Is nostalgia for the pre-Covid workplace worth losing good editors who do their best work at home?

By William Dunkerley

Covid just seems not to go away. I'm not just talking about the virus itself. It's the impact it continues to have on editorial operations that is still a concern.

Recent news reports have been highlighting workplace incidents stemming from the imposition of mandates.

AP reported, "NY Hospitals, Schools Fear Shortage from Vaccine Rules." According to Politico, "Texas Airline Pilots Warn That Vaccine Mandates Could Roil Holiday Flights." Mandates for New York City teachers are in a state of flux as we write this. NPR reported, "Massachusetts State Police Troopers Resign over a Covid Vaccine Mandate."

On cable TV, switch from MSNBC to Fox News and you'll get completely different stories about the value of mandates. This is a highly political issue, and it's hard to distinguish reality from politics.

Former Obama administration official Juliette Kayyem apparently believes the mandate resistance talk is just a bluff. She tweeted, "Nervous headlines about massive resignations b/c of vaccine mandates do not deliver. Click on the stories. They are often based on 'concerns' or union litigation strategies. But there are no real walk-out numbers that suggest a crisis. Yet. It’s a gamble, but call their bluff."

A Prospective Return to the Office

We've yet to hear of mandate resistance problems in editorial offices. If you are aware of any, please let us know.

But we have heard that some editors are calling their staffs back to the office. In some cases it is just for part of the week. If mandate resistance does crop up, though, it could be quite problematic.

Many editorial staffs suffered from reductions in numbers early in the pandemic. When publications experienced dramatic drops in ad sales, some editors had to go. For those publications the loss of more editors could spell big problems.

What's at risk is the start of a downward spiral. First came the reduction in advertising revenue. Some publications compensated by reducing editorial expenses. Ultimately that could result in cutting editorial corners. That could eventually bring about lowering the amount or quality of content, and that could lead to fewer readers. Lower readership begets fewer ad dollars. I think you get the picture.

The Productivity Question

One solution for assuring that staff stays on board is by extending remote work for those reluctant to return to the office. For some editorial managers that leads to concern over productivity. There are two schools of thought there. Some at-home workers claim their productivity is up. Some managers say it's down.

Where does the truth lie? Actually there are arguments that support either side. Plain productivity may not be the only significant metric.

The Washington Post reported, "Research suggests that a switch to permanent remote work would make us all less productive. People who shift to working from home can temporarily increase the amount of work they get done in a given day. But over the medium to long term, long-distance employment can’t deliver key benefits -- including learning and new friendships -- that come from face-to-face contact." The Post also suggests, "You may get more work done at home. But you'd have better ideas at the office."

Adapting to, and Accepting, Change

My advice is to not take the Post's advice as a given for the long term. It is likely that presently some editorial managers and some subordinate editors are stressed by the experience of the Covid-forced changes in their work environments. That can lead to less individual productivity and less organizational effectiveness over time. But that does not necessarily spell out our destiny. It is a result of resistance to change.

It may be hard to imagine in today's world, but some editors had similar reactions to having to abandon their typewriters decades ago. They preferred to hand their typed copy to a "specialist" who would input it into a "word processor." Capturing keystrokes electronically must have been quite a technological innovation in the day. For many typewriter-oriented editors it took time to become comfortable with what turned out to be a better way of doing things.

The Post seems to be saying that learning and developing new friendships is an exclusively in-person function. That flies in the face of the role that social media now plays in the lives of many people. Deep friendships are being formed and maintained remotely. You can earn college degrees remotely. For some, that's not going to be the same, not going to fit the bill. But that's not a given. That's not a destiny.

Now, however, we must deal with people as they are, not as they might become. That requires us as managers to recognize individual differences, and to realize that a one-size-fits-all approach to our work environments is not the best approach.

While much of the commentary is about staff performance, the same considerations also apply to managers. They need to follow a course that is workable for them at the present. But it is important to keep in mind that the present is not necessarily the future we are headed for.

Forbes magazine has some reasonable advice: "Encourage people to consider where they do their best work. Avoid assuming all work can be done most effectively regardless of the location, and empower people to choose where they do their best work. Create places where people want to be, so they are attracted to an office where they can complete more complex work or problem solving. Also support them in curating the best conditions in their home environments. Bottom line: educate people and empower them, providing plenty of choice and control about where they do their best work whether it is more complex or more routine."

William Dunkerley is principal of William Dunkerley Publishing Consultants, www.publishinghelp.com.

Add your comment.

Comment:

"While there is something to be said for the future, overcoming past bad habits remains urgent. Many B2B editors, from the day of debut issue until now, have made an unacceptable showing when evidence of enterprise reporting is taken into account. This shortfall especially applies to e-news delivery. From the day of my first 50-site e-news delivery study until now involving 500 articles, 65 percent relied on rewritten press releases and other secondary source material. More recently, when I announced results of my first e-news enterprise reporting analysis, 60 percent of content posted was the established goal. Most sites reviewed could not surpass 40 percent. Fast forward until now, and many editors remain behind the eight ball in terms of being able to quote solid authoritative contacts. This is especially bad today because even those editors who made the grade are finding it much more difficult to reach out to past reliable sources." --Howard Rauch, Editorial Solutions, Inc., www.editsol.com