The Return to Work Debate Is Not About Where We Work

Illustration of man being dragged off couch.

The Return-to-Office Fight Isn't Really About Where We Work

The return-to-office debate goes something like this:

Employer: “I need employees in the office three days a week.”

Employee: “I only want to come in one day a week.”

Three days. One day. It sounds like we know exactly what the disagreement is about. But do we?

One of the most important concepts in negotiation and mediation is the difference between a position and an interest. Understanding that difference can change the way we approach almost any conflict and the return-to-office debate is a great example.

A position is what you say you want. An interest is why you want it.

That distinction may sound simple, but it is incredibly important because positions make us stuck while examining interests opens the conversation to greater understanding and possibilities for resolution.

Why Positions Get Us Stuck

When two people take opposing positions, our instinct is often to start arguing about which position is right.

“I want three days.”

“I want one.”

Management starts producing reasons employees need to be together. Employees talk about how they can be just as productive at home. All the while, each side becomes more invested in defending its position until someone suggests the obvious compromise: two days.

Problem solved, right? Not so fast. We still haven't asked the most important question: Why does the employer want three days, and why does the employee want one? Until we know that, we don't really understand the conflict we're trying to resolve.

This is why focusing exclusively on positions perpetuates the conflict. Positions tend to narrow the conversation. But interests do the opposite: They expand the conversation. And once we understand what people are actually trying to accomplish, we have many more possible solutions available to us.

What Is an Interest?

An interest is the need, concern, goal, fear, or priority underneath someone's stated position. When the employer says, “I need my employees in the office three days a week,” that's their position.

As a mediator I would want to understand what is behind the request:

·      Why three days?

·      What are you seeing that concerns you?

·      What happens when employees aren't together?

·      What are you hoping will improve by bringing them back?

The answers might reveal valid employer concerns:

·      Newer employees are not receiving enough mentoring.

·      Manager have noticed communication breaking down.

·      People aren't collaborating as well as they once did.

·      Legitimate performance concerns.

·      A feeling that employees are becoming disconnected from the organization.

Now we have identified some of management's interests: mentoring, communication, collaboration, accountability, and connection. And these interests are much more useful to us than the random number three.

Now Ask the Employee the Same Question

The employee's position is: “I only want to come into the office one day a week.” Again, as a mediator, I want to know why.

·      Maybe the employee has a 75-minute commute each way.

·      Maybe they do highly concentrated work and find themselves significantly more productive at home.

·      Maybe they accepted the position because it was described as primarily remote.

·      Perhaps they have reorganized childcare or other responsibilities around the remote schedule.

·      Or maybe there is something less tangible happening where the employee may be thinking, “You trusted me to work from home successfully for four years. Why don't you trust me now?”

So, the employee's interests might include time, productivity, flexibility, predictability, autonomy, and trust.

The Conflict Reframed

Now let’s look at the conflict again. It is no longer three days versus one day. It is:

Mentoring, collaboration, accountability, and connection alongside productivity, flexibility, predictability, autonomy, and trust.

That is a very different problem to solve.  If we are still talking in positions, 3 days versus 1 day, a compromise means that each side has to give up something. But when we look at interests, we see there are ways for both sides to achieve their desired goal because one side getting what they wants doesn’t mean the other side doesn’t get what they want also. For example,

·      Does an employee's need for flexibility prevent an organization from providing mentoring?

·      Does autonomy prevent accountability?

Once we stop arguing about positions and begin examining interests, we can start asking a much more productive question where is where mediators focus: How can we meet the interests of both sides at the same time.

·      Maybe teams identify specific days when everyone works together.

·      Maybe newer employees have structured mentoring time.

·      Maybe employees come in for work that genuinely benefits from face-to-face interaction rather than commuting to the office simply to sit on Zoom calls all day.

·      Maybe accountability concerns are addressed through clearer expectations and performance measures rather than physical presence.

·      Maybe employees agree to additional in-person time during particular projects or periods when collaboration is especially important.

·      Maybe the organization provides greater flexibility around arrival and departure times on required office days.

Suddenly, there are many possibilities.

This Is Where a Mediator Can Help

When people are deeply involved in a conflict, moving from positions to interests can be surprisingly difficult. We become attached to our solutions and tend to dig our heels in when challenged.

Management may become convinced that employees simply don't want to come to work. Employees may become convinced that management wants people back because it doesn't trust them.       Each side begins assigning motives to the other and once that happens, people stop being curious.

A mediator can bring curiosity back into the conversation by asking:

·      What are you trying to accomplish?

·      What concerns you about the other person's proposal?

·      What would happen if you didn't get what you're asking for?

·      Which parts of this are most important to you?

·      Where might you have some flexibility?

·      What would a workable outcome need to accomplish?

Those questions often uncover information that wasn't coming out when the parties were simply defending their positions. The same dynamic happens in disagreements about workload, compensation, schedules, performance expectations, organizational change, family businesses, and even conflicts between coworkers. People arrive with positions and there is a tendency to the start negotiating somewhere in the middle.

But mediator starts somewhere else:

·      Why?

·      What matters to you about this?

·      What problem are you trying to solve?

·      What are you worried about?

·      What do you need the eventual solution to accomplish?

When we understand the why, we have many more possibilities for figuring out a resolution that works for both parties.