The City’s U-turn on WFH tells you everything you need to know about bad bosses

More and more City firms are demanding staff work from their offices, after previously deciding to ditch their office space, writes Chris Blackhurst. But the outcome should be better for business – and for ambitious young employees

Barclays has taken overflow office space in Shoreditch. HSBC, having decided to relocate from Canary Wharf to new headquarters near St Paul’s, is looking for extra room, including moving some workers back to Canary Wharf (and has told staff that their bonuses could be cut unless they’re back in the office). JPMorgan and BBVA are finding accommodating everyone a tight squeeze. And BlackRock is also struggling to fit in all its staff.

Some City firms are using a booking system, which sees those who wish to come to the office having to reserve a slot, such is the demand for desks. After three years, Citigroup has shut its Malaga outpost, billed as providing a better work-life balance for the bank’s analysts, and steered its staff to London.

What distinguishes all these financial corporations and others is that they claim to only recruit the brightest and the best. They make fortunes from advising the rest of us, along with businesses and governments, how to manage our affairs. On deals, they take command, devise strategy, issue orders and tell those involved how to behave. Yet when it comes to their own internal management, they are all over the place.

We’ve seen it before, of course – the sector is littered with numerous instances of banks and investment houses being penalised huge sums for their poor conduct or for showing a lax attitude to other people’s money. Frequently, they’ve set out on one course only to change direction, usually at a substantial cost in both money and people. Their approach to working from home (WFH) and remote working shows a herd instinct – something of which they are often guilty. If their customers did the same, these companies would be the first to complain and criticise.

This is the most stark example of the confusion that rages around hybrid working, certainly in Britain. A recent study by King’s College London found that Britain is the remote-working capital of Europe, with UK employees WFH 1.8 days a week on average – a number that is well above the global average of 1.3 days, and the highest in Europe. Globally, only Canadians average more days a week at home, WFH for 1.9 days.

Dr Cevat Giray Aksoy, associate professor of economics at King’s and lead economist at the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development, says: “Remote work has moved from being an emergency response to becoming a defining feature of the UK labour market.”

Dr Aksoy, who also advises the House of Lords on policy regarding the implications of remote working for productivity and labour markets, adds: “This shift is forcing businesses, policymakers and city planners to reimagine everything from office space to transport to regional growth.”

But is it? While his study may point to Britain being out in front or lagging, depending on how the figures are viewed, growing apocryphal evidence indicates something different. The City, for one, is signalling “enough”. Stockbroker Panmure Liberum, reports the Financial Times, has joined Deutsche Bank in barring staff from working at home on consecutive Mondays and Fridays. UBS has told its folk they must be in on either Mondays or Fridays or both, as one of their three mandated days in the office. Broker Peel Hunt insists on four days a week in the office, while the quant analysts at Man Group are up to five for the time being – as part of what the company has described as “all hands on deck” team building. Santander views five days as the default option.

Goldman Sachs regards WFH as an “aberration”. JPMorgan chief Jamie Dimon, probably the most influential banker on the planet, argues that remote working allows “bad habits to develop”.

Where the City leads, like it or not, the rest of the country, business and organisation-wise, tends to follow. Brightmine, which studies HR practices, claims that 15.1 per cent of UK companies have reduced their WFH hours.

Slowly but surely, the TWaTs – those who go in on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays – have begun to retreat. What began as a temporary solution to Covid and morphed into a trend, then a stampede, is coming to an end. Commuter numbers are edging towards their pre-pandemic levels.

There will be those who resist, and there are bound to be lingering pockets of refuseniks, but by and large, Britain will fall into line. Maybe not reaching all five days, but the number WFH will be lower than it is currently, and will no longer be an outlier.

It was predictable, and the banks for one should have seen what was likely to happen. After all, that is what they do, paying huge sums to smart graduates and deploying state-of-the-art technology to forecast the future. Seemingly no amount of qualifications from Stanford and MIT, no brilliant algorithms or AI, no “thought leadership” gleaned in sessions at Davos or elsewhere, prepared them. This, too, in spite of the refusal of the mighty Goldman and JPMorgan’s Dimon to play ball.

If they had only stopped to think, it would have been obvious. Those super-smart hires are also intensely ambitious. How you get ahead, anywhere, is by standing out, making the boss sit up and notice. It’s by showing that creative spark, which often results from being in the right spot at the right time. Convenient as they may be, the stultifying environments of Zoom or Teams, or even the sunny delights of Malaga and the Costa del Sol, are not that place.

Ours – again, like it or not – is a globally connected world where commerce and trade are concerned. Nowhere more so than in banking. Why should workers in London, or the UK, operate to a different standard from everyone else? It does not make sense.

At present, many employers are on the cusp; they are playing a balancing game. They are keen to not dissuade, and some Gen-Z and millennial employees expect to have the option to work from home. For now. But as they see those who spend more time in the office forging closer relationships with the chiefs, and winning promotions and higher salaries, it is surely a matter of when, not if, that changes.