The Neuroscience of Work: Rethinking Remote vs. In-Person Collaboration. It's Not About Where You Work, It's About How Your Brain Works

Whoops, I spoke too soon.

A week ago, I penned an article and delved into the complexities of returning to the office, exploring the emotional toll of the transition and the challenges faced by both employers and employees. [Navigating the Return to Office: Finding the Right Fit for Your Organization and Employees, September 17, 2024]. I emphasized the importance of understanding and flexibility during this shift. But then, something happened that made me rethink my entire approach.

I attended an online webinar hosted by Scott Lewis, Chairman of the CEO Roundtable, that was truly eye-opening. The webinar's overview piqued my interest, citing unfavorable results in key business outcomes such as innovation, time to market, employee and customer retention, and scalability in the post-COVID era. It emphasized how these declines are driving companies to recognize the renewed value of in-person collaboration. 

The webinar’s speaker was Dr. Richard Maybury, President of the Knowles Johnson Institute of Graduate Studies, who presented clear, factual data illustrating the impact of remote work on our brains. And suddenly, everything clicked.

I realized that my earlier article, while well-intentioned, lacked the scientific backing that could truly illuminate this complex issue. I'd relied on gut feelings and observations, but now, armed with hard data, I see things in a whole new light.

I know what some of you might be thinking: "Of course she's going to side with the employers. She's an HR professional, after all." And hey, I totally get that. It's a fair assumption. But here's the thing: we're employees too. We're constantly trying to strike that delicate balance between achieving company goals and looking out for you, all while staying within the bounds of the law. It can feel like a tightrope walk, with each side convinced we're playing favorites. So, hear me out. Give this article five minutes of your time. Maybe you'll disagree with everything I say, and that's okay. But maybe, just maybe, it might spark a new thought or two.  And, if you find this article compelling, give a share on your socials, ok?  I appreciate it. 

When asked whether employees should return to the office, my answer is a firm, unwavering, "it depends."  

The Neuropsychology of Interpersonal Effectiveness and Collaboration

Dr. Maybury's presentation clearly revealed, using actual scans of the brain, that our brains simply aren't wired for remote work in the same way they are for co-present collaboration.  His use of the phrase "co-present" is intentional. Being on the same campus or even in the same office building isn't enough to create an environment optimized for workflows and maximum effectiveness. It's about being in the same room. When we're physically present with others, our brains form complex neural networks that fuel trust, innovation, and interpersonal influence. Remote work, on the other hand, limits these connections, hindering our ability to truly connect and create. 

Humans are wired for social interaction. For many tasks—particularly those requiring collaboration, creativity, or critical thinking—we tend to produce our best work in social environments.  We simply don't optimize our individual abilities in isolation. Some people might start the creative process alone, but they can't fully develop their ideas without collaborating with others.  Also, the simple act of being around others can inherently build internal accountability, motivating us to stay focused and engaged.

Now, if your first thought was, "Aha, she's going to advocate for a full-time return to the office!" – hold on a minute. I'm not. Stick with me, and you might be surprised where this is headed.

Stronger relationships lead to greater collaborative innovation.

Consider this: innovation necessitates a multi-faceted approach encompassing a shift in perspective.  To create a rich, creative environment, we need people to open up their capabilities, and that means building relationships.  A high degree of trust is crucial for this to happen.  When we connect positively with others, our brains literally open up—and I'm not speaking metaphorically here.

Trust resides in the emotional side of the brain, not the logical side. Additionally, 94.5% of the population is cognitively predisposed to perceive change as a risk. During Dr. Maybury’s webinar, I saw a brain scan that demonstrated how in low-trust situations, only small parts of the brain light up. In contrast, under high trust, the brain is fully open and engaged.

So, what happens in low-trust situations? People don't share. They don't synergize ideas. They become defensive about their own ideas. Being wrong, or being compelled to change, creates fear. The way the brain processes change is through fear. When we get scared, concerned, or afraid, a part of the brain takes over, saying, "Okay, we're going to limit our behavioral choices and become very protective." We need to reduce that part of the brain's control. The way we achieve this is by building trust and fostering collaborative environments.

This isn't merely an opinion; it's rooted in science. It sheds light on so many of the challenges companies grapple with today—the decline in innovation, the difficulty in fostering trust, and the struggle to retain employees.

To the reader currently yelling at their screen, "Cite your source, show me the data, show me the scans, get me proof!" – I hear you. This article isn't a piece of investigative journalism; it's my personal reflection on a webinar experience. If you're eager to dive deeper into the research, I strongly encourage you to connect with Dr. Maybury directly. You can find him on LinkedIn here.  

Let's talk about solutions, shall we?

It's not about forcing everyone back into the office full-time. It's about thoughtful design, about understanding the neuroscience and crafting work environments that support both the needs of the business and the needs of our brains. And before we get to the solution, we need to recognize that there is a difference between efficiency and effectiveness. Dr. Maybury clearly pointed out that efficiency and effectiveness are always in conflict with one another. You have to make a purposeful decision.

First, remote work prioritizes efficiency over effectiveness. For instance, individuals in roles such as data entry, call center agents, corporate buyers, technical writers, and editors can easily work remotely because their tasks are primarily individual in nature. This setup promotes efficiency, allowing them to effectively perform a significant portion of their work remotely.

Conversely, if you're responsible for innovation, like a research team focused on new products, your focus is on effectiveness.  Will the team’s creation resonate with the market and ultimately contribute in a positive way to the Company’s bottom line? Building new products prioritizes effectiveness over efficiency.

Co-presence fosters effectiveness, not necessarily efficiency. Remote work emphasizes efficiency but often lacks effectiveness.

Finally, you have your hybrids. After the concept is vetted, alignment is established, and individual tasks are assigned, it's often appropriate to "divide and conquer." A prime example of this is a Software Development Team.

Initially, during the kickoff and brainstorming phase, the team collaborates intensely, defining the project scope, understanding requirements, brainstorming ideas, and setting shared goals and expectations. Next, when transitioning into architecture and high-level design, the team continues to collaborate closely to ensure everyone understands the system's structure and the interplay of different components.

Finally, once tasks are assigned and the development phase begins, team members can shift into individual work modes, focusing on tasks like writing and debugging code. These tasks often require deep focus and concentration, which can be more easily achieved in a quiet, remote environment.

Ultimately, making informed decisions about returning to the office (RTO) demands a purposeful, deliberate thought process within your organization. It's a multi-faceted approach that harmonizes your company's well-defined goals with strategies for building trust, establishing clear communication channels, fostering skill development, and maintaining a laser focus on the work itself.

Many organizations are tempted to dive headfirst into the tactical side of things, focusing on what they perceive as the "real work." However, I can confidently assert that this is a misguided approach. It's akin to designing seat covers for the latest sports car before you've even figured out how to build the car itself.

The foundation of any successful organizational change, including RTO, is trust. When trust is present, everything else becomes significantly easier to achieve. It's the absence of trust that fuels the memes and YouTube videos claiming companies like Amazon have ulterior motives behind their RTO policies, suggesting these motives are tied to the WARN Act and a desire to reduce headcount through forced resignations.

I'm excited about this new perspective.  It's not about choosing sides in the return-to-office debate; it's about using science to create workplaces where everyone can thrive. I admit, I wish I'd had this knowledge a week ago. But hey, better late than never, right?

© September 23, 2024 Capstone Certified HR Advisors, LLC.