event such as a sports game or recital, parents stuck in the office do not have the flexibility to attend to their child’s needs in real time without having to take PTO or official leave.
Care-Takers
If someone is caring for a sick relative, their attendance being required at the office means they are less available to attend to their relative’s needs or attend doctor’s appointments.
Those With Disabilities Or Medical Conditions
Medical conditions could require some people to go to the doctor frequently, which could be prohibitive if they have a long commute.
Dietary restrictions related to health may require people to cook or prepare meals with the use of a full kitchen — microwaves and refrigerators would not cut it.
People with mobility concerns or visual impairments might have trouble navigating an office or a commute.
Veterans
For those suffering from PTSD or depression, large crowds or sounds in an office might trigger episodes.
Victims Of Domestic Violence
As victims navigate challenging circumstances at home, remote work can be a lifeline as they try to cope or navigate an escape plan.
Immigrants And Residents Of Underserved Domestic Regions
In many venues, society actively discriminates against people who don’t possess U.S. citizenship or cannot relocate to the U.S. in the application process.
Several domestic regions teetering on the brink of economic collapse have huge pools of untapped talent. Many cannot relocate due to personal circumstances.
Mark Zuckerberg Is Both Right And Wrong
Facebook evaluating remote work as a permanent solution for some of its workforce is a laudable first step. However, the concept of employees having to tell their managers they are moving to a new location and having their salary reduced defies the concept of equal pay for equal work. Not only is it not feasible to totally track this, and there may be many who game the system (i.e., someone saying they are on vacation or using a friend’s mailing address and a VPN to block access to their location), but the concept is that the employee is performing the same work and therefore entitled to the same compensation.
Does that mean that everyone deserves a San Francisco cost-of-living salary? I am not sure. This is something that fully remote companies have grappled with for a while. Basecamp, for one, has implemented San Francisco-level salaries across the board, even though the company does not employ anyone living in that city. On the other hand, other companies have leveled salaries according to where they see clusters of certain types of talent to remain market competitive.
My ultimate dream is a world where we have a global marketplace for talent that determines fair wages for a given type of work. This will enable American businesses to compete globally from a skills perspective, but also help eradicate the blatant discrimination and privilege that accompanies where someone was born, how much money they have to buy a passport, or whether their gender, race or medical status creates barriers to them getting or maintaining a job. Location-independent remote work is a necessary first step.
Forbes Human Resources Council is an invitation-only organization for HR executives across all industries. Do I qualify?
