A compelling (but hard to observe) reason for returning to in-office work? Serendipity.

Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes a mix of national and local commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

In spring 2020, most businesses made an unprecedented pivot by closing their offices and having their employees work from home. Over three years later, while many other aspects of our lives have returned to pre-COVID norms, wide-scale return to the office is not one of them. We believe that this might be competitively disadvantaging many companies and harming the careers of their employees in ways not seen — yet.

Our research, and the research of others, suggests that the primary rationale for returning to the office is that we miss something that is important for long-term performance but hard to observe — unplanned serendipitous interactions among co-workers. For example, running into a co-worker in the elevator who knows the answer to that question you have struggled with or the unplanned conversation while getting a coffee that generates a new business idea. Serendipitous interactions are important for creative, innovative or non-formulaic activities; however, they rarely occur in virtual interactions because these interactions are highly structured. Employees interact with a broader, looser, less prescribed set of co-workers in the office, and this diversity of knowledge and ideas can be critical to creative problem-solving and innovation. With remote work, research shows that communication narrows into silos, and working relationships between individuals calcify into a few contacts. When this occurs, it might not immediately impact business performance; however, it stifles innovation, which requires new ways of thinking and is important for long-term success.

We recognize that remote workers may feel more productive because there are fewer distractions at home and they spend less time commuting. We also recognize that they value the flexibility to attend to other tasks afforded by working from home. Therefore, many interpret calls to return to the office as insinuations (or sometimes explicit claims) that they are not working hard and need to be closely supervised. Unsurprisingly, remote workers often react negatively to mandated returns to the office.

Monitoring is the wrong rationale to bring people back to the office and should not be a focal consideration for it. Being clear about this acknowledges employees' efforts that made the remote-work pivot succeed. It also allows the conversation to focus on the real benefit of being in the office: the in-person interactions that remote work cannot emulate.

What about the widely discussed benefits of remote work? Aren't we arguing against productivity and flexibility? With respect to productivity, academic research that documents productivity gains does so in occupations that are individualistic and routinized (e.g., call center employees or patent examiners).

These jobs are less likely to benefit from serendipitous interactions, which are more important for creative, innovative and non-routine jobs. Individualistic and routine jobs reflect only a fraction of corporate headquarters jobs like those that we see in the Twin Cities.

There is also emerging evidence from Microsoft that non-self-reported productivity measures do not corroborate the self-reported productivity gains of remote work.

Therefore, current research suggests that the productivity benefits might not be as universal or as large as widely believed. With respect to flexibility, we wish to emphasize that it is possible to balance employees' desire for flexibility while embracing the benefits of returning to the office. For example, we see companies adopting flexible in-office work practices — including not requiring in-office work on Mondays or Fridays. In-office work need not lack flexibility.

When all companies kept employees away from the office, they were on the same competitive footing. However, as we now see divergent responses, we expect that some companies will gain a long-term competitive advantage over others. And this is not just an issue about corporate profits; employment opportunities decrease when corporate competitiveness wanes. Moreover, individual careers are launched and strengthened by having informal working relationships outside of one's team that occur through serendipitous interactions. Likewise, the crosscutting innovation we see facilitated by being at work can be career-changing for those involved.

We recognize that there are pros and cons to returning to the office; however, we believe that the most important benefit of returning to the office (i.e., serendipitous interactions) has not received sufficient attention. We fear that this oversight has biased the conversation and is having unforeseen consequences by harming the long-term competitiveness of many companies and handicapping the careers of many of their employees.

Keith Pennington is an assistant professor in the Boucher Management and Entrepreneurship Department at the University of Connecticut School of Business. Myles Shaver is the Curtis L. Carlson Professor of Corporate Strategy at the Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota.