Introduction
The terms “remote work” and “telecommuting” have become completely familiar through the news and social media. At the same time, the convention that Until recently was taken for granted — working from the office — still continues in many companies. Which is actually easier to work in, the office or remote work? When you try to think it through carefully, you may find that surprisingly many people have not truly organized their thoughts on it.
In this article, drawing on my experience in consulting on IT tool adoption and work-style transformation, I will compare “commuting to the office” and “remote work (telecommuting)” from the perspectives of both the company and the employee, and reexamine the merits and demerits of each.
Merits and Demerits From the Company’s Point of View
For an organization as a corporate entity, having employees gather in one place to work carries significant meaning. The sense of unity and community that grows from working face-to-face is not something we can afford to dismiss lightly.
On the other hand, the benefits companies gain by introducing remote work are also very large. Reducing office costs and recruiting talent without being constrained by residential location are attractive points for many companies. In fact, there is no shortage of companies that have felt the effect of remote-work adoption on securing human resources.
Merits and Demerits From the Employee’s Point of View
The Invisible Cost of “Commute Time”
Standing on the employee’s side, the first thing to consider is “commute time”. The time spent commuting is not counted as working hours. Someone whose commute takes only 10 minutes and someone whose commute takes an hour may differ greatly in time spent, but that does not lead to differences in salary or evaluation.
In other words, commute time is effectively the employee’s “out-of-pocket expense”. With an hour-long commute, that time could have been allocated to work or personal time. This very question — “is spending time on commuting really efficient?” — is an indispensable viewpoint when considering telecommuting and remote work.
When the Home Work Environment Is Actually Better
Another factor that should not be overlooked is the home work environment. At the office, you work with a small laptop screen and a built-in keyboard, whereas many people have a comfortable home setup with a large monitor and a keyboard that is easier to use.
In such cases, it is quite possible for work efficiency at home to be higher. Calmly judging “in which environment does working raise productivity more” is also a key point in thinking about how to work.
The Biggest Demerit of Remote Work Is the Inability to Have Casual Chats
As we have seen so far, remote work has many merits, but there are also demerits that cannot be ignored. In a word, it is that “you can’t have casual chats”.
Work itself — meetings, sharing tasks and so on — can be handled sufficiently with chat tools and web meetings. In fact, since you can talk while seeing each other’s faces and discuss while sharing materials, arguing over “can work be done or not” is not very meaningful.
So what is the problem? It is that web meetings are basically used only “during meeting time”. You rarely see anyone who sets up a web meeting just for casual chatting. As for chat tools like Teams or Slack, you also wouldn’t say people use them for daily casual chatting.
In other words, in a remote-work environment, the means of connecting with other employees tends to be limited to “only when talking about work”. This is very different from the office environment, where casual conversations naturally arose with the person in the next seat or when passing in the hallway.
The Problem Is Not Tool Capability, but the Organization’s Restricted Way of Using Them
What’s important here is that “the inability to have casual chats is not due to inadequate tooling”. I believe the real reason chatting does not emerge is that organizations themselves restrict the use of tools — web meeting tools are for meetings only, chat tools are for business communication only. I strongly feel this from my own experience as an IT consultant supporting tool adoption and work-style reform.
Let go of the assumption that “this is a meeting tool, so it isn’t to be used for anything other than meetings”, and try using it as a space where employees can talk freely. For the organization to clearly state that casual chat is acceptable. This change in mindset is the key to resolving the communication shortfall in remote work.
Reviewing How Tools Are Used Closes the Gap With Office Commuting
Conversely, if an organization consciously reviews how tools are used and creates an environment where people can communicate freely, including casual chat, the gap between remote work and office commuting would shrink considerably.
Stop thinking “web meeting tools are for meetings only” or “chat tools are for business contact only”, and open them up for general employee communication. Just doing that should greatly change the room for casual conversation to arise naturally. When tool adoption does not go well, the cause is often not a limitation of the tool itself but rather that the organization has restricted how it is used.
Conclusion
Remote work and office commuting each have merits and demerits. For the company, the balance between community building and cost savings / talent acquisition; for the employee, the trade-off between the burden of commute time and the comfort of the work environment — those are the criteria for judgment.
And the biggest challenge of remote work, “the inability to have casual chats”, is actually not caused by inadequate tooling. The real cause is that the organization itself has restricted how tools are used — web meetings are for meetings only, chat is for business contact only.
In the end, I believe whether remote work or office commuting is better depends on the company and individual circumstances. People for whom remote work fits should do remote work, and people who want to commute should commute. Trying to unify everything into one side may actually make the situation worse.
What truly matters for you and for your team. I hope this article serves as an opportunity to think about that answer.