The forced return to the office is the definition of insanity(fortune.com)
fortune.com
The forced return to the office is the definition of insanity
https://fortune.com/2023/06/26/forced-return-to-office-is-the-definition-of-insanity-remote-hybrid-work-careers-gleb-tsipursky/
105 comments
>Meanwhile, our flexible options seem to be working, creating a differentiator in the market
It will be interesting to see how the return to office/remote work debate will be settled by the competitive market. If remote work is such a big draw for top talent (and increases productivity), companies that offer remote flexibility will outperform companies that don’t, since they will attract better employees who are also more productive. If, on the other hand, remote work leads to a decrease in productivity (as return to office proponents claim), it may be the case that the better talent wooed by companies offering remote positions will be offset by the drop in productivity from remote work.
It may also be the case that remote flexibility simply isn’t that big of a draw, and companies with remote options won’t attract significantly better talent than companies without them.
It will be interesting to see how the return to office/remote work debate will be settled by the competitive market. If remote work is such a big draw for top talent (and increases productivity), companies that offer remote flexibility will outperform companies that don’t, since they will attract better employees who are also more productive. If, on the other hand, remote work leads to a decrease in productivity (as return to office proponents claim), it may be the case that the better talent wooed by companies offering remote positions will be offset by the drop in productivity from remote work.
It may also be the case that remote flexibility simply isn’t that big of a draw, and companies with remote options won’t attract significantly better talent than companies without them.
I think that is the wrong way to think of it.
Remote work has a short-term advantage in that your workers will be more productive (according to the author) so you'll get more done, and also it is a nice perk to offer recruits.
That sounds like a no-brainer for startups who are thinking about an exit that is a few years away. They don't have to worry as much about attrition, hiring is more focused on senior eng (in my experience), and given the relatively lower cash comp they are trying to find cheap perks.
For the BigCos of the world though, it is different. They have an established business that is probably profitable and they need to cycle in junior engineers and train them to make up for retiring/leaving senior engineers. For them, mentoring is more important than IC productivity.
None of this is to say that the author is wrong, because they are arguing that you can have the best of both worlds by adopting a hybrid mentoring model that they are selling.
Remote work has a short-term advantage in that your workers will be more productive (according to the author) so you'll get more done, and also it is a nice perk to offer recruits.
That sounds like a no-brainer for startups who are thinking about an exit that is a few years away. They don't have to worry as much about attrition, hiring is more focused on senior eng (in my experience), and given the relatively lower cash comp they are trying to find cheap perks.
For the BigCos of the world though, it is different. They have an established business that is probably profitable and they need to cycle in junior engineers and train them to make up for retiring/leaving senior engineers. For them, mentoring is more important than IC productivity.
None of this is to say that the author is wrong, because they are arguing that you can have the best of both worlds by adopting a hybrid mentoring model that they are selling.
I think it an unsupported assertion that mentoring is not possible in remote environments. The mentoring process does work better when its intentional and remote may need a change in the process of mentoring vs in-office. But the can’t do it is an assertion convenient to the return to office chaff.
I cannot imagine how miserable it must be to be a junior being remotely mentored.
It's not the first time hear this view and I still don't understand it.
In my mind this would only make sense in a scenario where the junior is a motivated hard working person and the mentor, working from home, is someone who doesn't give a shit. But the root cause here isn't the wfh.
In my mind this would only make sense in a scenario where the junior is a motivated hard working person and the mentor, working from home, is someone who doesn't give a shit. But the root cause here isn't the wfh.
I know it’s just anecdotal but I really do think mentoring is usually better offline. It doesn’t mean it can’t be done well remotely. But there are way more hurdles in the way.
One of the perks being in the same space is that it is much easier to clear up misunderstandings. Things like body language, facial expressions really do play a huge part in our communication. Especially if people are from different cultures. Also, a lot of juniors are already nervous when they start so having people with friendly body language around helps.
Being in the same space and doing shared activities also helps people gel together. Looking back at my days as a junior and as buddies later, I just don’t think zoom meetings are equal to shared activities like morning coffees and occasional table tennis to blow off steam. I don’t think I would have gotten along with some people if it weren’t for shared experiences in the office.
All this being said, I really do love wfh though. So I often think about how we could get the best of both worlds.
One of the perks being in the same space is that it is much easier to clear up misunderstandings. Things like body language, facial expressions really do play a huge part in our communication. Especially if people are from different cultures. Also, a lot of juniors are already nervous when they start so having people with friendly body language around helps.
Being in the same space and doing shared activities also helps people gel together. Looking back at my days as a junior and as buddies later, I just don’t think zoom meetings are equal to shared activities like morning coffees and occasional table tennis to blow off steam. I don’t think I would have gotten along with some people if it weren’t for shared experiences in the office.
All this being said, I really do love wfh though. So I often think about how we could get the best of both worlds.
Before giving my anecdotal response I want to say I’m well into the senior end of the spectrum. Maybe that disqualifies me but maybe it doesn’t.
Anyway, my previous company was about 100 people and purely remote. I had a brilliant manager who taught me a lot. We did pair sessions and worked through stuff together via Zoom or Google (really can’t remember what video chat we used). Remote was never a problem.
Now I work at a company of about 200k and I’m in the office most of the time. Every single one of my brain cells is atrophying. I haven’t learned anything in the 18 months I’ve been here.
Anyway, my previous company was about 100 people and purely remote. I had a brilliant manager who taught me a lot. We did pair sessions and worked through stuff together via Zoom or Google (really can’t remember what video chat we used). Remote was never a problem.
Now I work at a company of about 200k and I’m in the office most of the time. Every single one of my brain cells is atrophying. I haven’t learned anything in the 18 months I’ve been here.
Maybe the point of hiring you was not for you to learn, but for you to teach.
Why? Periodic meetups, discussion, pair programming, and a slack channel or other RT channel with an open invite to ping. What is missing?
And actually in well documented places with pointers to sandbox environments (which remote tends to force better docs for both), it's great to let the juniors play and ask questions on missing and poorly documented items - reproducibility and learning is improved.
And I've worked too many in-person places where mentoring is random, unplanned and ineffective because of it.
And actually in well documented places with pointers to sandbox environments (which remote tends to force better docs for both), it's great to let the juniors play and ask questions on missing and poorly documented items - reproducibility and learning is improved.
And I've worked too many in-person places where mentoring is random, unplanned and ineffective because of it.
As somebody who got trained, finished an internship with an offer and promoted as a software engineer during the pandemic it worked great for me.
My company didn’t do anything differently to help people starting out as sdes and it still worked.
Of course every person us different so some will find the in person easier but I think most could make it work remotely. Especially if a company invests in helping to make it work.
My company didn’t do anything differently to help people starting out as sdes and it still worked.
Of course every person us different so some will find the in person easier but I think most could make it work remotely. Especially if a company invests in helping to make it work.
You don't have to imagine. The overwhelming feedback from schools and universities is that remote learning sucks. It would take a leap of faith to imagine workers are any different because they have an employment contract.
If you are set up for remote learning it's fine. Royal Holloway has been running a remote MSc in Info Sec for nearly 20 years. The tutors said we were more motivated, and ironically, more social than the on-campus students.
If you are forced to suddenly teach everyone remotely due to a global pandemic, it probably won't work as well...
If you are forced to suddenly teach everyone remotely due to a global pandemic, it probably won't work as well...
Learning in person is more effective than remote for most people. Schools tried this during 2020-2021. It sucked.
Schools are one-sided and 1 teacher teaches to a class of 20. The teacher talks, the others listen.
Mentoring is usually 1 on 2, or one to 2/3, the mentor alters the session based on what happens and listen to your feedback.
Also, the mentor is open to feedback to improve their mentoring session.
And you can ask for a break if you are tired or need more time.
My opinion is that the two are not really comparable
And you can ask for a break if you are tired or need more time.
My opinion is that the two are not really comparable
Can one really separate the effects of mass covid with no vaccines, sick and dying parents & siblings, short planning, economic stresses, underfunded tech transition budgets in schools from remote learning?
I'm curious how much mentoring junior engineers actually need?
Maybe it's because I'm a self-taught self-starter, but I've worked from home for all except one year of my 17 year career, and I've managed to be successful despite never receiving any "mentoring". I've had co-workers, of course, and co-workers help each other when necessary, but we were basically equals.
Maybe it's because I'm a self-taught self-starter, but I've worked from home for all except one year of my 17 year career, and I've managed to be successful despite never receiving any "mentoring". I've had co-workers, of course, and co-workers help each other when necessary, but we were basically equals.
One of the major advantages of mentoring for us "self taught" type is to get a second opinion and weed out bad habits.
I can successfully write functional code, but having a colleague from a different background helped me enormously with how I worked and what I did.
Also for a lot of companies hiring the "average" worker, who typically don't write code in their spare time on weekends, graduates need a lot more help to get up to speed.
I can successfully write functional code, but having a colleague from a different background helped me enormously with how I worked and what I did.
Also for a lot of companies hiring the "average" worker, who typically don't write code in their spare time on weekends, graduates need a lot more help to get up to speed.
> I can successfully write functional code, but having a colleague from a different background helped me enormously with how I worked and what I did.
Is that mentoring or just standard collaboration with colleagues? Code review certainly isn't mentoring per se.
> Also for a lot of companies hiring the "average" worker, who typically don't write code in their spare time on weekends, graduates need a lot more help to get up to speed.
Well, BigCos are forcing a return to the office, and they supposedly hire "the best", not the average.
Is that mentoring or just standard collaboration with colleagues? Code review certainly isn't mentoring per se.
> Also for a lot of companies hiring the "average" worker, who typically don't write code in their spare time on weekends, graduates need a lot more help to get up to speed.
Well, BigCos are forcing a return to the office, and they supposedly hire "the best", not the average.
>Is that mentoring or just standard collaboration with colleagues
A combination of collaboration and informal discussion/mentoring. Code review absolutely isn't mentoring. It's the discussions around how to approach things, and other tips and tricks.
>Well, BigCos are forcing a return to the office, and they supposedly hire "the best", not the average.
The average worker is still better than 50% of the workforce. Big companies may get "better than average", but by definition the best only end up at a very small set of companies.
A combination of collaboration and informal discussion/mentoring. Code review absolutely isn't mentoring. It's the discussions around how to approach things, and other tips and tricks.
>Well, BigCos are forcing a return to the office, and they supposedly hire "the best", not the average.
The average worker is still better than 50% of the workforce. Big companies may get "better than average", but by definition the best only end up at a very small set of companies.
> It's the discussions around how to approach things, and other tips and tricks.
Senior developers do this with each other all the time.
> by definition the best only end up at a very small set of companies.
I was talking about a very small set of companies.
Senior developers do this with each other all the time.
> by definition the best only end up at a very small set of companies.
I was talking about a very small set of companies.
Random question. Are you an only child? Firstborn?
Remote work is the future* with smart contract activated payouts based on task completion, initially via oracles, but eventually fully on chain, as economic activity grows there, and task workers can complete their contracts to successful payout by being that oracle, in terms of what they see, but everything they do will be on chain.
*some would have
*some would have
My guess is: it doesn't really matter for established companies, because the market isn't actually that competitive. It matters for startups, with the advantage going to in-person (office or apartment) work. Tomorrow's startups become the established companies of the next decade, so eventually the pendulum will swing back toward office work, with lots of executives convinced it brings higher productivity. It's really because of path dependence, though, and not because of any intrinsic merits.
The dirty secret of capitalism is that companies become successful based on what customers do, not what owners or executives or employees do. A product or service basically just has to work, just enough that the transaction still happens. The amount of money the company makes depends on how many customers it has and how much it charges each one, not on how good its product is, so long as the product is "good enough". When the company is young and scrambling to take the market, then maybe effort and efficiency matters, so that you can go from "not good enough" to "good enough" faster than anyone else. But once you're already way past "good enough", you can fire 75% of the company and you'll still continue collecting money until the market changes enough that your product is no longer "good enough".
The dirty secret of capitalism is that companies become successful based on what customers do, not what owners or executives or employees do. A product or service basically just has to work, just enough that the transaction still happens. The amount of money the company makes depends on how many customers it has and how much it charges each one, not on how good its product is, so long as the product is "good enough". When the company is young and scrambling to take the market, then maybe effort and efficiency matters, so that you can go from "not good enough" to "good enough" faster than anyone else. But once you're already way past "good enough", you can fire 75% of the company and you'll still continue collecting money until the market changes enough that your product is no longer "good enough".
I suspect there might not be a clear answer simply from remote vs. in-office. It might depend on what type of company you are, how large of a company, etc. And I tend to think that some types of teams benefit more from being in office than others, such as those with more time in meetings vs. engineers spending most of their time on individual work requiring deep focus.
Commercial property market forces might be stronger...
Care to explain?
There is considerable wealth tied to continuing to herd us all into the cities. If economic activity was to become increasingly decentralised that wealth would be at considerable risk.
A lot of that wealth is held by very powerful and influential companies. It's not a massive leap to assume it's in their best interests to encourage a return to the office.
A few choice editorials espousing loss of culture and productivity and good old group think will start to kick in.
A lot of that wealth is held by very powerful and influential companies. It's not a massive leap to assume it's in their best interests to encourage a return to the office.
A few choice editorials espousing loss of culture and productivity and good old group think will start to kick in.
But either way the last in line to be considered will be you, your family or the environment.
Coming to the office has to be significantly more productive than working from home for it to make sense after accounting for the astronomical costs of office space in major cities.
> Coming to the office has to be significantly more productive than working from home for it to make sense after accounting for the astronomical costs of office space in major cities.
It doesn't "have to be", there's other explanations. For example, maybe working from the office is less productive than wfh, but no one has figured that out yet.
It doesn't "have to be", there's other explanations. For example, maybe working from the office is less productive than wfh, but no one has figured that out yet.
This smells like a sunk-cost fallacy. My counterargument would be that there has been a massive captive market for commercial real-estate that has now, thanks to high-bandwidth networking, been exposed as superfluous.
The pandemic ripped the bandage off our collective eyes. People are now seeing that it is not necessary to jam employees cheek-by-jowl in order to extract value from them.
The pandemic ripped the bandage off our collective eyes. People are now seeing that it is not necessary to jam employees cheek-by-jowl in order to extract value from them.
This signals they are not personally invested in commercial real estate or friends with people who are. Good for them.
unless you’re invested in that particular building, your business is a drop in the bucket and not going to move the needle
Sure but if you're a business that either purchased tens of millions of dollars of commercial real estate for your office, or are on the hook for a multi year, multi million dollar lease that doesn't look great on the balance sheet or to investors to have useless assets.
And there's not much you can do to even that out when the price of commercial real estate is dropping significantly.
I'm definitely not saying it's right, IMO it's a sunk cost and businesses need to plan for the future accordingly (even if it means unloading those assets at a loss).
And there's not much you can do to even that out when the price of commercial real estate is dropping significantly.
I'm definitely not saying it's right, IMO it's a sunk cost and businesses need to plan for the future accordingly (even if it means unloading those assets at a loss).
The occupancy of the building does not appear on the balance sheet. Can’t imagine people really care.
It won’t move the needle, no. But neither does your vote. On the other hand, “get out the vote” campaigns are still a thing. It’s not a perfect analogy, but if business owners band together and all push people back to the office, it’s not unreasonable for them to hope it at least props up office space asset values.
That's a heck of an advertisement for your company and CEO.
Can you say who they are? Even if they're not currently hiring, it's something worth remembering.
Can you say who they are? Even if they're not currently hiring, it's something worth remembering.
Sadly, I cannot. I can say that we're an mid-tier (size-wise) engineering consultancy working across the US. My team specializes in the design of "hyper-scale" data centers. Very intensive Building Information Modeling workflows and such.
The moment revenue tanks they will panic and change their tune
I'm usually a little suspicious of articles that use the phrase "the evidence is clear" as a rhetorical device because evidence is rarely clear, especially when it comes to to things that have a human and social aspect.
Their argument is mostly based on a single study.
And then they just call out the biases of the CEOs pushing for back-to-office, but they don't acknowledge their own bias as someone who appears to run a consultancy that makes money off of exactly the thing they are arguing is the right approach.
Their argument is mostly based on a single study.
And then they just call out the biases of the CEOs pushing for back-to-office, but they don't acknowledge their own bias as someone who appears to run a consultancy that makes money off of exactly the thing they are arguing is the right approach.
The article might be poor, the author self-serving, and their views poorly sourced, but we don't have to rely on this one article to know that offices are terrible for productivity. Countless studies on the open floor plans and cube farms companies want to pull workers back to have shown that they are terrible for productivity, so you can take your pick from any of them. Many people here have experienced that for themselves.
Offices are good for forced socialization, collaboration, networking, and micromanaging, but not for productivity, flexibility, employee's health and comfort, and especially not for work that requires long periods of intense focus.
Offices are good for forced socialization, collaboration, networking, and micromanaging, but not for productivity, flexibility, employee's health and comfort, and especially not for work that requires long periods of intense focus.
>Offices are terrible for productivity
Well that statement is difficult to back up because you have 3 short years of data with 1/2 of it polluted by a pandemic and 1/2 polluted by economic downturn because of the pandemic against more than a century of data where offices managed to get along and make money creating products and services just fine with employees showing up at the office.
I love my WFH situation and I don’t want it to change, but I cannot prove with hard facts to my employer why it’s better for them for me to work from home. I would bet solid money here on HN that almost every WFH advocate who claims it’s better and more productive can really only point to their own overall personal productivity with anecdotes and can provide no hard data on how that translates into real improved productivity to the organization.
Well that statement is difficult to back up because you have 3 short years of data with 1/2 of it polluted by a pandemic and 1/2 polluted by economic downturn because of the pandemic against more than a century of data where offices managed to get along and make money creating products and services just fine with employees showing up at the office.
I love my WFH situation and I don’t want it to change, but I cannot prove with hard facts to my employer why it’s better for them for me to work from home. I would bet solid money here on HN that almost every WFH advocate who claims it’s better and more productive can really only point to their own overall personal productivity with anecdotes and can provide no hard data on how that translates into real improved productivity to the organization.
It's not as if we don't have solid data supporting benefits to companies. We can point to research that has been going on for decades showing that open floor plans and cube farms hurt productivity. We can point to the savings companies can reap by not having to house all those employees and provide for their needs while in the office. We can show that people who work remotely don't have to worry as much about mass shootings and other types of office violence/harassment. Basically, we know that offices are terrible, and that alternatives are needed, but what we lack is years of research into the advantages and disadvantages of remote work as an alternate.
The problem we have now is that companies want to return to "business as usual" when we know that "business as usual" was stupid. We knew it was stupid before the pandemic, but before an alternative wasn't tested at any real scale.
Remote work isn't perfect, but it's worked very well for many companies and employees and solves a lot of problems. Now that we have an available alternative that works, even if we can't quantify how much it improves things using more than a couple years of research, if companies want to force their workers back into offices it's reasonable for employees to demand changes that solve the many known problems offices have.
For now, I suspect that many employees will simply look for employment where they can get what works best for them and that means companies who refuse to solve the problems of the office will lose talent to companies who are more accommodating.
The problem we have now is that companies want to return to "business as usual" when we know that "business as usual" was stupid. We knew it was stupid before the pandemic, but before an alternative wasn't tested at any real scale.
Remote work isn't perfect, but it's worked very well for many companies and employees and solves a lot of problems. Now that we have an available alternative that works, even if we can't quantify how much it improves things using more than a couple years of research, if companies want to force their workers back into offices it's reasonable for employees to demand changes that solve the many known problems offices have.
For now, I suspect that many employees will simply look for employment where they can get what works best for them and that means companies who refuse to solve the problems of the office will lose talent to companies who are more accommodating.
>It's not as if we don't have solid data supporting benefits to companies.
Please show us some of this data. My point was that people cannot show the hard data and you have responded alluding to data, but not showing any.
>We can point to research that has been going on for decades showing that open floor plans and cube farms hurt productivity.
Again, please show us some of this data.
>We can point to the savings companies can reap by not having to house all those employees and provide for their needs while in the office.
Everybody thinks this is expensive, but unless you are a FAANG doing all sorts of over the top fancy benefits that most companies do not provide, this is actually not dramatically expensive. So please show us some of this data.
>We can show that people who work remotely don't have to worry as much about mass shootings and other types of office violence/harassment.
Say huh? This is really a strange reasoning IMO. Is this honestly a viable threat where you live that people actually give this a worry? If you are going to use safety as part of your argument, cite automobile accidents their injuries/death associated with primary commuting hours. Much more likely to get any sort of number that might convince an organization to opt for WFH over in office.
>Basically, we know that offices are terrible, and that alternatives are needed…
No, we don’t know that. You have an opinion about it, but like I said above, you have not pointed to any hard data that could convince a organization to opt for WFH over in office.
>but what we lack is years of research into the advantages and disadvantages of remote work as an alternate
Here you go, finally something I can agree with. However, this works specifically against your case.
Please show us some of this data. My point was that people cannot show the hard data and you have responded alluding to data, but not showing any.
>We can point to research that has been going on for decades showing that open floor plans and cube farms hurt productivity.
Again, please show us some of this data.
>We can point to the savings companies can reap by not having to house all those employees and provide for their needs while in the office.
Everybody thinks this is expensive, but unless you are a FAANG doing all sorts of over the top fancy benefits that most companies do not provide, this is actually not dramatically expensive. So please show us some of this data.
>We can show that people who work remotely don't have to worry as much about mass shootings and other types of office violence/harassment.
Say huh? This is really a strange reasoning IMO. Is this honestly a viable threat where you live that people actually give this a worry? If you are going to use safety as part of your argument, cite automobile accidents their injuries/death associated with primary commuting hours. Much more likely to get any sort of number that might convince an organization to opt for WFH over in office.
>Basically, we know that offices are terrible, and that alternatives are needed…
No, we don’t know that. You have an opinion about it, but like I said above, you have not pointed to any hard data that could convince a organization to opt for WFH over in office.
>but what we lack is years of research into the advantages and disadvantages of remote work as an alternate
Here you go, finally something I can agree with. However, this works specifically against your case.
> Please show us some of this data. My point was that people cannot show the hard data and you have responded alluding to data, but not showing any.
Feel free to start here, but google will give you a lot more:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0013916502034003001
https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0239
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244020988869
https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/publication/open/265307
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02724...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2255877/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1443885/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1404804/
> Everybody thinks this is expensive, but unless you are a FAANG doing all sorts of over the top fancy benefits that most companies do not provide, this is actually not dramatically expensive. So please show us some of this data.
I don't think there is any research into questions like "do companies save money when they don't pay as much in rent and utilities" because the conclusion is self-evident. You can argue that companies don't mind the costs, or that the costs are small compared to the profits successful companies make, but if a company doesn't have to pay someone to stock vending machines, doesn't have to pay for vast amounts of floor space in commercial buildings, doesn't have to buy and replace office supplies, doesn't need to replenish toiletries, etc then they will clearly be saving money and it's just a question of how large those savings will be.
> Say huh? This is really a strange reasoning IMO. Is this honestly a viable threat where you live that people actually give this a worry?
In America? Yes, sadly, this is a real threat. One company I worked for gave hundreds of employees 5 days off with pay just because they feared a disgruntled employee would come in and shoot up the place. They just said "We'll pay you, you don't have to work, just don't come here!". Every place I've worked for in the last 10 years or so has had active shooter training sessions (at some expense!) and paid for security services (both onsite and on call). No doubt that traffic accidents take more employee lives though! I suspect the difference to a company is that their name doesn't make the headlines when an employee gets in a car accident on the way to work and they don't want the bad press.
Feel free to start here, but google will give you a lot more:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0013916502034003001
https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0239
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244020988869
https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/publication/open/265307
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02724...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2255877/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1443885/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1404804/
> Everybody thinks this is expensive, but unless you are a FAANG doing all sorts of over the top fancy benefits that most companies do not provide, this is actually not dramatically expensive. So please show us some of this data.
I don't think there is any research into questions like "do companies save money when they don't pay as much in rent and utilities" because the conclusion is self-evident. You can argue that companies don't mind the costs, or that the costs are small compared to the profits successful companies make, but if a company doesn't have to pay someone to stock vending machines, doesn't have to pay for vast amounts of floor space in commercial buildings, doesn't have to buy and replace office supplies, doesn't need to replenish toiletries, etc then they will clearly be saving money and it's just a question of how large those savings will be.
> Say huh? This is really a strange reasoning IMO. Is this honestly a viable threat where you live that people actually give this a worry?
In America? Yes, sadly, this is a real threat. One company I worked for gave hundreds of employees 5 days off with pay just because they feared a disgruntled employee would come in and shoot up the place. They just said "We'll pay you, you don't have to work, just don't come here!". Every place I've worked for in the last 10 years or so has had active shooter training sessions (at some expense!) and paid for security services (both onsite and on call). No doubt that traffic accidents take more employee lives though! I suspect the difference to a company is that their name doesn't make the headlines when an employee gets in a car accident on the way to work and they don't want the bad press.
What you have provided is evidence that some office layouts are better than others, and some buildings with inadequate air flow can cause issues. Everything you have provided here doesn’t really answer the general question which is: “Demonstrate with hard facts to an employer that work from home is more productive than in office work for the organization.”
Now, if I am the CEO of InOffice Corp and I want all my remote employees to RTO now that the pandemic is over, all these things you have provided do not apply to our situation. While we did not see a marked drop in employee productivity when we moved to WFH, we also did not see a marked improvement in employee productivity either. Also, we own or have long term leases on all of our buildings and the commercial real estate market is not conducive to a reasonable financial exit from our leases and properties. We would like to take advantage of our beautiful work spaces and believe that in office work is importance for our company culture. We have prided ourselves on our culture for 50 years and we believe that it was instrumental to our success. Also, none of our office layouts fall into “the bad” categories that you provided. In fact, all were expertly designed by the most reputable and award winning interior design company that provided amazing data showing how their design increases employee productivity. Sick building syndrome is a non issue as well, because in all our buildings the HVAC is regularly tested for mold and serviced. We have never had a sick building syndrome claim against any location due to our aggressive efforts out of concern for your health. As for your personal safety, our buildings are guarded and all access is controlled. In our 50 years of operation across 100 company owned locations, we have never had a security incident. So we believe your fears are unfounded.
Now, if I am the CEO of InOffice Corp and I want all my remote employees to RTO now that the pandemic is over, all these things you have provided do not apply to our situation. While we did not see a marked drop in employee productivity when we moved to WFH, we also did not see a marked improvement in employee productivity either. Also, we own or have long term leases on all of our buildings and the commercial real estate market is not conducive to a reasonable financial exit from our leases and properties. We would like to take advantage of our beautiful work spaces and believe that in office work is importance for our company culture. We have prided ourselves on our culture for 50 years and we believe that it was instrumental to our success. Also, none of our office layouts fall into “the bad” categories that you provided. In fact, all were expertly designed by the most reputable and award winning interior design company that provided amazing data showing how their design increases employee productivity. Sick building syndrome is a non issue as well, because in all our buildings the HVAC is regularly tested for mold and serviced. We have never had a sick building syndrome claim against any location due to our aggressive efforts out of concern for your health. As for your personal safety, our buildings are guarded and all access is controlled. In our 50 years of operation across 100 company owned locations, we have never had a security incident. So we believe your fears are unfounded.
> “Demonstrate with hard facts to an employer that work from home is more productive than in office work for the organization.”
Again, we only have evidence that offices are bad for employees, and that happy workers are more productive, but I suspect that we'll have a lot more evidence about the advantages and disadvantages of remote work in the coming years. I also suspect that employees who enjoyed remote work will be more unhappy being back in an office than they were before they had a taste of freedom.
> we own or have long term leases on all of our buildings and the commercial real estate market is not conducive to a reasonable financial exit from our leases and properties.
That's an example of a sunk cost fallacy.
> . Also, none of our office layouts fall into “the bad” categories that you provided.
If you've managed to avoid open floor plans and cubicles than you're better off than most offices. You'll have to hope that the nice office and culture will be valued so much by employees that they won't mind giving up the ability work in an environment of their own choosing, closer to the things and people that they love.
The good news is that there are a lot of people who really enjoy commuting and working in an office. Some people who were forced to work remotely during the worst of the pandemic have really struggled with it.
You might find you lose a lot of talent, and that you struggle to hire new workers with your self-imposed restrictions of "needs to be geographically near us or willing to upend their lives and relocate, and must love commuting and working in an office environment" but there are certainly some people who will fit that criteria (or at least be willing to fake it), especially if you're paying your workers a lot more than others.
Again, we only have evidence that offices are bad for employees, and that happy workers are more productive, but I suspect that we'll have a lot more evidence about the advantages and disadvantages of remote work in the coming years. I also suspect that employees who enjoyed remote work will be more unhappy being back in an office than they were before they had a taste of freedom.
> we own or have long term leases on all of our buildings and the commercial real estate market is not conducive to a reasonable financial exit from our leases and properties.
That's an example of a sunk cost fallacy.
> . Also, none of our office layouts fall into “the bad” categories that you provided.
If you've managed to avoid open floor plans and cubicles than you're better off than most offices. You'll have to hope that the nice office and culture will be valued so much by employees that they won't mind giving up the ability work in an environment of their own choosing, closer to the things and people that they love.
The good news is that there are a lot of people who really enjoy commuting and working in an office. Some people who were forced to work remotely during the worst of the pandemic have really struggled with it.
You might find you lose a lot of talent, and that you struggle to hire new workers with your self-imposed restrictions of "needs to be geographically near us or willing to upend their lives and relocate, and must love commuting and working in an office environment" but there are certainly some people who will fit that criteria (or at least be willing to fake it), especially if you're paying your workers a lot more than others.
My point is that we (those of us who support WFH, because I am one of them) do not come to this debate from a position of strength. Our argument always seems to rely on anecdotal evidence and trying to string together reasons like you did here which literally means nothing to senior leaders who want RTO. They hold all the cards and can choose any reason they want to justify it and you are bound to their whims of where your place of work is located if you want to continue receiving a paycheck from them. The uphill battle is ours.
Office layout studies do not get us there because organizations will redesign if they perceive that the office layout is a problem. Sick building studies do not help because they already have legal obligations to provide good environmental quality in their workspaces and most comply. Frankly even your active shooter and security concerns do not help because I bet there are plenty of statistics that can be gathered that will show that a person is much more likely to encounter violence within their homes than at the office. Sunk cost fallacy is only real if the only reason they want RTO is because of RE investments.
Some companies might lose good people, but my suspicion is that this will even out over time. As more companies RTO the remote jobs openings will slow down a bit and soon you could find a that remote gigs become less and less available and harder to find, you will see people that quit because of RTO softening their stance on in office if it becomes difficult to find well paying remote gigs.
To be in a position of real strength on this issue, we need real reputable studies that show a measurable and significant increases in productivity to the organization if workers are remote. That is literally the only reason that has a hope of convincing an organization hell bent on RTO to change. It has to be a significant increase—-eye opening levels. Tiny net improvements don’t matter, because most leadership will convince themselves that they can manage up small levels of net productivity differences.
Until that day we are going to be fighting an uphill battle against a more powerful enemy with an insufficient arsenal.
Office layout studies do not get us there because organizations will redesign if they perceive that the office layout is a problem. Sick building studies do not help because they already have legal obligations to provide good environmental quality in their workspaces and most comply. Frankly even your active shooter and security concerns do not help because I bet there are plenty of statistics that can be gathered that will show that a person is much more likely to encounter violence within their homes than at the office. Sunk cost fallacy is only real if the only reason they want RTO is because of RE investments.
Some companies might lose good people, but my suspicion is that this will even out over time. As more companies RTO the remote jobs openings will slow down a bit and soon you could find a that remote gigs become less and less available and harder to find, you will see people that quit because of RTO softening their stance on in office if it becomes difficult to find well paying remote gigs.
To be in a position of real strength on this issue, we need real reputable studies that show a measurable and significant increases in productivity to the organization if workers are remote. That is literally the only reason that has a hope of convincing an organization hell bent on RTO to change. It has to be a significant increase—-eye opening levels. Tiny net improvements don’t matter, because most leadership will convince themselves that they can manage up small levels of net productivity differences.
Until that day we are going to be fighting an uphill battle against a more powerful enemy with an insufficient arsenal.
Generally it wasn't technically possible to work fully remote until the last ten years so not sure how you can say that everyone that was working onsite or in an office from 1945-2010 had a bad time, since there wasn't any substantial alternative to compare it to. I do note that the world kept turning during this period and we were productive.
One does not preclude the other. Working in an office can have been having a bad time regardless of whether there were viable alternatives (for most people). As an introvert my entire in-office existence was bad. I did not have an alternative. But now I do and I will cling to it as long as I can.
Productivity is also a relative measure in that sense. Sure you were productive. A farmer a few hundred years ago can have been productive for the times he was living in. Compare it with a modern farm and he's outclassed and not "productive" at all.
Productivity is also a relative measure in that sense. Sure you were productive. A farmer a few hundred years ago can have been productive for the times he was living in. Compare it with a modern farm and he's outclassed and not "productive" at all.
Right now I'm working fully remote, but probably will end up spending 4-5 working weeks annual total in the office. I fly in maybe once every other month for like 3-4 days.
When I go to the office, my productivity really drops. I am reminded why I hate working full time in the office. Still, it's worth it for team dinners and other "team building" activities. I joke that the thing we get out of going to the office is to socialize.
I like the setup, though. When I do go, I'm basically doing a working vacation. We whiteboard, work on things I wouldn't normally do, have fun, and usually get something accomplished once I settle in.
When I go to the office, my productivity really drops. I am reminded why I hate working full time in the office. Still, it's worth it for team dinners and other "team building" activities. I joke that the thing we get out of going to the office is to socialize.
I like the setup, though. When I do go, I'm basically doing a working vacation. We whiteboard, work on things I wouldn't normally do, have fun, and usually get something accomplished once I settle in.
> When I go to the office, my productivity really drops.
Same for me. The first couple of times, I became really frustrated with spending a week in the office. It seemed to be a cycle of "Plug in laptop, read and respond to a couple of emails, unplug laptop, go to a meeting, bullshit for the first 10 minutes of the meeting, listen to other people talk for 40 minutes, bullshit for the last 10 minutes of the meeting, close laptop, stop by the cafeteria for coffee, bullshit over coffee for 10 minutes, go back to desk." Repeat 3x-4x a day for five days.
I "got over it" by finally accepting the fact that my week in the office is not going to be productive in my traditional sense. The cycle above is the work I am doing for that week.
Same for me. The first couple of times, I became really frustrated with spending a week in the office. It seemed to be a cycle of "Plug in laptop, read and respond to a couple of emails, unplug laptop, go to a meeting, bullshit for the first 10 minutes of the meeting, listen to other people talk for 40 minutes, bullshit for the last 10 minutes of the meeting, close laptop, stop by the cafeteria for coffee, bullshit over coffee for 10 minutes, go back to desk." Repeat 3x-4x a day for five days.
I "got over it" by finally accepting the fact that my week in the office is not going to be productive in my traditional sense. The cycle above is the work I am doing for that week.
> I joke that the thing we get out of going to the office is to socialize.
I understand the sentiment, but in-office socializing isn’t necessarily a bad thing or counterproductive. Sure, there are introverts who will insist on how much they despite in-office social norms and culture. There are also plenty of folks somewhere in between introvert and extrovert that appreciate the ability to spontaneously socialize in low pressure situations. That socializing can build rapport and overall happiness for folks. Remote work makes it challenging to do that without it feeling either very manufactured and typically self-selective for other extroverts; or a cheesy, clumsily organized “work event” that fails to attract much attention.
I understand the sentiment, but in-office socializing isn’t necessarily a bad thing or counterproductive. Sure, there are introverts who will insist on how much they despite in-office social norms and culture. There are also plenty of folks somewhere in between introvert and extrovert that appreciate the ability to spontaneously socialize in low pressure situations. That socializing can build rapport and overall happiness for folks. Remote work makes it challenging to do that without it feeling either very manufactured and typically self-selective for other extroverts; or a cheesy, clumsily organized “work event” that fails to attract much attention.
I am very definitely an introvert, and I have many times registered my distaste for the usual kinds of in-office socializing. Far too often, it's forced, it's interrupting your normal work, and it feels like it's required, not merely to do, but to do well, in order to remain accepted and have a chance at advancement.
What the GP describes sounds much better than all of that. It's not something that's just...a forced overlay on top of your daily work, making everything harder and more frustrating; it's a change from the routine, a time you're taking away from regular work to both socialize and work in a different way, and a chance to get fed on the company dime (which is generally a nice perk).
What the GP describes sounds much better than all of that. It's not something that's just...a forced overlay on top of your daily work, making everything harder and more frustrating; it's a change from the routine, a time you're taking away from regular work to both socialize and work in a different way, and a chance to get fed on the company dime (which is generally a nice perk).
My company is still fully remote and one thing I’ve noticed is that individuals are more productive compared to the office, but teams are much less productive because everyone is just working on whatever they feel like instead of collaborating. It’s interesting to me that every individual seems to be more productive but our organization as a whole is clearly much less so.
This doesn't have anything to do with remote, but is instead due to lack of planning and leadership. Our remote team has good planning and tracking of activities, and our progress towards defined goals definitely improved when we went remote. All the tooling for doing sw dev work is essentially the same whether you're on site or remote.
Can't disagree with this, but I don't think "it's a management problem" precludes
"it has something to do with remote work". Management at my company can't handle remote work. Some other companies seem to have similar problems. Maybe shareholders could fire leadership but that has major risks too. Safest bet is probably just to force everyone to rto.
[deleted]
And I hate these working vacations. One time I made an excuse and skipped out of it, and got a months work done in the week everyone was wasting time at the on-site. Nobody online to bug me, no meetings, just pure productivity.
> Instead of being a productivity wonderland, the office is more like a productivity black hole, where collaboration, socializing, mentoring, and on-the-job training thrive, but focused work gets sucked into oblivion. In fact, research shows that the office is detrimental to productivity.
My experience corroborates this. My team is spread across 4 or 5 cities, 2 countries, 2 continents, and 6h difference. I know none in the office, and yet I still have trouble getting work done because people can’t respect others and speak loudly.
I shouldn’t need to wear headphones 8h a day just so I can have some silence when I can work remotely at a library, or in my apartment.
I shouldn’t need to wear a sweater or warm clothing in the middle of the summer because people need to have the AC as low as they do.
Let’s not forget the need to scramble to find a meeting room because the teams are as fragmented as they are.
It’s absolutely insane.
All of these get worse because of forced RTO.
when attendance was sparser, I enjoyed it a lot more.
My experience corroborates this. My team is spread across 4 or 5 cities, 2 countries, 2 continents, and 6h difference. I know none in the office, and yet I still have trouble getting work done because people can’t respect others and speak loudly.
I shouldn’t need to wear headphones 8h a day just so I can have some silence when I can work remotely at a library, or in my apartment.
I shouldn’t need to wear a sweater or warm clothing in the middle of the summer because people need to have the AC as low as they do.
Let’s not forget the need to scramble to find a meeting room because the teams are as fragmented as they are.
It’s absolutely insane.
All of these get worse because of forced RTO.
when attendance was sparser, I enjoyed it a lot more.
In office, I found myself having to wear the 3inch thick 3M safety earmuffs.
I recently started a new job and went from working hybrid to fully remote. The department I worked in was spread across two different locations with most of the team working from the one I wasn't at. There was a huge push by management to force people back into the office more and more; I'd often end up sitting there alone all day while people from sales had calls and meetings on speaker at max volume along with an expensive, stressful commute on a packed train either side.
This was one of the things that pushed me to finally look somewhere else (there were lots of other issues) and there's no way someone could get me to go back to pointlessly working in an office, spending hours per day and thousands per year commuting unpaid just so they can exercise further control while ironically reducing productivity significantly.
This was one of the things that pushed me to finally look somewhere else (there were lots of other issues) and there's no way someone could get me to go back to pointlessly working in an office, spending hours per day and thousands per year commuting unpaid just so they can exercise further control while ironically reducing productivity significantly.
I really don't want to work for someone who reluctantly "allows" me to be in my home. Or someone who views it as a generous perk that might get taken away during tough times.
So, I think people who want in-office work should embrace it and advertise it loud and clear. This makes it easier for me to move on and find the other companies who see value in me building out a home office fine-tuned for my own productivity at little-to-no additional cost to the company.
So, I think people who want in-office work should embrace it and advertise it loud and clear. This makes it easier for me to move on and find the other companies who see value in me building out a home office fine-tuned for my own productivity at little-to-no additional cost to the company.
At likely negative cost to the company.
This is what they want. They are being brazen about it to make people unhappy enough to quit and go to those companies. Another easy round of layoffs for our wonderfully forward thinking CEOs.
[deleted]
Me and my friend think that some companies are doing this as a way to lay people off without laying people off. If that's the case, it's a severe miscalculation as the employees most likely to leave are in theory, the best ones. They believe in themselves and that they can get another (remote) job very easily.
I think it’s pretty clear that rto is a way to get people to quit, but I’m not so sure about the first to leave theory. The best employees in my org are the ones who are most committed to the product. They’re not super likely to leave just because they’re so personally invested in what we’re doing. The average employees are still able to get offers, they’re the ones that tend to leave.
I think it is true that the best people are the first to go, at least based on my first hand experience. The forced rto was on of the nails in the coffin that got me to finally leave. I wasn't the only one to go and without trying to sound egotistical I was one of the best people there so it was easy to get another job that was fully remote. I've kept in contact with a few ex co-workers who are still there and the only reason they're staying is because they don't currently have the experience / knowledge to go somewhere else.
N=1; I am a key person for the project we are shipping, it's my vision to some extend, and I am very comfortable picking my things and going elsewhere. Very few products can actually get people to stay.
> The best employees in my org
One might want to differentiate between loyalty and competency.
Is a highly competent workforce but they're not loyal, better than a very loyal but somewhat incompetent workforce?
One might want to differentiate between loyalty and competency.
Is a highly competent workforce but they're not loyal, better than a very loyal but somewhat incompetent workforce?
So in other words, “the best employees” are the ones to turn the other cheek when they get mistreated because they are committed to “the product.” That’s certainly a convenient take for the managerial types in the room.
correlation is not causation. I don't think it's very surprising that caring deeply about the product leads to better job performance. I also don't think it's very surprising that caring deeply about the product makes it easier for management to mistreat workers. They're not the same thing though.
2021-2022: "The stock market is going up, let's hire tons of new employees and go fully remote."
2023: "Our valuation went down and customers aren't spending as much, let's do layoffs and bring everyone back into the office."
Clearly the same idiots are still in the C-suite.
2023: "Our valuation went down and customers aren't spending as much, let's do layoffs and bring everyone back into the office."
Clearly the same idiots are still in the C-suite.
I don't plan to ever return. It pains me to think how much of my youth was wasted commuting, being tired / less than 100%, and overall just wrecking my health for preconceptions around "how work is done".
Is there a real reason to need folks in the office for most tech work?
I can understand timezones being an issue with remote work, but at that point just don't hire in lots of disparate timezones. Still, I work with folks that wake up when I get off work, so I don't get it.
Communication is the key, and it doesn't magically get better by going to an office. All you get is a false sense of control.
Is there a real reason to need folks in the office for most tech work?
I can understand timezones being an issue with remote work, but at that point just don't hire in lots of disparate timezones. Still, I work with folks that wake up when I get off work, so I don't get it.
Communication is the key, and it doesn't magically get better by going to an office. All you get is a false sense of control.
How would you say timezones are an issue with remote work? It's not like they would be any different if people were going into an office.
It is pretty rare to have people from different time zones in the same office though.
Timezones are an issue if you move out of North America. Some people move to Latin America so the timezones are similar. Moving to Asia is tricky unless you like to work all night and sleep during the day.
I agree with you, it comes down to communication. If folks can't communicate ideas clearly (written), then your team will suffer regardless of location.
The problem is that the physical layout of most offices do not support an environment in which knowledge workers (especially in tech/professional services) kan thrive. Open office spaces are killing for focussed work so what you'll need is a choice. When you need to focus, retreat to a small room without distractions, if you need mentoring, go to a somewhat bigger room with a white board, if you want to collaborate, use the traditional open office adjacent to the coffee machine. The reason is that in some point in time companies and realtors decide that an open office space is the most efficient way to use square meters (or feet in freedom units.) and as such optimizes revenue.
If offices were more optimized returning to an office for a few days a week can actually improve productivity. That said, it very much depends on the role if 100 % WFH, hybrid or full office work makes sense. IMHO is that informal relations (the "coffee machine chat") provides a certain advantage in _some_ roles. This aspect (providing some nuance..) seems to be missing from most discussions.
It will be really good for the world if the current crop of companies, their execs, their upper/middle management fail. Poor practices installed in by these people need to go.
I'm so grateful to be a freelancer when I read stuff like this. Upwork has plenty to complain about but at least they don't dictate where I can live and work.
It's the same as why economy class is uncomfortable: it's manipulation through misery but upgrade vs. increasing resignations.
I for one am glad in some ways about this. My company is remote first and this means we won't have to compete for new hires as aggressively now that the big companies are shooting themselves in the foot. They wanna compete for the same talent as us? they'll need to offer 20-40k over our offers.
With all the available space in office buildings, why not convert the open spaces back into individual offices? Before the enthusiasm for open plan offices, engineers had their own offices where they could close the door and concentrate on their work.
That would definitely be a lot nicer but it still leaves the issue of spending thousands per year financially as well as hours of your life commuting to do something you could do just as well if not better from home anyway. People who work shifts already are at work far too long but then they have to tack on another 2-3 hours travelling which they're not even compensated for.
I agree. Nothing would entice me to endure the commute. I was thinking along the lines that some people don't have suitable space at home to comfortably work in and wouldn't mind going to the office if it wasn't as noisy, full of distractions.
My employer has a 40% WFH tolerance policy and asked us (team leads) to relay the information and control office presence.
As team lead, I decided to relay this message differently. I instructed my team to do as they wish and come when they want, and to do so with three things in mind:
Regarding item 2, I don't know how they processed it but all I can say is that the team's WFH ratio is 24% for the last three months.
Overall, I think it is all about creating a working environment people actually enjoy coming to. When I hear about employees who feel conflicted or reluctant to come to the office, I am genuinely convinced it is because one of the following:
As team lead, I decided to relay this message differently. I instructed my team to do as they wish and come when they want, and to do so with three things in mind:
1. If they are not coming to the office because something is inadequate, they let me know and I will do my best to fix it.
2. Those who are younger than 35 should consider the long-term effects of staying at home and not interacting with peers on their professional career.
Regarding item 2, I don't know how they processed it but all I can say is that the team's WFH ratio is 24% for the last three months.
Overall, I think it is all about creating a working environment people actually enjoy coming to. When I hear about employees who feel conflicted or reluctant to come to the office, I am genuinely convinced it is because one of the following:
1) They are in conflict with a colleague or their manager is an ass.ole.
2) Someone is making their life at the office unnecessarily painful or more difficult than it should (and it is most likely something related to a hardware purchase or shared commons).
3) There is a tangible constraint on coming to the office that makes their life difficult above a certain threshold (e.g., cost of transportation too elevated, medical/health/healthcare condition or issue at stake, etc.).
4) It's a wrong hire, and she/he should be laid off.
#1 Can you fix the 2h commute? (edit) Would companies consider paying for commute time as work time?
Companies that are not WFH flexible will be less competitive. They will be less competitive in the job market, and operational costs (office space, middle management, wasted BS meetings etc.) will be higher compared with WFH companies.
As I commented on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36500448 - We need the flexibility to choose, there's no one size fits all here. Workplaces also need to cater for different needs and be appealing enough to make it worth going there. I've analyzed the results of a study on this last week: https://leadership.garden/back-to-the-office/
The article comes across strangely indignant. I wonder if the author is personally this passionate about remote work, or if it's click-bait for the plurality of netizens that seem to be that passionate.
Even if the article is entirely accurate, I see no sense in admonishing others for "insane" business practices. Other people making stupid business decisions should be viewed as an opportunity.
Even if the article is entirely accurate, I see no sense in admonishing others for "insane" business practices. Other people making stupid business decisions should be viewed as an opportunity.
OT does anyone else get bored by the expression "X is the definition of Y"? As used the common parlance this is almost always false.
Productivity is revenue divided by count of employees. (Ad) Revenue is down because of interest rates.
The problem with forced return is going from no minimum days to a minimum, this article differentiates hybrid vs 5 day. Requiring any minimum days in the office is dumb.
The problem with forced return is going from no minimum days to a minimum, this article differentiates hybrid vs 5 day. Requiring any minimum days in the office is dumb.
[deleted]
The author of this piece, who seems to primarily write about Return to Office, runs a consulting firm on “the future of work”. So no doubt his opinions are rooted in sound research and not a vested interest in selling books and consulting on the future of work.
I don’t think that this automatically disqualifies his opinion, but the onus is on him to avoid the perception of ulterior motives, which he didn’t do.
I don’t think that this automatically disqualifies his opinion, but the onus is on him to avoid the perception of ulterior motives, which he didn’t do.
Sounds to me like you're describing a subject matter expert.
I mean, their "overwhelming evidence" was a link to an online survey run by a company promoting remote work. By that logic, let me just point you to some "overwhelming evidence" that trump won the election.
Meanwhile, our flexible options seem to be working, creating a differentiator in the market. It’s been a draw for new hires and a benefit that our employees have enthusiastically embraced. And, since 2020, we’ve had our three highest revenue years, and we remain on track to grow further this year..."