I have been working remotely as a freelance researcher for about 15 years. Working freelance and remotely affords me flexibility and control over how, where, and how I work. The issue with remote work typically revolves around the question of productivity and motivation. What I have discovered is that I can work productively everywhere, so long as I am motivated to do the work. My motivation to work comes from within—it comes from loving what I do. I have the privilege of choosing what I work on and who I work with—this is motivating to me. I was optimistic about the future of work and how many will transition to remote work.
At the tail end of the pandemic, I was surprised when many did not share my sentiments about remote work. Many say that it is isolating. Many executives say that it reduces productivity and even demotivating.
I disagree with this assertion, particularly if we subscribe to the self-determination theory. The theory posits that people are intrinsically motivated to work when their psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and belongingness. Autonomy means having the choice and control over what, when, where, and how you work. Competence is having what you need to succeed. Belongingness is having connectedness, that feeling of being part of something. How I have been working (freelance and remotely) for years addresses these needs, and this is why I continue to be productive and motivated.
Remote work supports autonomy. Remote work affords workers flexibility—the choice and control over what, where, when, and how they work. However, I do understand why some may think that remote work may be disadvantageous because it may undermine competence and belongingness. Remote work can be isolating, and some workers feel that they don’t receive the information or resources they need to achieve their goals or accomplish tasks. It leaves them feeling helpless and without direction. Rigidity and micromanagement, which are poor practices that have trickled into remote work from traditional office work, can also undermine autonomy.
The article provides relevant and feasible strategies to help address the issued above. While the primary issue that the article addressed was the issue of creating work-life balance that allows workers to be productive despite of distractions, these strategies also enhance or contribute to enhancing worker autonomy, competence, and belongingness. For example, routines simplify decision-making. It takes away the need to make decisions on the minute details—such as when should I begin work or where should I work or what should I work on at specific times of the day—and focuses my time and energy on the consequential decisions of the day. This strategy contributes to autonomy because it makes me feel in control and have a choice over how I use my resources (time and energy) for the day. And in doing so, it helps me feel competent because it allows me to demonstrate good time and energy management. Furthermore, it also supports belongingness. It allows me to become present in conversations and meetings because I know that I have allocated enough time and energy for the things that I need to accomplish.
In connection with the first strategy, I particularly appreciate the advice on planning for structure and flexibility. I firmly subscribe to the belief that boundaries enable freedom. In the same logic, structure enables flexibility. My routines enable me to choose what, when, where, and how I work. It also allows me to feel competence because I am able to demonstrate good resource management.
One should caution, however, that the goal is to find a good balance between structure and flexibility. The rigidity of schedules and routines, specifically those that do not allow one to pivot or change, undermines the advantages and benefits of flexibility. The reason why I decided to work remotely is because I want to be there for my family while allowing me to work on things that matter to me. Routines and structure scaffold my days—following the routine are a means to an end. And we should caution on determining success based on how closely we follow structure and routines, particularly on days that call for more flexibility. I found out through years of working that I can be successful in remote work if and when we focus on addressing our needs for autonomy, competence, and belongingness. The article provides feasible and relevant strategies that allows me to do so.
Remote work has allowed me to demonstrate the skills that I am most proud of developing through the years: creativity, problem-solving, and communication skills. I thrive in remote working and learning environments. In fact, I could say that I love this set up because it allows me to keep a balance in work and life. Most importantly, it allows me to have the life that I want, while supporting my needs for autonomy, competence, and belongingness.
What makes it work is communication. I understand why some will see remote work as isolating. However, thanks to technology (video conferencing, instant messaging, and work management platforms), it’s easier and much more convenient to reach out to team members remotely. Technology also makes it easier to get the information you need to accomplish work. There are more tools available today that allow us to work anywhere, anytime, while still feeling connected to the people we work with.
However, I also run the risk of being too digitally connected. There are times when I feel that technology makes it easy for me to multitask. This is when I develop time optimism and wrongly think that I can accomplish more than I can. This is where I believe the strategies in the article help me strike a balance. Routines and structure allow me to allocate my time and energy better. Zeitgebers, specifically, provide signals on when I should transition from work to family—and vice versa. These allow me to be present with my team, my students, and my family. Routines and structure enable me to be flexible and present, which in turn supports my need for autonomy, competence, and belongingness.
While I fully support remote work and remote learning, I find myself pondering about the suitability of remote learning in the college context. I recognize the value of remote learning because it is inclusive and allows more learners to participate in the process. Distance from school is no longer an issue in remote learning, although access to technology is. It allows for flexibility and can be cost efficient for some students—they don’t need to spend for transportation. However, I feel that there are some aspects of teaching and learning that is better achieved in person.
For some context, I teach undergraduate students and have observed that they prefer in-person classes over Zoom lectures. I decided to run a survey to understand their preferences. What I learned are these:
- They prefer to collaborate in person.
- They prefer to attend lectures delivered in person.
- They prefer to work on their group projects in person.
- They prefer to work on their individual projects and requirements by themselves at home or any location that they feel comfortable in.
My argument on the value of in-person learning, particularly in undergraduate learning, stems from the need for belongingness. Learning is a social process. For young college students, it is very important to learn with peers. Technology cannot replicate the collaboration dynamic present in in-person collaboration.
And so I continue teaching with a compromise between remote and in-person learning. to hold in-person lectures and schedule in-person group activities. But I also schedule time for students to accomplish their individual requirements remotely. The issue still goes back to the need for self-determination. We work and learn best when our needs for autonomy, competence, and belongingness are addressed. Just as remote work cannot apply to all fields, there are also aspects of learning that cannot be accomplished or addressed remotely.
As I pondered on the value of remote work, specifically its value in my life, I also cannot help but think about whether others feel the same way or derive the same value as I do.
Is remote work for everyone?
How do we address it when not everyone in the team is built for remote work?
Does everyone understand and possess the necessary skills to succeed working remotely?
If they lack these skills, do they know how to develop or enhance these skills?
Do all managers understand how to support their teams in skills development?
More importantly, do all managers understand and possess the necessary skills to lead a working team remotely?
I am also curious about how effective the strategies cited in the article are.
How much does communication and zeitgebers contribute to achieving remote work goals?
Perhaps, also importantly, are zeitgebers and internal communication tools being abused? Are they being used to micromanage remote workers? Do they result in more unnecessary meetings, for example? Lastly, the assumption on the article is that remote workers work in the same time zone. My remote work experience is that I work with team members located in different time zones. Some of the strategies, specifically zeitgebers, will require further contextualization and adaptation to suit a multizonal team. In this context, what kind of zeitgebers will work? What communication strategies will support a team member’s autonomy, competence, and belongingness? What skills and mindset should managers develop in managing these types of teams?
Tales from the classroom is a special blog series where I share research and articles I produce in my DBA (Doctorate in Business Administration) program.
Turon at Lugaw 