Is the boss of PwC right that working from home is holding back young people? We hear the case for and against in this week’s Debate

YES: Two fifths of young workers say home working is restricting their development

Home and hybrid working can provide valuable flexibility and improve work-life balance. But these benefits are not always experienced equally, with younger workers potentially missing out on the workplace relationships and informal learning that more established professionals have already developed.

Research conducted by the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) last year found almost half (48 per cent) of 18 to 24-year-olds said home and hybrid working made it harder to build relationships with colleagues and managers. More than two-fifths, 43 per cent, feared that fewer face-to-face interactions were restricting their personal and professional development.

Too often, the problem is not flexibility itself but a lack of structured support. Only 19 per cent of 18 to 24-year-olds received constructive feedback two or three times a week.
Working from home can hinder young peoples’ development when employers treat flexibility as a substitute for active management, though an inflexible return-to-office mandate is not, by itself, the answer.

Simply requiring young people to be physically present in a workplace does not guarantee meaningful learning, effective supervision or career progression. What matters is whether employers are deliberately creating opportunities for people to develop, build relationships and feel part of their organisation. Theoretically, this can happen anywhere (remote or in person), but in practice management and development structures may not always provide this support as consistently in a remote or hybrid environment.

Kelly Nicoll is the former president at IOSH

NO: Flexibility is what makes work possible for a growing number of young people

PWC boss Marco Amitrano is right that young people need employers to actively engage them. Our evidence shows that mentoring, proximity and unplanned, everyday conversations are among the most important benefits of in-person time, especially in someone’s first years at work. Employers also tell us it’s harder to integrate young people when senior managers work remotely. But the answer isn’t to send everyone back to the office. It’s to design hybrid working properly.

The wider evidence on hybrid working is positive. Stanford economist Nicholas Bloom finds no productivity penalty from well-structured hybrid working, and real gains in retention, especially for women and staff with long commutes.

Get it wrong, and you lose people. Flexibility is what makes work possible for a growing number of young people with mental health conditions, for the 5.5m disabled people in work, and for older workers approaching retirement.

The best employers are already showing how. Instead of blanket mandates that could cost them their best staff, they’re building in structured mentoring, deliberate team days and managers equipped to bring new starters in, wherever they work.

The Employment Rights Act’s new approach to flexible working requests is a chance to make that the norm. This isn’t a choice between flexibility and young people’s development. It’s a chance for employers to get it right, for young people and for everyone else.

Clare McNeil is the CEO of non-profit business consultancy Timewise

THE VERDICT

The UK boss of PwC, Marco Amitrano, this week spoke out about the negative consequences of work-from-home policies, which he believes (while brought in with “good intentions”) are now holding young people back: “Once you’ve said ‘just go home’ then it’s out of sight and out of control.”

Complaining about the shortcomings of the young in the workplace is nothing new, but could Amitrano have a point on this one? After all, it has been reported that Gen Z workers are no longer equipped in basic office skills like picking up the phone.

While it’s logical, as Ms McNeil argues, to say that blaming the setting rather than the surrounding support structures for inadequate work can be a lazy approach (bad management is bad management wherever it is), it is also true there is a practical difference between the accountability of work done at home versus in the office – and we all know it! The verdict: realistically, remote work will never deliver the same development as good in-person management can.