⬍ What was in the classified documents❓⬍

The Real President And the plot to reset your finances in 2023... [WSW Logo]( [Divider] A note from the Editor: Wall Street Wizardry is dedicated to providing readers like you with unique opportunities. The message below from one of our business associates is one we believe you should take a serious look at. [divider] We've lived through a global remote-work experiment. But is our assessment of work-from-home flawed since we didn't have a choice? S Since the pandemic hit, people around the world have been taking part in a ‘Great Remote Work Experiment’. We’ve learned a lot, about things like productivity, communication and boundaries. We’ve proved we can do get our jobs done, something that has fueled global conversations about work structures once Covid-19 subsides. Yet there’s one thing we keep forgetting. We weren’t just working from home – we were working from home during a pandemic. The experiment began almost overnight, with minimal preparation or support. We worked at our kitchen tables, sometimes watching our children, as we sheltered from a virus. Everyone was in the same boat, working remotely without choice. That means that although we did work from home, our experiences were shaped within a very specific, unique and communal set of circumstances. When the world re-opens, these circumstances will change – meaning that remote work may feel rather different. Some experts suggest we need to reflect on which parts of our ‘experiment’ may have been unrepresentative of long-term remote work in a pandemic-free society. Others suggest that our pandemic ‘experiment’ taught us more about remote work than we could ever have imagined, and propelled work-from-home into the mainstream in a vastly accelerated manner. Both good and bad effects have come from the great work-from-home experiment occurring during a global medical emergency. Experts say pinpointing these could better inform our future work practices. Why the pandemic isn’t the best guide On one hand, we crash-landed into remote work because of the pandemic. This could mean we’re not best placed to judge how well or poorly it works under ‘normal’ circumstances. “There was this enormous uncertainty – the stress that we all felt of ‘what’s going to happen to society?’,” says Martha Maznevski, professor of organisational behaviour at the University of Western Ontario. The last 18 months have been tough for many of us; some have faced health-related anxiety, loneliness and boredom, while others have been juggling children and homeschooling with professional responsibilities. And all of us had to rapidly adjust to new ways of working. Workstations, for example, weren’t necessarily standing desks in home offices; they were stacks of books on kitchen tables, or even our beds. Zoom made conversations – professional or personal – feel foreign and exhausting, but we couldn’t leave our homes for fear of contracting the virus. It’s fair to assume these factors will have shaped people’s ability to work, and their resultant view of remote work, in diverse ways – and some may never want to work away from the office again. Even 18 months into the pandemic, working from home can still have pitfalls, from poor workstations to a lack of space (Credit: Getty Images) Even 18 months into the pandemic, working from home can still have pitfalls, from poor workstations to a lack of space (Credit: Getty Images) Not all of these ‘forced’ conditions were bad, however. Because knowledge workers went remote by necessity, regardless of company or industry, everyone was facing the same challenges, and people pulled together to find solutions. Yet this benefit may have been unique to the pandemic; once we return to a world in which people have different working situations, our ways of working will begin to diverge again, and integrating remote work may become more complicated. “The all-remote was fine; now we’re getting into the mix [of remote and non-remote], and that takes a lot more thought,” says Anita Woolley, associate professor of organisational behaviour and theory at Carnegie Mellon University, US. Now, as some firms begin hybrid working, employees may soon realise that it’s going to be harder to pull off remote work when some people are at home while others are in the office, where it’s easier to build relationships, collaborate and even advance in the company. Additionally, the working hours we put in while remote were linked to the fact that we were stuck at home. While there’s data to suggest that we were more productive during the pandemic, and that some companies were more productive than others, that could be due to people working longer hours each day, to the point of burnout. There were few leisure options available, plus we were worried about our jobs, which meant many people defaulted to working longer hours. We can’t necessarily conclude that widespread remote work makes people more productive, even if we do save time on things like daily commutes. So, does that all mean that we’ve conditioned companies and workers to think of remote work in a certain way that isn’t necessarily indicative of the future? We’ve developed preferences about working from home that might be based on experiences that aren’t necessarily representative of what remote work is supposed to look like – we’re not going to be glued to Zoom during lockdowns forever, after all. It could be that we’re in for a surprise – unpleasant or otherwise – when we experience remote work after the pandemic. The all-remote was fine; now we’re getting into the mix [of remote and non-remote], and that takes a lot more thought - Anita Woolley Don’t pull the alarm yet Yet not all experts are concerned about whether our pandemic work-from-home experiences could distort our view of remote work. Some argue that the context in which we worked shouldn’t discount our experiment – if anything, it should help guide how we roll out long-term remote work policies going forward. “In what ways can we use this dataset and generalise from it, and in what ways can we not?” says Maznevski. “Not that we throw it all out – but what parts of it are going to generalise to a non-pandemic situation?” But despite challenges, some experts say that the pandemic-era remote work experiment was more successful than anyone could have guessed (Credit: Getty Images) But despite challenges, some experts say that the pandemic-era remote work experiment was more successful than anyone could have guessed (Credit: Getty Images) Nicholas Bloom, professor of economics at Stanford University in California, points to “three golden rules” that, pre-pandemic, were believed to be crucial for successful remote work. First, having a working space that wasn’t the same room as where you slept; second, having high-speed broadband; third, six or more months of experience on the job so that you knew what you were doing. The pandemic proved all three were, in fact, not required – and if it weren’t for the unique nature of the pandemic, we never would have been able to figure that out, says Bloom. Now, moving forwards, we can look at the difficult remote-work conditions during the pandemic, and use what we’ve learned to improve our set-ups. Bloom says he thinks it’s “incredibly positive” that pandemic remote work has been “more successful than anyone ever predicted”. He suggests that the forced remote-work experiment is like comparing two versions of a smartphone. Say you bought an original smartphone years ago, and thought it was convenient at the time, but then one day you buy the newest, shiniest model, and suddenly realised how much more convenient it is than the original. That’s what remote work after Covid-19 could be like – we’ll only be able to improve and iterate on what was surprisingly successful during the pandemic. Bloom also believes that, without the unique pressure-cooker environment of the pandemic, there wouldn’t have been as many leaps in remote-work technological innovation. He and his colleagues point out in a 2021 working paper that the number of US patent applications for technologies supporting telework, video conferencing and working from home doubled between January and September 2020. Even “Zoom is a lot better now than a few months ago”, says Bloom. Kevin Johnson, associate professor of management at HEC Montréal business school, says that the pandemic gave remote work a wave it wouldn’t have had otherwise. “We’ve got the momentum to use in the coming months, weeks, to try and build something more integrated in our management system and our leadership styles,” he says. In the end, we can acknowledge both perspectives; that while working remotely during the pandemic distorted many people’s views of what long-term remote work would look like, the unusual ways the pandemic affected the telework experience can serve as learning points for the future. It’s important to identify the pieces of the Great Remote Work Experiment that were unique to the pandemic. After all, we might be tempted to look at those elements, and assume that they’ll always be a part of remote work. That’s why we need to pay attention to the parts of the day-to-day that pan out better or worse than we think, and flag it with a manager early. Communication and flexibility will be key. Just because certain factors helped remote work spread more quickly than it would otherwise, doesn’t mean those factors will stick around forever. What was in Biden’s classified documents? Frankly, it doesn’t matter. [This is the REAL scandal](. [Biden]( Porter Stansberry Work communication has certainly become more casual – but what happens when your texts and social-media inboxes are filled with colleagues’ messages? F For years, many forward-thinking companies have had a problem with email. Though it’s the bedrock of communication in the corporate sector, digital tools have evolved at a rapid pace in recent years, solidifying what some liken to email’s death knell, ushered forth by younger workers who loathe the staid, slow and sterile format. But if email is to die, what comes next? Certain companies are relying more than ever on direct messaging, which allows managers, bosses and even the odd C-suite executive to ping anyone in an organisation, with blinding immediacy. The tools are numerous: Slack, Microsoft Teams, Skype; even personal communication platforms like WhatsApp and text, and social-media platforms such as Instagram, Facebook Messenger and Snapchat are slowly subsuming email’s old function. But the casual nature of communication on these platforms can in many ways blur the lines between professional and personal relationships, and even create an emotional burden on employees. And the onslaught of direct messages can follow workers home well after office hours, chaining them to their devices in a constant pursuit to close the loop and perform for the bosses who are crossing the line. “I feel like DMs follow me home more than email. I have both on my phone, but always feel a sense of urgency to answer a DM when I've stepped away from my computer or it's off hours,” says Megan Farrell, a 28-year-old interaction designer working in the health and science sector in New York City. “A lot of the boundaries I established for work email, I don't hold onto for DMs.” The quandary of constant communication presents itself on multiple fronts. If a bloated inbox is a familiar headache, the tools some companies have been using as replacements – Instagram, WhatsApp, texting – present a host of ethical questions that organisations across the corporate spectrum must grapple with: namely, should bosses be sliding into personal DMs on platforms that aren’t specifically designed for work? The boundaries between the professional and personal can quickly become fuzzy as managers reach out to their direct reports via personal-messaging platforms (Credit: Getty Images) The boundaries between the professional and personal can quickly become fuzzy as managers reach out to their direct reports via personal-messaging platforms (Credit: Getty Images) ‘Intentional boundary violations’ Certain prognosticators have long argued that younger employees will force companies to eschew email in favour of DMs, and that vision has held somewhat true. Workplace messaging platforms like Slack and Microsoft Teams have become an indispensable facet of modern office communication. At their crux, they’ve lifted their most integral feature – the direct message – from social media platforms that came earlier. However, Margaret Morris, a psychologist focused on the intersection of technology and psychological well-being, and author of Left to Our Own Devices, says “there’s a bright line” between DMing on Slack and sending messages on social media. The latter, she says, “suggests intentional boundary violations” when done in professional settings. “That term – ‘sliding into DMs’ – when I hear it, it makes me pretty uncomfortable.” But some companies are doing exactly that; encouraging employees through social-media DMs to get work done. A Manchester-based energy retailer, Love Energy Savings, recently announced it was scrubbing email from its workplace tools, replacing it with a bevy of social media apps, because its younger employees preferred the immediacy of DMs. The sales software company Close uses Snapchat as an internal communications tool for its remote workforce, claiming the disappearing messaging app creates “a team culture that’s not only centred around work, but also life outside it”. In an increasing number of companies, DMs are not only the primary form of communication, but are increasingly bleeding into personal platforms, not only because the mode of communication appeals to the tastes of a younger workforce, but because bosses can still track down workers, even if they’re logged out of company tools for the night. David D’Souza, a workplace expert and membership director at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development in London, says the push to DMs leaves workers with a familiar sense of drowning, reminiscent of an email pile on. Performing on personal platforms Beyond the feeling of being snowed in by messages, personal DMs can also present a novel emotional and psychological pressure. Farrell used to text regularly with her boss at a former job, and the influx of texts from a person in power – even if they weren’t work related – made it hard for her to ignore her phone. “I struggled to say no or not respond, because [the conversation] always got tied on some level to how I was doing my job.” She says her relationship with her boss evolved in such a way “that being emotionally supportive became part of my job. I also never felt like I was away from work, even if I logged off everything else”, she says. I struggled to say no or not respond, because [the conversation] always got tied on some level to how I was doing my job – Megan Farrell Communicating via text or social media can also lay traps for workers once their professional personas tangle up with their intentionally private social-media profiles. Morris explains that workers will have to tailor their online presences to fall in line with workplace decorum. “How much of my life is on display? How much do I have to perform on social media in line with the employer’s expectations?” she says. It’s possible, Morris reasons, that workers will have to treat how they post on Instagram or Facebook like any other aspect of their job. She says social media is “certainly at odds with how you’re trying to present yourself at work”, and the spectre of a boss looming in one’s DMs makes the experience of using social media totally different than its original intent. “I don’t know how [DMing with a boss] plays out; whether it’s akin to being monitored by one’s parents or having to cut things out of photos.” As workplace communication becomes more casual and personal, Morris is concerned that the lax atmosphere of social media might erode behavioural standards, and even invite problems like harassment. “The platform will shape the tone of the conversation,” she says. “The cues that remind people of their roles, the virtual equivalents of offices, are gone. In addition, employees may feel even more surveilled and pressured to filter their online presence than they do already.” D’Souza largely agrees, saying: “A conversational platform blurs [work] boundaries by documenting informal exchanges. The informality of them can also give rise to inappropriate or bullying behaviour.” [divider] [WSW footer logo]( You are receiving this e-mail because you have expressed an interest in the Financial Education niche on one of our landing pages or sign-up forms on our website. If you {EMAIL} received this e-mail in error and would like to report spam, simply send an email to abuse@wallstreetwizardry.com. You’ll receive a response within 24 hours. Email sent by Finance and Investing Traffic, LLC, owner and operator of Wall Street Wizardry © 2023 Wall Street Wizardry. All Rights Reserved[.]( 221 W 9th St # Wilmington, DE 19801 [Privacy Policy]( [Terms & Conditions]( | [Unsubscribe]( [divider]