Case Study: Should Some Employees Be Allowed to Work Remotely Even If Others Can't?

Sean Lewis, the CEO of Vallia Energy, stared at the message screen on his phone and prayed for three little dots.

"DON'T SEND THE BACK-TO-THE-OFFICE MEMO!" he'd written to Joan Flores, the senior vice president who managed their corporate space. For weeks he and Joan had been planning a return to the office for the 3200 employees who worked at the oil and gas company's headquarters in Oklahoma City. More than two and a half years earlier, at the outset of the Covid-19 pandemic, those staff members (around 65% of the workforce) had begun doing their jobs remotely. Though some had trickled back into the office on a voluntary basis, Sean, unlike his competitors, had still not mandated that everyone return. Now, with vaccines and therapeutics widely available, it felt like the right time to reassemble the HQ personnel. They'd been productive during the pandemic, but Sean worried that Vallia was missing out on collaboration and, as a result, innovation.¹

He was also concerned about the brewing discontent of Vallia's roughnecks?the workers who labored on the drilling rigs and in the oil fields and who had been on-site all along. Many were disdainful of the "corporate suits" in the main office. Most had been vaccinated, but some believed that the severity of the pandemic had been exaggerated, and they didn't understand why the office staff had stayed remote for so long. They were beginning to grumble about what they perceived to be a double standard: They were often offshore or in the field for weeks at a time, while their colleagues had the luxury of being home with their families.

Sean and Joan had never expected working arrangements to go back to a prepandemic "normal." But they wanted to come up with a way to balance work flexibility with in-office collaboration. After a couple of false starts, they'd settled on a hybrid solution: requiring all employees to return to the office at least four days a week, while allowing people to apply for exemptions.

Throughout the process, Joan had been good-humored and patient, but Sean wasn't sure how she'd react to this last-minute about-face. He breathed a sigh of relief when he saw her reply: "Sure, Sean. The memo was due to go out at 10 AM tomorrow. I will cancel. Let's discuss in the morning?" Sean sent a thumbs-up emoji, but his heart sank. He felt like he was back to square one.

Rethinking the Plan

"What happened?" Joan asked when she and Sean met by the food trucks at Scissortail Park.

"Jim emailed me," Sean replied, referring to Jim Bank, the head of human resources. "He noticed that someone recently posted a link in the company wiki to a survey question:Assume there's a back-to-the-office mandate. What do you do?People could choose from three possible responses: (1) I don't have time for this survey because I'm working on updating my rsum; (2) I already have another job lined up for after bonuses are paid out; and (3) I'm moving to Hawaii to surf."

"Come on, Sean, that doesn't mean anything," Joan replied. "It's just a joke!"

"Maybe," Sean said. "But it got me thinking. The labor market has never been tighter, and many people now love working from home. What if they'd rather quit than accept the new policy?²We can't afford that risk. I'm trying to bring Vallia into the 21st century by making us digital and AI-driven and by diversifying beyond fossil fuels. That could all be derailed if we lose our best people and can't recruit others."

"We've considered other approaches for a return to HQ," Joan reminded him.³When she and Sean had first started mapping out a plan, they'd envisioned requiring everyone to be in the office two or three days a week. But the company had reduced its real-estate footprint early in the pandemic, renting out a wing of its building to a medical-testing start-up. To accommodate Vallia's returning employees in the space that remained available, Joan had proposed creating a "hot desk" or hoteling system whereby employees could reserve desks when they needed them. That idea had sparked immediate pushback: Many people wanted a more permanent workspace.

Joan had then suggested giving staffers dedicated but shared desks or offices and creating an online tool so that everyone could see which colleagues were going to be on-site on a given day. But some employees objected to sharing their workspaces. In fact, several department heads had told Sean that if working from home a few days a week meant losing their private offices, they'd rather come in every day. People had also pointed out that Vallia would lose the benefits of spontaneous collaboration without a common schedule for everyone.

With those concerns in mind, Sean and Joan had shifted course again. They'd managed to end the leasing arrangement with their tenant and planned to bring all employees back four days a week. Both of them had been feeling confident about the decision?until Sean saw the pseudo survey.

"We aren't going to please everyone," Joan said. "It's legit to worry about folks resigning because we pull them back in. But we also have to consider whether keeping employees remote?particularly new hires and young staff?will leave them withering on the vine."⁴

Sean prided himself on being in touch with his workers, especially the next generation. For years business experts had been advising the energy sector to prepare for "the great crew change" that would result from an impending wave of retirements. To appeal to younger workers, especially those with engineering and other technical skills in high demand, oil companies were trying to shed the reputation of being old-school and part of a "dirty" industry. At Vallia, Sean was emphasizing the firm's digital transformation and its efforts to reduce carbon and methane emissions and eliminate flaring, a technique blamed for air pollution and methane leakage at small drill sites. Under his leadership, the company also touted its commitment to diversifying its workforce and supporting inclusion and equity programs in the community.

"I mean," Joan continued, "what will happen over time if we're never physically together? Trust, teamwork, knowledge transfer, a sense of belonging?these are things I worry about losing."

"I'm not saying never," Sean responded. "I'm just saying not yet. We don't have to rush this."

The pair sat in silence for a beat before Joan spoke again.

"I'm curious. What was the most popular survey answer?"

"Surf's up," Sean said, smiling wanly.

External Pressure

In his office later, Sean fielded a call from Dean Johnson, the head of the local chamber of commerce.

"Dean, I had a feeling you might reach out."

"Hi, Sean. You sound well. Which surprises me, as I heard that you've lost your mind and decided to cancel Vallia's return to headquarters."

"Not cancel," Sean said, chuckling. "Postpone."

"Well, you know how disappointed I am, speaking as the voice of the OKC business community," Dean replied. "You're an anchor employer here, and your people are the primary customers for dozens of small businesses."⁵

"I know that, Dean." Vallia's presence had helped the once-stagnating metropolis become one of the 25 largest cities in the country. "But I have to think about the long-term sustainability of my workforce," Sean continued. "It won't do anyone any good if all my staffers quit and take the 10 grand to move to Tulsa." He was referring to a cash incentive offered by the nearby city to lure remote workers to relocate there.

"I get it, but all of us at the chamber and City Hall?we're not sure OKC can take the hit if your offices stay empty." Both men were well aware of the recentWall Street Journalstory indicating that remote work had become a credit risk for many cities because of lower tax bases in their downtown cores. "Your community needs you to bring your people back."⁶

More Opinions

The next day, Sean gathered his senior leaders for a virtual meeting and told them he was considering continuing with work-from-anywhere for at least the next quarter. He acknowledged everyone's desire for certainty about a return-to-office plan but explained that he'd rather wait and be right than rush and be wrong. A flurry of raised-hand icons appeared on his screen.

"We're still paying off loans on our building, and paying to keep it ready," said Jake Brown, the head of accounting. "We should at least try to get more value out of it. Maybe we should keep leasing space to the medical-testing company, or rent out areas for events or conferences?"

"My priority right now is our people," Sean said. "But if there's a way to get some revenue from the empty office without turning it over to another firm, and while retaining control of when we return to work, I'm all ears."

Janet Stritikus, who led the back-office administrative roles, shared another idea: "Many people on my team have worked remotely for a long time, but we come together each quarter for training, bonding, and sharing of best practices. Why not let managers have mandatory in-office days geared toward projects that require collaboration?"

"Great thinking," Sean said. "That could be a good first step."

Bill French, the head of geoscience, spoke next: "We're trying to bolster our workforce and recruit a new generation. That requires building a new culture. But how can we do that when no one knows each other?"⁷

Case Study Classroom Notes

A 2021-2022 Stanford study of a multinational corporation found that when employees worked from home two days a ...

"That's exactly why I'm torn," Sean replied. "We do need to make sure that something bonds us together. But new hires don't want to be forced into the office."

"Coddling them doesn't sit well with my field crews," interjected Ted Petersen, the head of the oil-field and offshore workers. "They resent the hardships they deal with while the office staff gets to work from home."

"Please remember that this isn't permanent," Sean replied. "And short-term, perhaps we can stretch the budget to add more contractors. That would allow some flexibility for our full-timers so that things feel more fair."

"Fine, but we can't exist in limbo forever," Ted said, sounding exasperated. "We may not be sure what's right, but at some point we need to make the tough decisions."

Sensing rising tension, Sean decided to end the meeting. "Joan and I will get to work and settle on the plan soon," he said. As he was signing off, he noticed that Joan had texted him a worried-face emoji. "No kidding," he replied.

BACKGRAND of Jake Brown, Head of Accounting

Background Story:

Jake Brown, Head of Accounting at Vallia, is known for his practical and financially focused approach to business decisions. He has been with Vallia for over a decade, establishing himself as a key figure in maintaining the company's financial health. With the shift to remote work, he has become increasingly concerned about the financial implications of Vallia's underutilised office space.

Though he doesn't have a strong leaning toward any specific work model ?be it remote, in-office, or hybrid ?Jake is acutely aware of the company's ongoing financial obligations. His main concern is that the company's large office space, mostly vacant due to current remote work policies, is a sunk cost that needs to be turned into a revenue stream. He has floated the idea of continued leasing to the medical testing company and has even suggested renting out parts of the building for events or conferences. However, he's now considering a more radical approach: "Would it make financial sense to sell the office spaces, cut our losses, and transition to a fully remote work model?"

Jake faces the following challenges:

1. Prioritising Financial Outcomes: While

understanding the importance of a positive

organisational culture, Jake's primary concern is aligning decisions with the company's financial health and stability.

1. Sunk Costs: Jake has become increasingly concerned about the costs associated with Vallia's underutilised office space, which is mostly vacant due to the shift to remote work. Jake must evaluate the pros and cons of maintaining the office building and paying real estate and overhead costs versus selling it off and moving to a fully remote model.
2. Executive Alignment: He faces the challenge of aligning other executives, who may have different priorities, to focus on the financial aspects of the work model decision, in particular, the financial burden of maintaining a large vacant office space.
3. Professional Reputation: As the head of accounting, Jake's reputation is closely tied to his financial decisions and advice. He must effectively communicate the financial implications of each work model, ensuring his insights carry weight in the face of fluctuating opinions. His ability to sway the decision could have lasting effects on both Vallia's financial standing and his own credibility as a key financial leader.

Current Situation

CEO Sean Lewis has convened an urgent, high-stakes board meeting with all his executive team members to decide Vallia's future work model. This isn't just another discussion; it's the decisive meeting that will establish, once and for all, the work model Vallia will adopt moving forward. This decision will not only influence the company's operational structure but will also have a domino effect on employee satisfaction, customer relations, and the bottom line.

The decision will also alter the executive team's personal stakes in the matter, altering internal power balances and the level of influence they wield within the company and in interactions with external stakeholders. Sean expects the executive team to come to this pivotal meeting fully prepared. He has explicitly instructed everyone to develop a robust business case for their preferred work model, complete with a SWOT analysis, stakeholder analysis, real-world examples, and academically supported evidence or statistics. Your input in this pivotal discussion will be a decisive factor in shaping Vallia's future success.

Objectives:

1. Analyse the financial impacts of various work models and decide on the most financially sustainable model for Vallia. Come prepared to the meeting with:

• A SWOT analysis that evaluates the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of adopting your preferred model.
• A stakeholder analysis to identify how various groups within the company would be impacted by adopting your preferred work model.

C. At least one real-world example where a similar work model has shown success.

d. At least one credible academic source or statistic that supports the benefits of your preferred work model.

2. Influence the Committee, which may have different priorities, to focus on the financial aspects of the work model decision, in particular, the financial burden of maintaining a large vacant office space.

3. Reach a consensus on the work model that Vallia will adopt.

REFLECTION QUESTIONS ( answer questions below as a reflection following the marking guide below and summarise clearly)

CLEARFAIL - CLEAR FAIL + NEEDS WORK NEEDS WORK + PASS PASS + CREDIT DISTINCTION HIGH DISTINCTION HIGH DISTINCTION + Report Does NOT Addresses: Addresses: Addresses: Identifies: Identifies clearly: Describes: Describes clearly: Summarises: Summarises clearly: address any key | o 1 or 2 of the 5 key e 3ofthe 5key o 4 ofthe 5 key What happened, * What happened, What happened, * What happened, * What happened, What happened, Questions. questions. questions. questions. The key aspects of o The key aspects of The key aspects of o The key aspects of o The key aspects of o The key aspects of the situation, the situation, the situation, the situation, the situation, the situation, Who was involved, * Who was involved, Who was involved, o Who was involved, * Who was involved, o Who was involved, Whathappened, and | What happened, and | What happened, and | Whathappened, and | What happened, and | e What happened, and + What you did. + What you did. * What you did. + What you did. * What you did. * What you did. 1o 0 2 3 4 5 6| 7 8 9 10 Respond Does NOT Addresse1 of the 4 key | Addresses 2 of the 4 Addresses 3 of the 4 Identifies: Identifies clearly: Describes: Describes clearly: Summarises: Summarises clearly: addresse1 of the | questions. key questions. key questions. How you felt, * How you felt, How you felt, How you felt, How you felt, e How you felt, 4 key questions. * What you thought, * What you thought, What you thought, What you thought, * What you thought, What you thought, What made you feel * What made you feel What made you feel What made you feel * What made you feel What made you feel that way, and that way, and that way, and that way, and that way, and that way, and * What questions did * What questions did * What questions did * What questions did * What questions did e What questions did you have? you have? you have? you have? you have? you have? 110 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Relate Does NOT Addresses your Addresses your Addresses your Identifies your Identifies clearly your Describes your Describes clearly your | Explains your Explains clearly your relate your understanding of the understanding of the understanding of the understanding of the understanding of the understanding of the understanding of the understanding of the understanding of the u':derst;r'\\\\(;mg situation using: situation using: situation using: situation using: situation using: situation using: situation using: situation using: situation using: W:ley or Information you s Information you Information you Information you Information you Information you Information you + Information you Information you Reflections. Iea_rn( about yourself Iegmt about yourself Iegm( about yourself Iea_rnt about yourself Iegm( about yourself legrnt about yourself qumt about yourself Iegm( about yourself Iegm( about yourself using at least 1 PIA using at least 1 PIA using at least 2 PIAs using 3 PlAs and 3 using 3 PIAs and 3 using PIAs and 3 using 3 PIAs and 3 using 3 PIAs and 3 using 3 PIAs and 3 OR 1 Weekly AND 1 Weekly AND 2 Weekly Weekly Reflections Weekly Reflections Weekly Reflections Weekly Reflections Weekly Reflections Weekly Reflections Reflection Reflection Reflections * Your past, o Your past, * Your past, o Your past, * Your past, e Your past, * Your past, * Your past, * Your past, experiences, and experiences, and experiences, and experiences, and experiences, and experiences, and experiences, and experiences, and experiences, and * Your skills and * Your skills and Your skills and * Your skills and * Your skills and * Your skills and Your skills and Your skills and Your skills and knowledge. knowledge. knowledge. knowledge. knowledge. knowledge. knowledge. knowledge. knowledge. 120 0 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Reasoning Does NOT Does NOT use any OB | Uses OB theories to Uses OB theories to Uses OB theories to Uses OB theories to Uses OB theories to Sometimes uses Mostly uses relevant Always uses relevant include any theory in your address significant address significant address significant identify significant describe significant relevant OB theories to | OB theories to explain OB theories to explain reasoning. reasoning. factors in relation to you | factors in relation to you | factors in relation to you | factors and how they factors and how they summarise significant significant factors and significant factors and as a(n) as a(n) as a(n) are essential to are essential to factors and how they are | how they are essential how they are essential e Individual OR individual AND individual, understand what understand what essential to understand to understand what to understand what * group member OR group member OR group member, and | happened in relation to | happened in relationto | what happened in happened in relation to | happened in relation to manager/leader. manager/leader manager/leader. you as a(n) you as a(n) relation to you as a(n) you as a(n) youas a(n) (1 Role) (2 Roles) individual, individual, + individual, individual, individual, * group member, and * group member, and * group member, * group member, and group member, and * manager/leader. + manager/leader. + manager/leader. + manager/leader. * manager/leader. 120 0 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Reconstructing | Does NOT draw | Draws general Identifies changes you | Identifies changes you | Identifies changes you | Identifies changes you | Describes changes you | Describes specifi Summarises specific Summarises specific any conclusions. | conclusions about are going to make so are going to make so are going to make so are going to make so are going to make so changes you are going changes you are going | changes you are going yourself. that you can be a better | that you can be a better | that you can be a better | that you can be a better | that you can be a better | to make and why so that| to make so that you can | to make and why so o individual OR o individual, * individual, o individual, * individual, you can be a better be a better that you can be a better e group member OR * group member, e group member, and * group member, e group member, and individual, individual, e individual, manager/leader. manager/leader manager/leader. manager/leader. * manager/leader. e group member, and * group member, and e group member, and (1 Role) (2 Roles) AND AND AND manager/leader. manager/leader. manager/leader. Identifies the Describes the Describes the AND AND AND implication of those implication of those implication of those Explains the implication | Describes the Explains the implication changes. changes. changes. of those changes. implication of those of those changes. changes. 120 0 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Your Emotional Intelligence Assessment Score is: 80 120 High emotional intelligence 80 62 Normal emotional intelligence Low emotional intelligence 0Your emotional response score: 20 Comparison Data (N = 5,000 students) \"Pre\" Scores \"Post\" Scores Emotional Response Score: 25.0% Emotional Diagnosis Score: 25.0% Emotional Awareness Score: 25.0% e Emotional Control Score: 25.0% Mean Bottom 66.38 55 or below 54.52 51 or below Quartile Second Third 56-65 66- 80 52-56 57- 60 Top 81 or above 61 or above Your Team Development Behaviors Score is: 113 Your score is high. High scores (107 and above) mean that you have a high ability to develop high-performing teams. 120 113 108 High ability to develop high-performing teams o8 Normal ability to develop high-performing teams 85 60 30 Team Development Behaviors Score Leading the team Being an effective team member Diagnosing and facilitating team development Quartile Mean Bottom Second Third Top 96.97 90 or below 91 - 98 99 - 106 Total (Pre-Test: N = 9,000 students) 105 or above 99 - 106 114 Total (Post-Test: N = 4,000 students) 104.07 98 or below 107 - 113 or aboveTeam Development Behaviors Comparative Results Course results Personal results Ability to Develop High-Performing Teams Global Course High ability (You): 11.8% High ability Low ability: (You): 27.5% 35.9% Low ability: Y 29.4% 58.8% \\ Normal ability: 36.6% @ High ability (You) @ Normal ability @ Low ability @ High ability (You) @ Normal ability @ Low ability Facet Global Course High ability (You) 9444 2 Normal ability 12557 5 Low ability 12310 10 N 5 5 5 43 4 42 4 , 338 37 I | I I | | 3.2 | | I Individualism/Collectivism Score Distance from Power Score Uncertainty Avoidance Score Proximity Score o @ Foreign Company Joint Venture @ Domestic Company @ You Facets Your Score Individualism/Collectivism: Individuals with high scores for this component of cultural structure feel most comfortable in collective environments. Said another way, the higher a respondent's score the more likely they are to seek out organizations that have built-in team structures and encourage employees to work together. Power Distance: Individuals with high scores on the power distance component of the cultural structure assessment are individuals who like to have a close connection to their superiors. The higher the score, the shorter the desired distance between the respondent and leadership should be. Uncertainty Avoidance: Individuals with high scores on the uncertainty avoidance component of the cultural structure assessment typically like organizations that are engaged in creativity and innovative problem solving. The higher the score, the higher a person''s tolerance for risk. Proximity: Individuals with high proximity scores are those who prefer to work in close physical proximity to their coworkers. Respondents with high proximity scores would likely not enjoy working from home or long distance