Interests vs Position in Negotiations — Scenario 8 — Remote Work Policy

📋 Guide

Interests vs Position in Negotiations — Scenario 8 — Remote Work Policy

Practical example on how to separate position and interest in the dispute between Managers and Employees/Union over partial return to office.

Debates about presence versus remote work often get stuck because the rule (position) is discussed without agreeing on what is sought (interest). Clarifying interests opens pilots, metrics, and exceptions that harmonize objectives.

Below: context, objectives, blocker, positions and interests, and practical solutions to move forward.

Scenario 8 — Remote Work Policy between Managers and Union/Employees

Conflict: the company announces partial return to office; employees and union request more flexibility and protection of work-life balance.

Scenario detail and practical reminder

Practical note: Imposing a rule without evidence and local agreement generates resistance; allowing too much flexibility without guardrails can erode collaboration. Piloted hybrid solutions reduce friction.

  • Summary context: Announcement of partial return; clash between need for collaboration and demand for flexibility.
  • Risk for Managers: loss of synergy, less mentoring, and culture if presence is low.
  • Risk for Employees/Union: loss of balance, cost and time due to commuting, and harm to wellbeing.

Interests and positions

Managers

Position: Partial return to office with increased presence.

Interests: Better collaboration, supervision, and strengthening organizational culture.

Employees / Union

Position: Maintain or expand flexibility/remote work.

Interests: Work-life balance, saving time/commuting, and autonomy.

Difference between position and interest in this case

The position is the presence policy (more or less office). The interest is to promote collaboration and culture vs protect wellbeing and personal efficiency.

Clarifying interests allows designing hybrid solutions, productivity metrics, and pilots before imposing rigid changes.

  • Examples of interest-based solutions (not just positions):
    • Pilot by teams: test hybrid models (e.g., 2 days in office) for 8–12 weeks and measure impact.
    • Rules by activity: mandatory in-person presence for certain activities (onboarding, planning meetings, demos), remote for individual work.
    • Clear collaboration and productivity metrics: define KPIs (satisfaction, time-to-decision, deliverables) and compare pre/post.
    • Flexibility with guardrails: flexibility bands (e.g., core hours, fixed team days) and commuting compensation options if applicable.
    • Exception process: justified individual requests (care, health, transport) with agile approval by managers/HR.
  • Immediate practical action: Propose within 48–72h a pilot plan and RFC with:
    1. Pilot definition (teams/period/minimum in-person days).
    2. Variables to measure (collaboration index, satisfaction, deliverables, number of effective in-person meetings).
    3. Checklist of activities requiring physical presence.
    4. Exception policy and agile approval process.
    5. Review cadence (evaluation at 4 and 8 weeks and final decision based on data).

Quick recommendations

  • Start with interests: ask Managers and Employees to summarize their interest in a clear sentence.
  • Gather data before imposing: measurable pilot to generate evidence.
  • Define guardrails and exceptions: avoid all-or-nothing solutions.
  • Communicate transparently and inclusively: involving employee/union representatives reduces conflict.
  • Review and adjust: evaluate KPIs and adapt policy based on results and feedback.

If you want, I can turn this into (a) an RFC template for the pilot or (b) a hybrid policy template with checklist of in-person activities and exception process. Let me know which you prefer.

Did you like it? Don’t keep it to yourself — share it like juicy gossip! 😏