Zoom CEO says employees can't be as innovative or get to know each other on Zoom(businessinsider.com)
businessinsider.com
Zoom CEO says employees can't be as innovative or get to know each other on Zoom
https://www.businessinsider.com/zoom-ceo-employees-return-to-office-2023-8
204 comments
> I think this is all bullshit. It most likely has to do with rental contracts the company signed and not wanting it to go to waste.
This is the sunk cost fallacy. While you've overlooked it, I promise you they haven't. If they already have the lease, they'd be happy to let the building sit empty without paying for utilities, security, etc. They'd be happy to offload facilities costs to employees.
This is the sunk cost fallacy. While you've overlooked it, I promise you they haven't. If they already have the lease, they'd be happy to let the building sit empty without paying for utilities, security, etc. They'd be happy to offload facilities costs to employees.
I don't buy that for a second. To C-level executives and the members of a board, if we're paying for an office, 99% of the time they're gonna say "use it". They're not thinking about sunk costs.
Nobody thinks that way.
If they could save money right now by not paying for utilities and support staff without sacrificing productivity, they absolutely would do it.
And eventually that lease is going to come up for renewal, and they'd love to be able to cut costs then too. Bringing everyone back to the office makes that impossible, but they've decided it's worth it.
If they could save money right now by not paying for utilities and support staff without sacrificing productivity, they absolutely would do it.
And eventually that lease is going to come up for renewal, and they'd love to be able to cut costs then too. Bringing everyone back to the office makes that impossible, but they've decided it's worth it.
Just not true. I literally know of business owners/C-levels who think this way. "We're not just gonna leave this space here empty when we're already paying for it".
Things like utilities and support staff on large business park leases are often included or heavily discounted, not to mention that they're usually tax-deductible. Where are you getting your info?
Things like utilities and support staff on large business park leases are often included or heavily discounted, not to mention that they're usually tax-deductible. Where are you getting your info?
"Sunk cost fallacy" is a phrase precisely because it's something that people often do. No one would have bothered making up a name for it if people consistently avoided making that mistake.
What is the job of a chief executive? Optimists say “make the company more profitable”, pessimists say “grow personal wealth and prestige“. Given the widely reported cases of decision makers in big tech also holding massive investments in commercial real estate, along with general “damn kids are lazy and want to WFH so that I can’t watch them” dogma, makes me a pessimist.
I remember reading arguments that executive should try to maximize the value of their shareholders' portfolios rather than just the firm itself. Which leads to interesting incentives that don't exactly align with the benefits you would want to get out of a market economy, such as firm A not entering firm B's market to avoid driving down retail prices, even if it would be beneficial for firm A on its own. So, the argument would be that if a lot of a firm's shareholders also own commercial real estate, it would be in the firm's shareholders interest for RTO, even if it wouldn't be in the individual firm's best interest.
TFA suggests these companies hold large amounts of commercial real estate as long-term investments, so “let the lease expire” is likely not an option.
Maybe I'm misinformed but if they are leasing the space doesn't that mean they don't own it?
EDIT: And if they DO own it, it they would probably prefer to pay some rental management company to rent it out as office space for passive income rather than fill it with their own expensive employees.
EDIT: And if they DO own it, it they would probably prefer to pay some rental management company to rent it out as office space for passive income rather than fill it with their own expensive employees.
I think you’re right, and there are multiple reasons executives don’t see office space as a “sunk cost.”
A small part may even be that they value work done in-office more than work done remotely. But just pointing out it’s not the most plausible objection to remote work.
A small part may even be that they value work done in-office more than work done remotely. But just pointing out it’s not the most plausible objection to remote work.
If that's true, we should expect office work to blow over in <=10 years when the leases expire.
On the contrary, it’ll happen much sooner. About $626B in debt is coming due for debt collateralized by office buildings in the near term (my note: refinancing? at these interest rates? hooboy). I'd expect much more rapid consolidation, office demos, and conversions to residential considering the financial pain.
> Landlords who try to hang on and weather the storm are likely to take a bigger hit than those who cut their losses more quickly, according to Bitner.
> “There’s going to be a reckoning,” he said, “and everybody that waited to deal with the problem is going to regret they did.”
With my apologies to Marie-Antoinette, "Let them take haircuts."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-23/landlords... | https://archive.is/2oRH8 (Landlords With $1.2 Trillion of Debt Face Rising Default Risks)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36901012 | https://archive.is/ELJET (US Office Space Is on Track to Shrink for First Time on Record)
> Landlords who try to hang on and weather the storm are likely to take a bigger hit than those who cut their losses more quickly, according to Bitner.
> “There’s going to be a reckoning,” he said, “and everybody that waited to deal with the problem is going to regret they did.”
With my apologies to Marie-Antoinette, "Let them take haircuts."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-23/landlords... | https://archive.is/2oRH8 (Landlords With $1.2 Trillion of Debt Face Rising Default Risks)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36901012 | https://archive.is/ELJET (US Office Space Is on Track to Shrink for First Time on Record)
>> On the contrary, it’ll happen much sooner. About $626B in debt is coming due for debt collateralized by office buildings in the near term
Not quite, I dont think. If defaults happen, the new owners get the building at lower prices and thus will be willing to lease at lower prices...making RTO more feasible for companies.
Not quite, I dont think. If defaults happen, the new owners get the building at lower prices and thus will be willing to lease at lower prices...making RTO more feasible for companies.
> the new owners get the building at lower prices
Who will make these loans? Lending has dried up for office space, and mid sized banks are in distress over these debts. Maybe PE or hedge funds can piece financing together, but without easy loans from banks, financing will be costly, impairing what purchase price you offer.
https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/us-banks-sink-conce...
https://www.costar.com/article/328997282/big-us-banks-pull-b...
https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2023/06/27/fifth...
https://www.axios.com/2023/03/21/small-bank-struggles-could-...
https://www.ft.com/content/a77695ac-a516-4654-8e0f-5aeb4f4ff...
Who will make these loans? Lending has dried up for office space, and mid sized banks are in distress over these debts. Maybe PE or hedge funds can piece financing together, but without easy loans from banks, financing will be costly, impairing what purchase price you offer.
https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/us-banks-sink-conce...
https://www.costar.com/article/328997282/big-us-banks-pull-b...
https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2023/06/27/fifth...
https://www.axios.com/2023/03/21/small-bank-struggles-could-...
https://www.ft.com/content/a77695ac-a516-4654-8e0f-5aeb4f4ff...
>> Who will make these loans? Lending has dried up for office space
Once the current owners default, the banks own the buildings. They dont have the capital to carry the buildings, so they will fire-sell the buildings. someone will buy the buildings for sure, because if you fire-sell it inexpensively enough there will be buyers. There are numerous buyers, especially sovereign funds who would buy at a sufficient haircut of peak value.
Just like the 2008 resi crisis, there were fire sales at 10% of original value. It isnt clear what the "recovery value" is for Commercial Real Estate, esp office buildings, but it may be so low that lenders are willing to lend. Also, it may be so low that syndicates buy outright.
Once the current owners default, the banks own the buildings. They dont have the capital to carry the buildings, so they will fire-sell the buildings. someone will buy the buildings for sure, because if you fire-sell it inexpensively enough there will be buyers. There are numerous buyers, especially sovereign funds who would buy at a sufficient haircut of peak value.
Just like the 2008 resi crisis, there were fire sales at 10% of original value. It isnt clear what the "recovery value" is for Commercial Real Estate, esp office buildings, but it may be so low that lenders are willing to lend. Also, it may be so low that syndicates buy outright.
Sucks for CRE investors but if offices become cheap, won’t employers be even more inclined to keep them?
>conversions to residential
There's going to be a rude awakening if they think that's a good solution
There's going to be a rude awakening if they think that's a good solution
Cost is $100-$500/sq ft. Sometimes the math pencils out better than demoing the building or eating a loss keeping it in service as office, especially if local govs are giving incentives to keep the potential economic benefits in the area. No emotions, build a model, execute on the most favorable scenario. It's just an asset.
EDIT: @bbor Absolutely. I believe the challenge is everyone's incentive is inertia. Cities don't want to lose tax dollars and economic activity, even though they will. Asset owners don't want to take haircuts, even though they will. I'm a strong union supporter so workers have agency over their working arrangements, versus being dragged back to the office because some bro who lucked into leadership says "because I say so." Rarely does anyone include happiness and quality of life in these metrics and models, which is unfortunate. Hope this helps.
EDIT: @bbor Absolutely. I believe the challenge is everyone's incentive is inertia. Cities don't want to lose tax dollars and economic activity, even though they will. Asset owners don't want to take haircuts, even though they will. I'm a strong union supporter so workers have agency over their working arrangements, versus being dragged back to the office because some bro who lucked into leadership says "because I say so." Rarely does anyone include happiness and quality of life in these metrics and models, which is unfortunate. Hope this helps.
Do you think there’s any room here to add a “what would be best for society” metric to this analysis, beyond just “what earns me the most money”? Obviously this realistically doesn’t happen, just curious on your stance, given your matter-of-fact take
> it's like you're in the same room as the other person.
Even the biggest fans of remote work won't go that far. I think you've forgotten what it's like to work in person.
Even the biggest fans of remote work won't go that far. I think you've forgotten what it's like to work in person.
I’d go that far! Whatever’s present in a cramped meeting room (or, in modern big tech, some random chairs because all the meeting rooms are reserved) that isn’t in a zoom call, I don’t want ;).
Maybe you could clarify what you meant?
Maybe you could clarify what you meant?
Latency. Body language. Eye contact.
It all leads to constant interruptions and people speaking over others because all of the natural cues we rely on are missing or time-shifted.
Not to mention the ability to "read the room". You're often trying to gauge what other people are thinking -- are they receptive, confused, afraid to ask a question, satisfied, etc. This is far, far more difficult over Zoom.
It all leads to constant interruptions and people speaking over others because all of the natural cues we rely on are missing or time-shifted.
Not to mention the ability to "read the room". You're often trying to gauge what other people are thinking -- are they receptive, confused, afraid to ask a question, satisfied, etc. This is far, far more difficult over Zoom.
Presenting some idea to the team on Zoom when everyone has their cameras off is really bad. People speak but you can't tell when they're going to speak, or who looks confused and might have a question on the tip of their tongue.
Even with cameras on it's hard to tell this stuff.
In person it's easy. It's possible some people (e.g. me) rely on these cues more, or are just uncomfortable with everyone constantly speaking over eachother, or effectively having to interrupt and talk over others.
If two people start speaking at the same time on Zoom, the optimal strategy is probably to just keep speaking and the other person will stop.
Even with cameras on it's hard to tell this stuff.
In person it's easy. It's possible some people (e.g. me) rely on these cues more, or are just uncomfortable with everyone constantly speaking over eachother, or effectively having to interrupt and talk over others.
If two people start speaking at the same time on Zoom, the optimal strategy is probably to just keep speaking and the other person will stop.
One glaring example to me has always been talking over one another. There’s no clear indication of who should talk next and it’s very hard to interject something quickly.
When I was in high school I was in a class where we were on a panel with other classmates and asked questions. During the course of a question several of us would have a response, which we indicated to each other by moving our hands forward. The first person to do this spoke first.
Zoom does have a “raise hand” feature but few people use it. If for example there was a key you could hold down to actively raise your hand, this problem would be partially solved.
When I was in high school I was in a class where we were on a panel with other classmates and asked questions. During the course of a question several of us would have a response, which we indicated to each other by moving our hands forward. The first person to do this spoke first.
Zoom does have a “raise hand” feature but few people use it. If for example there was a key you could hold down to actively raise your hand, this problem would be partially solved.
Does Alt+Y or Option+Y not work?
I suppose they do, but people don’t use them unfortunately.
The bandwidth for communication in person is orders of magnitude higher.
It is obviously possible to waste or reduce that bandwidth to the point that you would be as efficient online but it is also possible to utilize that higher capacity effectively.
It is obviously possible to waste or reduce that bandwidth to the point that you would be as efficient online but it is also possible to utilize that higher capacity effectively.
> Bandwidth for communication in person is orders of magnitude higher.
Not even a single order of magnitude (10x) higher, much less orders (100x or more) higher. No evidence of anything close to that assertion.
Remote collab is a skill like any other, it can be mastered, and it can be taught.
Try "10,000 hours of practice" at collaborating remotely, then teach it to others to scale out.
You'll find these remote friendly skills increase day-over-day bandwidth for teams larger than a single table.
Not even a single order of magnitude (10x) higher, much less orders (100x or more) higher. No evidence of anything close to that assertion.
Remote collab is a skill like any other, it can be mastered, and it can be taught.
Try "10,000 hours of practice" at collaborating remotely, then teach it to others to scale out.
You'll find these remote friendly skills increase day-over-day bandwidth for teams larger than a single table.
You're getting at-least 10x more information in person. I don't know if I'd go 100x but it's probably closer to 100x then just 10x.
The statistic folks are citing for the 90% or 10x is based on a study of how much attitude information is conveyed non-verbally during a negotiation.
Engineering should be more about meaning content than attitude content, and engineering workshopping should not be a poker game.
The stat is not about conversation content, but conveying attitude. The study found attitude was conveyed 55% nonverbal, 38% vocal, and 7% words only.
By that study, using the telephone would be 55% info loss about attitude (tone and words convey 45%), and using video chat adds facial expression (majority of non-verbal attitude). Attitude info, not meaning info.
So no, it's not 10x more info in person, even for the narrow case of conveying negotiation attitude blind over telephone, plus most non-verbal attitude is conveyed by facial expression which comes through on video chat.
Engineering should be more about meaning content than attitude content, and engineering workshopping should not be a poker game.
The stat is not about conversation content, but conveying attitude. The study found attitude was conveyed 55% nonverbal, 38% vocal, and 7% words only.
By that study, using the telephone would be 55% info loss about attitude (tone and words convey 45%), and using video chat adds facial expression (majority of non-verbal attitude). Attitude info, not meaning info.
So no, it's not 10x more info in person, even for the narrow case of conveying negotiation attitude blind over telephone, plus most non-verbal attitude is conveyed by facial expression which comes through on video chat.
We aren't robots dude. Pitching ideas, getting buy in, debating possible implementations, etc all require "attitude content".
> video chat adds facial expression
Delayed and with significantly less detail.
> video chat adds facial expression
Delayed and with significantly less detail.
> with modern, fast, Internet speeds, it's like you're in the same room as the other person.
I've been working remotely for nearly as long, and like anything else, it has its advantages and disadvantages. But this assertion is patently false, at least for me. I have a symmetric gigabit fiber connection at home, with 10GbE hardwired everything in my LAN. No tool I use, be it Zoom, Meet, Teams, whatever, comes even close to being in the same room as another person. The combination of latency (however slight) and imperfect duplex sound transmission between different equipment means that people are constantly inadvertently cutting each other off.
I've been working remotely for nearly as long, and like anything else, it has its advantages and disadvantages. But this assertion is patently false, at least for me. I have a symmetric gigabit fiber connection at home, with 10GbE hardwired everything in my LAN. No tool I use, be it Zoom, Meet, Teams, whatever, comes even close to being in the same room as another person. The combination of latency (however slight) and imperfect duplex sound transmission between different equipment means that people are constantly inadvertently cutting each other off.
> The combination of latency (however slight) and imperfect duplex sound transmission between different equipment means that people are constantly inadvertently cutting each other off.
This is trivial compared to people purposefully cutting each other off or willfully misunderstanding the project or issue being worked on.
Minor inconveniences introduced by working virtually are just that: minor. It's not a good enough reason to force workers back into the office just so the c-levels can feel they're doing better at their jobs.
This is trivial compared to people purposefully cutting each other off or willfully misunderstanding the project or issue being worked on.
Minor inconveniences introduced by working virtually are just that: minor. It's not a good enough reason to force workers back into the office just so the c-levels can feel they're doing better at their jobs.
As much as I loathe Discord for it replacing forums, I will say that Discord’s audio mixing for multiple speaking members is literally perfect. Or at least closer to perfect than any other competitor. You can actually talk over each other to some extent.
Part of it I think is discord users wear headphones more. If you are using a mic and your laptop loud speaker, the app will kill your mic every time someone else is talking, otherwise you get a feedback loop.
If that is the case that’s a smart move on their part, not a month goes by without someone doing that on teams.
> people are constantly inadvertently cutting each other off
It's more an effect of not seeing faces / missing some very subtle social cues that help in having "rounds" in a conversation. But you get used to it and learn to counter it, and besides I know a handful of people who cut others off in real life as well.
It's more an effect of not seeing faces / missing some very subtle social cues that help in having "rounds" in a conversation. But you get used to it and learn to counter it, and besides I know a handful of people who cut others off in real life as well.
I started working remotely from my team in 2011. By 2014 the people remaining in Hq had closed most meeting rooms and people were expected to dial in from their hot desks - nowhere near each other. It was all the downsides of being in the office with the downsides of video conferencing.
That sounds like a hilariously bad decision.
Now, just imagine it being done so they can:
- Have more space for their open office plan.
- Allow managers to have their own offices.
Morale? Who needs that.
- Have more space for their open office plan.
- Allow managers to have their own offices.
Morale? Who needs that.
Partly because most meetings waste time (moving around a large building, waiting for peoppe to get there from the previous meeting, etc), but generally to reduce the floor space used and reduce the property portfolio
The opportunity of covid to get rid of more desks was great, and we’ve closed two more buildings in central london thanks to it.
The opportunity of covid to get rid of more desks was great, and we’ve closed two more buildings in central london thanks to it.
Zoom has a “studio/live audio” setting which can actually work decently well at removing latency. Give it a try! (Everyone will have to turn it on).
We've been using Teams for 3 years and I haven't seen really any problems with latency. I've only seen problems with the standard conference call issue if you have 6+ people on the call all trying to talk.
I think certain kinds of work lend themselves to 100% remote being OK. I have worked remotely for about 10-11 years total out of my career. I just had to fly to client sites every once in a while, or drive in to the city to attend meetings.
The best thing about covid is that I haven't had to do either for a couple of years and the time saved (I don't work in airports or on planes, or obviously not while driving) has made me _more_ productive while spending less time on work (getting to and from client offices).
Face time now and then is a good thing, but, like I said, it depends on the type of work one is doing.
The best thing about covid is that I haven't had to do either for a couple of years and the time saved (I don't work in airports or on planes, or obviously not while driving) has made me _more_ productive while spending less time on work (getting to and from client offices).
Face time now and then is a good thing, but, like I said, it depends on the type of work one is doing.
My company has been fully remote since 2020, I agree that collaboration is still easy. The sort of meetings where we used to sit in a conference room and brainstorm on a whiteboard just now happen over Teams with screen sharing.
I do think it's much easier when everyone is remote though. It sucks when half the people in a meeting are in a conference room and the rest are remote. You end up dealing with dumb technical difficulties and its too easy to exclude virtual folks from the conversation.
I do think it's much easier when everyone is remote though. It sucks when half the people in a meeting are in a conference room and the rest are remote. You end up dealing with dumb technical difficulties and its too easy to exclude virtual folks from the conversation.
> Yuan told employees that Zoom the product does not allow Zoom the company to "build as much trust or be as innovative as in the office." So why does it even exist and how is it making money?
This line of reasoning is asinine. Perfectly defensible to say that Zoom is great for other industries, or orgs built with different structure. While eating your own dogfood is a confidence builder, it’s by no means a requirement for companies to do it 100%.
Also to suggest that Zoom is only meaningful as a product if you can run your company fully remote is laughably myopic; there is lots of value to having VCs between offices and teams, even if those teams work in-person.
Sure, Zoom has marketing material that leans into remote work. To avoid confused thinking like the OP you should note the purpose of marketing teams and not over-index on what they say.
This line of reasoning is asinine. Perfectly defensible to say that Zoom is great for other industries, or orgs built with different structure. While eating your own dogfood is a confidence builder, it’s by no means a requirement for companies to do it 100%.
Also to suggest that Zoom is only meaningful as a product if you can run your company fully remote is laughably myopic; there is lots of value to having VCs between offices and teams, even if those teams work in-person.
Sure, Zoom has marketing material that leans into remote work. To avoid confused thinking like the OP you should note the purpose of marketing teams and not over-index on what they say.
> While eating your own dogfood is a confidence builder, it’s by no means a requirement for companies to do it 100%.
Of course. It is also not a requirement for Microsoft's UI designers to actually use Windows and so on. Nevertheless, if you decide to dogfood, it gives your company many advantages that you otherwise lose.
Of course. It is also not a requirement for Microsoft's UI designers to actually use Windows and so on. Nevertheless, if you decide to dogfood, it gives your company many advantages that you otherwise lose.
It seems to me to be a missed opportunity. If you believe Zoom is merely a video conferencing app then of course Zoom is only meaningful as that. But remote work is not going away and there is an opportunity to support it by being more than simply video conferencing.
Zoom is a remote work product. Zoom says there's a lot of remote issues. That says to me that there is an opportunity to dogfood their own product development. Just going back to the office is a huge waste of potential.
Zoom is a remote work product. Zoom says there's a lot of remote issues. That says to me that there is an opportunity to dogfood their own product development. Just going back to the office is a huge waste of potential.
In some sense, yes a missed opportunity. On the other hand, their customers are voting with their feet; most are returning to office.
I would characterize it more as a bet that didn’t pay off. In 2020 it was a no-brainer to bet on substantially more remote work, and Zoom was one of the best-positioned to make that bet. In 2023 that bet looks way lower in EV. They still have upside potential but I don’t think anyone realistically expects that the F500 are going full or even majority remote anymore.
Even with hindsight it seems a good bet, I don’t think they incorrectly evaluated the information they had or could have been expected to have.
I would characterize it more as a bet that didn’t pay off. In 2020 it was a no-brainer to bet on substantially more remote work, and Zoom was one of the best-positioned to make that bet. In 2023 that bet looks way lower in EV. They still have upside potential but I don’t think anyone realistically expects that the F500 are going full or even majority remote anymore.
Even with hindsight it seems a good bet, I don’t think they incorrectly evaluated the information they had or could have been expected to have.
In my industry (not tech, but white collar) a ton of companies have downsized their office space to where it's now impossible for everyone to work in the office. And because of that, there will always be remote work in this industry as a whole because it's a valuable perk. Companies that don't offer full or partial remote are at a hiring disadvantage.
Remote work is a relatively new market that Zoom accidentally fell into. However, they don't seem to have the leadership to capitalize on that early lead and they'll eventually become irrelevant as other companies build video conferencing as a mere feature of a bigger remote work platform.
Remote work is a relatively new market that Zoom accidentally fell into. However, they don't seem to have the leadership to capitalize on that early lead and they'll eventually become irrelevant as other companies build video conferencing as a mere feature of a bigger remote work platform.
I think it’s likely to pan out as you say; video calls are a feature not a product, and Google Workplace / MS Office should be able to get to parity soon (though the sluggish improvements to Meet make me hesitant to bet it’ll be this decade).
That said, you could make the same argument about Dropbox and they are still around.
That said, you could make the same argument about Dropbox and they are still around.
Totally agree. Why not use this as an opportunity to explore the problem their users are presumably facing?
To your point of video conferences between offices and teams... I think the worst possible setup is a zoom conference that's a hybrid of remote and in-person attendees. It's where video conferencing really falls down.
I worked for a company remotely and really hated the experience of being "zoomed in" to a conference room. Couldn't hear, couldn't participate, couldn't jump in, etc. Lots of side conversations at the table. Then the whole table stands up and goes to lunch. It wasn't until the company went fully remote that remote work, well, worked.
I worked for a company remotely and really hated the experience of being "zoomed in" to a conference room. Couldn't hear, couldn't participate, couldn't jump in, etc. Lots of side conversations at the table. Then the whole table stands up and goes to lunch. It wasn't until the company went fully remote that remote work, well, worked.
I would agree with you. But on the other hand, I think there will be a very high rewards for an entity that can "unlock" a easy, repeatable and usable set of remote work patterns. And by reward, other companies would pay a lot for this.
It seems that a lot of the reversal of the WFH / remote work trend is coming from the higher ups at companies, mostly centered around culture, on-boarding of new employees, getting things done, etc.
The "a lot of work got done around here in the 5minute hall way conversation" crowd has some good points honestly. I know at my company, they instituted 2 days in the office, specifically mentioning the erosion of our culture and "ways of working."
Were I the Zoom CEO, I would 100% be experimenting and iterating on what it means to be a "remote first" Fortune 500 company, because doing that correctly is worth a lot of money.
It seems that a lot of the reversal of the WFH / remote work trend is coming from the higher ups at companies, mostly centered around culture, on-boarding of new employees, getting things done, etc.
The "a lot of work got done around here in the 5minute hall way conversation" crowd has some good points honestly. I know at my company, they instituted 2 days in the office, specifically mentioning the erosion of our culture and "ways of working."
Were I the Zoom CEO, I would 100% be experimenting and iterating on what it means to be a "remote first" Fortune 500 company, because doing that correctly is worth a lot of money.
I believe Eric is right. It's often the moments before or after the scheduled meeting when the side conversations happen that build relationships. Sometimes the insight comes 20 minutes after the meeting ends and you walk up to the person at their desk and keep going (even though there is no scheduled meeting). These things are still possible remotely over zoom, but they don't hit the same. In 3 years I think I've answered 3 zoom cold calls (from people I knew). The real value to the company of being in office is unstructured time together.
All that said, I fall into the camp of lets get in-person together once a quarter to plan and then execute remotely. We can meet up occasionally in between somewhere awesome (not in an office).
All that said, I fall into the camp of lets get in-person together once a quarter to plan and then execute remotely. We can meet up occasionally in between somewhere awesome (not in an office).
That only works if the team is all in the same office. When everyone is in the same office RTO makes a ton of sense.
When people are spread across multiple offices and all your meetings are on video calls anyway, it's really hard to justify RTO.
And this even applies within the same city. Google has so many offices just in the Bay Area they end up having video calls with local people because it's better than taking a shuttle to another office (same with Apple/Amazon/Meta/etc.)
When people are spread across multiple offices and all your meetings are on video calls anyway, it's really hard to justify RTO.
And this even applies within the same city. Google has so many offices just in the Bay Area they end up having video calls with local people because it's better than taking a shuttle to another office (same with Apple/Amazon/Meta/etc.)
Totally agreed. This is the part that makes RTO mandates make no sense to me. When I worked in an office, we would video call instead of going up two floors
What if I don't really want to get to know my colleagues? What if I literally just want to do my work, and have as little of the other benign work shit in my life?
I kind of see getting to know my colleagues as the same as having to commute an hour into work each day. It's just shit I don't want to spend my time on.
I kind of see getting to know my colleagues as the same as having to commute an hour into work each day. It's just shit I don't want to spend my time on.
I like concept of local and global optimals.
For you, your local optimum may be great, but global optimum for the company as a whole may not. And vice versa.
For you, your local optimum may be great, but global optimum for the company as a whole may not. And vice versa.
This would be so easy to solve with the right software. I'm amazed that even after years of pandemic all the solutions I'm aware of are still such crap.
Discord is pretty good at this (channels, not calls), but there are probably even better paradigms (there still has to be a way to participate in multiple conversations at once).
Discord is pretty good at this (channels, not calls), but there are probably even better paradigms (there still has to be a way to participate in multiple conversations at once).
Part of the magic of in person interactions is that it’s all off record. You can say what you really think, share things that are private.
Meanwhile MS Teams wants to put LLMs in their products to scan DMs for problematic thinking. If corporations want to record and scan everything I say, I just won’t say anything anymore.
Meanwhile MS Teams wants to put LLMs in their products to scan DMs for problematic thinking. If corporations want to record and scan everything I say, I just won’t say anything anymore.
Hiding what you really think because you management won't like what you have to say is the reason a bunch of problems go unchecked in almost every company I've ever been in.
People should be able to say what they think in any situation without the fear of reprisals.
But it doesn't work that way because management often can't take criticism and so you're left with back channels and politics to get things done.
This is a management problem and a culture problem not a problem with working from home or not.
People should be able to say what they think in any situation without the fear of reprisals.
But it doesn't work that way because management often can't take criticism and so you're left with back channels and politics to get things done.
This is a management problem and a culture problem not a problem with working from home or not.
It's missing from sales, too. Once upon a time, as a salesperson who needed to travel to meet with potential clients, you'd also spend time outside the office - maybe you'd take the client to dinner, maybe the client would host you for a home-cooked meal. It gave you a chance to build rapport with the client and truly understand them and their needs. You'd come to understand when a client was squeezing you for a discount because they legitimately needed one to make the deal happen, versus a client trying to get a discount so that they'll look better to their boss.
When vendor discussions move entirely to Zoom, everything is empty platitudes and keeping the relationship purely transactional. Something is missing. People make up their minds to buy before reaching out, or ghost you when they're no longer interested. The salesperson is just a point-of-contact answering questions and shuttling order forms and contracts. Nobody has a chance to work to earn someone's business anymore.
Zoom is leading the enshittification of the sales process.
When vendor discussions move entirely to Zoom, everything is empty platitudes and keeping the relationship purely transactional. Something is missing. People make up their minds to buy before reaching out, or ghost you when they're no longer interested. The salesperson is just a point-of-contact answering questions and shuttling order forms and contracts. Nobody has a chance to work to earn someone's business anymore.
Zoom is leading the enshittification of the sales process.
I don't know about you, but in our org (which has a large portion of permanent WFH-ers) I slack someone for a bit, and if they have time (confirmed by viewing their availability on the calendar) we /zoom and chat it up.
No doubt in-hall and water-cooler discussions provide some spice to the drudgery of the work, but for me the biggest challenge of office work is the commute.
So I'm kinda ok with hybrid/flex where 2-3 days are in office. I'm also ok with all the folks who are perma-WFH as long as they are responsive.
No doubt in-hall and water-cooler discussions provide some spice to the drudgery of the work, but for me the biggest challenge of office work is the commute.
So I'm kinda ok with hybrid/flex where 2-3 days are in office. I'm also ok with all the folks who are perma-WFH as long as they are responsive.
Yeah, that's why I really appreciate that my teams meets for a few days every couple of months to plan ahead, it's a great time to know my colleagues better and it improves collaboration when working remotely.
But if someone told me to RTO, I would quit on the same day. There is no way I will work in an office ever again. My employer buys my time, not my body.
But if someone told me to RTO, I would quit on the same day. There is no way I will work in an office ever again. My employer buys my time, not my body.
The problem with remote work is management not employees.
ICs job is literally to work not to come up with innovative new ideas to advance the company. Thats what MANAGERS AND EXECUTIVES ARE SUPPOSED TO DO and the ICs implement those ideas.
For some reason it's expected now for IC s to be doing managements jobs and for that reason they need to be coming into the office for collaboration?
The managers and executives are the ones who meed to be going into the office to collaborate.
Good management would come up with the ideas and efficiently break it down so that ICs can take the work and run with it no collaboration needed.
No this is all about control and 'cultural fit' shaming to fear people into doing their jobs rather than being a good manager that is capable of distributing work in an efficient way and treating people in a way that people are inspired to do great work for you a thousand miles away even without any supervision.
It's a lot more difficult to be a manager that people follow out of respect and love vs a manager people follow out of fear and constant monitoring.
ICs job is literally to work not to come up with innovative new ideas to advance the company. Thats what MANAGERS AND EXECUTIVES ARE SUPPOSED TO DO and the ICs implement those ideas.
For some reason it's expected now for IC s to be doing managements jobs and for that reason they need to be coming into the office for collaboration?
The managers and executives are the ones who meed to be going into the office to collaborate.
Good management would come up with the ideas and efficiently break it down so that ICs can take the work and run with it no collaboration needed.
No this is all about control and 'cultural fit' shaming to fear people into doing their jobs rather than being a good manager that is capable of distributing work in an efficient way and treating people in a way that people are inspired to do great work for you a thousand miles away even without any supervision.
It's a lot more difficult to be a manager that people follow out of respect and love vs a manager people follow out of fear and constant monitoring.
I am not going to defend Zoom's RTO plan because I do truly believe that most people who work on computers can work remotely (I do, and I enjoy it).
However ... this feels correct. This is basically the same as saying that Zoom is a meeting tool and there is a lot more to building a trusting and productive team than just having meetings. Building a happy remote team is definitely not a simple task. Sounds like Zoom is not doing what it takes, I think that says worse things about their company than their product.
However ... this feels correct. This is basically the same as saying that Zoom is a meeting tool and there is a lot more to building a trusting and productive team than just having meetings. Building a happy remote team is definitely not a simple task. Sounds like Zoom is not doing what it takes, I think that says worse things about their company than their product.
Yes, but as a person who is running a remote first company I'd much rather put my faith in a company that understands how to be a remote first company.
So, Zoom is out as a product for us. We use discord at our company, which just _fits_ a remote workflow so much better than zoom. Which makes sense, given their job listings have a whole lot for "... or Remote" (https://discord.com/careers).
Zoom would be able to build a better product, for more users, and capture more value, if they understood how to build a remote working team, and put in the work to do that.
So, Zoom is out as a product for us. We use discord at our company, which just _fits_ a remote workflow so much better than zoom. Which makes sense, given their job listings have a whole lot for "... or Remote" (https://discord.com/careers).
Zoom would be able to build a better product, for more users, and capture more value, if they understood how to build a remote working team, and put in the work to do that.
I wonder how much dogfooding there is at Discord. Do they really use it for their main work communications? Maybe falling back to Google Chat (which looks like it's now a usable experience[0]) for SRE and war room type issues.
0: https://workspaceupdates.googleblog.com/2023/02/new-google-c...
0: https://workspaceupdates.googleblog.com/2023/02/new-google-c...
From what I’ve seen with friends who work at Discord: yes they do.
Regardless of Zoom's quality as a video calling platform, the real place that daily collaboration and cross-pollination of ideas happens for remote workers is never video calls anyway IME. It's open-ended, text-based group discussions— not meetings!
What is Zoom using internally for chat?
What is Zoom using internally for chat?
Zoom chat. It's a slack/teams competitor
Sorry, where’s the hypocrisy?
Zoom never said video calls are the best way to work.
They said video calls offer a level of globally distributed collaboration unprecedented in history. And that’s true.
Zoom never said video calls are the best way to work.
They said video calls offer a level of globally distributed collaboration unprecedented in history. And that’s true.
It's a bold move to say the product your company sells is total crap, but not unheard of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Ratner#Career
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Ratner#Career
There’s a level of honesty in Ratner’s response that I doubt most tech execs are capable of.
It would be like if McDonalds acknowledged that cheeseburgers are not a complete diet. It’s true and we all know it but that doesn’t reduce their value. Video calls are still going to be required for cross company and cross city communication because it’s better than nothing.
What was said =/= "Zoom is total crap"
Makes sense and seems to lined up with what I've experienced. New hire aren't developing anywhere near the same as pre-remote hires. Maybe we'll figure it out but we're having issues really identifying why and figuring out how to resolve it.
I expect remote heavy companies to undergo some massive shifts in a few years when people train/hiring in this new regime become the majority. I also expect an almost complete end of employee activism.
I expect remote heavy companies to undergo some massive shifts in a few years when people train/hiring in this new regime become the majority. I also expect an almost complete end of employee activism.
Most remote work at CRUD fintech companies will get outsourced. It’s idiotic to pay some Bootcamp grad in Bumfuck Milwaukee a Bay Area salary.
Why is that incongruous? I bet the McDonald's CEO doesn't think you should eat it at every meal. It has a place. It would actually be a lot weirder or untenable if he advocated moving all work to zoom.
> I bet the McDonald's CEO doesn't think you should eat it at every meal.
Actually, he does (well 10 meals a week):
https://www.eatthis.com/mcdonalds-ceo-eats-every-week/
Actually, he does (well 10 meals a week):
https://www.eatthis.com/mcdonalds-ceo-eats-every-week/
Haha ok well I think that's ridiculous, I should have found a different example. Wendy's? Hopefully my point still stands.
I totally see your point, but fast food is probably not the best choice. Every fast food CEO makes a point about how often they eat the food and how often their execs eat it.
Every fast food company has a "flagship" store near the HQ, often for the purpose of being seen eating there.
You can google around for the stories and photo ops. :)
But yes, not every CEO believes their product should be used all the time. But most of them at least believe in the core benefit they claim their product provides.
Every fast food company has a "flagship" store near the HQ, often for the purpose of being seen eating there.
You can google around for the stories and photo ops. :)
But yes, not every CEO believes their product should be used all the time. But most of them at least believe in the core benefit they claim their product provides.
People here are obviously working backwards from a strong desire to work from home. It's not worth your time to take the specific arguments literally or seriously. It's a community of severe introverts I guess, I don't consider it representative of the greater culture.
If the workplace sucks, as most do right now, there's about three options for what to do:
1. Force out the people who are making it suck. This is difficult with how managers are trained nowadays, never to take sides even if one party is clearly a drag on the group. Shunning and isolation are options, but ones very hard to keep up without support. If it's the manager who is the bad influence, you might as well be trying to shame a baron out of owning a castle.
2. Stop caring about work. Phone it in. Don't care anymore.
3. Don't be present physically in that environment.
Of course people want to work from home when every interaction is unpleasant, when management is badgering you into doing things. It also saves on transportation cost, cost of caring for family, every single thing that an employer likes to pretend is not their cost to pay. It's not about people being naturally 'introverted' or 'extroverted,' it's about the social environment everyone, including management, creates around them.
1. Force out the people who are making it suck. This is difficult with how managers are trained nowadays, never to take sides even if one party is clearly a drag on the group. Shunning and isolation are options, but ones very hard to keep up without support. If it's the manager who is the bad influence, you might as well be trying to shame a baron out of owning a castle.
2. Stop caring about work. Phone it in. Don't care anymore.
3. Don't be present physically in that environment.
Of course people want to work from home when every interaction is unpleasant, when management is badgering you into doing things. It also saves on transportation cost, cost of caring for family, every single thing that an employer likes to pretend is not their cost to pay. It's not about people being naturally 'introverted' or 'extroverted,' it's about the social environment everyone, including management, creates around them.
I've tried options 2 and 3 and I prefer spending my time working instead of constantly having to look busy. Remote work (aside from the obvious life and time benefits) in my experience has forced management to evaluate performance based on output and not bums on seats.Change is scary but I don't think this is going away anytime soon.
I think you're not assuming good faith here.
This is not the first or the last case of CEOs not using/trusting their own products, Zuckerberg covering the camera, Jobs banning his kids from using iPads, Gates limiting his kids’ tech use, and list goes on.
I have a feeling this is a pretext for Zoom looking to shed staff.
While he might have this opinion himself, he is acting against the best interest of his company by his actions. A good CEO of a company that thrived during the pandemic would be to enhance the product (or create a new one) to add the missing elements of the puzzle so that remote teams could enjoy increased levels of innovation etc.[0] as compared to teams using competitors' products. Saying "it's impossible" is akin to Selipsky saying "AWS is a different type of service and we'll never offer flat-rate instances or k8s" instead of adding Lightsail and EKS to their offering.
[0] That is, if his words are backed up with actual data - if these are just personal opinions, there is nothing to act upon.
[0] That is, if his words are backed up with actual data - if these are just personal opinions, there is nothing to act upon.
None of these arguments were ever made when sending engineering teams offshore.
Well there's a major difference here. Paying a dev overseas $50,000 a year instead of $180,000 a year could be well worth it even though you incur losses in areas like coordination, community, and communication.
But paying devs $180,000 a year to sit alone 20km away from each other, while they slack and zoom doesn't have the same cost/benefit ratio to consider. You still lose the benefits mentioned above, but don't save anything on costs.
This isn't an argument for or against remote work, but offshoring and WFH have important differences.
But paying devs $180,000 a year to sit alone 20km away from each other, while they slack and zoom doesn't have the same cost/benefit ratio to consider. You still lose the benefits mentioned above, but don't save anything on costs.
This isn't an argument for or against remote work, but offshoring and WFH have important differences.
This is assuming that when offshoring, it is only the medium of communication that changes.
Language barriers, dialects, and social norms can all be quite different when offshoring.
The local worker, even if they are working from home, is still more in sync culturally (presumably, maybe you hire some real weirdos).
Language barriers, dialects, and social norms can all be quite different when offshoring.
The local worker, even if they are working from home, is still more in sync culturally (presumably, maybe you hire some real weirdos).
Right there all kinds of seen and unseen costs associated with offshoring. My point is that there is a huge benefit in cost savings.
Sorry, I'm not best with social cues. Thank goodness for companies that hire local weirdos like me!
You can save on costs by spending less money on on office space in favor of team events.
You can also save money with hiring and retention due to happier employees.
Offshore is a reasonable comparison. Virtually all offshore implementations that I have observed result in at least one employee being forced into becoming an offshore orchestrator. Everyone now has to play telephone with the offshore dev through this channel. Even if they could contact them directly, you have a one day communication lag because you only get one shot a day to have a one hour sync with the offshore team. In bad scenarios, the offshore team has all communication channeled through the local team lead creating yet another layer and further communication lag. The point here is that engineering teams have been communicating how this issue is detrimental for years. We saw WFH work in a forced experiment (and had a lot of data about improved productivity). It is obviously not a direct comparison, but the egregious nature of blind positivity towards offshore and blind negativity towards WFH makes the comparison relevant.
You can also save money with hiring and retention due to happier employees.
Offshore is a reasonable comparison. Virtually all offshore implementations that I have observed result in at least one employee being forced into becoming an offshore orchestrator. Everyone now has to play telephone with the offshore dev through this channel. Even if they could contact them directly, you have a one day communication lag because you only get one shot a day to have a one hour sync with the offshore team. In bad scenarios, the offshore team has all communication channeled through the local team lead creating yet another layer and further communication lag. The point here is that engineering teams have been communicating how this issue is detrimental for years. We saw WFH work in a forced experiment (and had a lot of data about improved productivity). It is obviously not a direct comparison, but the egregious nature of blind positivity towards offshore and blind negativity towards WFH makes the comparison relevant.
> blind positivity towards offshore and blind negativity towards WFH
You must read a different HN than I do
You must read a different HN than I do
Pretty sure GP meant in the industry, corporate positivity/negativity, not among HN commenters.
100%
Having worked in offices, remotely, and with offshore teams I can say that remote work leads to really bad outcomes from team members who don’t want to be part of the team. Worse than having them in the office.
I think the big part is that, at least in work culture here, that you simply cannot call someone out for not doing their job. There’s no shame. No cost. Nothing to avoid.
There’s performance plans. There’s meetings. There’s never radical intervention that leads to the change needed to have people shit or get off the pot.
This is good financially for these people in the short term but in my experience much worse for their careers in the long term.
WFH would be way easier on us if people had the freedom/were enabled to leave jobs they hate.
Having worked in offices, remotely, and with offshore teams I can say that remote work leads to really bad outcomes from team members who don’t want to be part of the team. Worse than having them in the office.
I think the big part is that, at least in work culture here, that you simply cannot call someone out for not doing their job. There’s no shame. No cost. Nothing to avoid.
There’s performance plans. There’s meetings. There’s never radical intervention that leads to the change needed to have people shit or get off the pot.
This is good financially for these people in the short term but in my experience much worse for their careers in the long term.
WFH would be way easier on us if people had the freedom/were enabled to leave jobs they hate.
I don't want to be a part of your team. I don't want to be a part of any team. Being a part of a team is used as leverage to make me willing to do shit that I'm not paid for. I don't care about you, your kids, your parents, your spouse. If you got hit by a bus tomorrow I wouldn't care. So and so died? Whatever. Why should I care? Let's say we all come together as a team and knock it out what happens? Layoffs and one or more of us have to go. We get a $25 gift card to Starbucks?
If you want me to be a part of the team you have to make that team have meaning and benefit. That I work with you is neither. Those I work with are no more important to me than the shit stain I power washed off the toilet bowl.
If we miss goals? What happens. Nothing. If we hit goals what happens? Maybe the PM and EM will get a small bonus and we're all made to work hard to achieve that level of productivity with no benefit. So, sorry, no, I don't want to be a part of your team.
If you want me to be a part of the team you have to make that team have meaning and benefit. That I work with you is neither. Those I work with are no more important to me than the shit stain I power washed off the toilet bowl.
If we miss goals? What happens. Nothing. If we hit goals what happens? Maybe the PM and EM will get a small bonus and we're all made to work hard to achieve that level of productivity with no benefit. So, sorry, no, I don't want to be a part of your team.
Yeah... so why are you wherever you are in the first place? To cynically carry out actions as though you aren't just doing what you are railing against anyway?
That's exactly my point. Why be there except for your need of income to be exploited?
That's exactly my point. Why be there except for your need of income to be exploited?
I have a job to pay my bills. I do not have a job to play pretend friends with my coworkers who won't give two shits if I get fired, quit, or die in a week. Anything I say to them can and will be used against me in the court of HR. There's no benefit to engaging with them beyond having my time wasted by listening to them talk about their insufferable lives.
Yes... so you should be empowered to leave said job.
Which has nothing to do with being a part of a "team". I don't understand where you think this is going.
Teams are groups of people working together to achieve a common goal where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Any further prescription is management gaslighting.
> remote work leads to really bad outcomes from team members who don’t want to be part of the team.
garbage in, garbage out.
garbage in, garbage out.
You call me out for not doing work I’ll call you out for not doing work. Mutually assured destruction.
I keep a file on my computer with many co-workers names and lists of things they’ve done to fuck up or times they didn’t do any work just in case.
I keep a file on my computer with many co-workers names and lists of things they’ve done to fuck up or times they didn’t do any work just in case.
It's MAD if they know you have that list.
If you publicize that list, you are likely to destroy yourself.
Nukes are an effective deterrent only if people think you have them (and think you might use them).
If you publicize that list, you are likely to destroy yourself.
Nukes are an effective deterrent only if people think you have them (and think you might use them).
Do you also keep a list of times coworkers went above and beyond or did exceptionally good work?
No because it would be a very short list.
This seems really unhealthy.
That sounds very toxic. Are you working on your "file" on company time, or are you spending your personal time compiling a case against your own coworkers?
If you're delivering value then you don't need the file, and if you're not, then you should be fired.
If you're delivering value then you don't need the file, and if you're not, then you should be fired.
>I keep a file on my computer with many co-workers names an
I honestly don’t think it’s your mistake to act that way, I think it’s the leadership in there who are not working enough to build enough trust in that work environment so that so you need a CYA folder.
I honestly don’t think it’s your mistake to act that way, I think it’s the leadership in there who are not working enough to build enough trust in that work environment so that so you need a CYA folder.
So with the guy not meeting the sprint requirements wouldn’t that have been discussed in the retrospective?
Let's see the list! I'm interested!
This sounds like a LARP.
Worth noting this is some straight up psycho behavior.
Probably wouldn’t even work. Imagine getting called up about low performance and instead of responding to it you pull up a list of what everyone else is doing.
If I was their manager, that would be a really bad look for the person.
If I was their manager, that would be a really bad look for the person.
> Well there's a major difference here. [Money]
I'd also like to interject that "Productivity" metrics are almost never some kind of efficiency of human potential to create civilization against a hostile universe. They're b(i)ased on what the employer spends.
So even if a study says an employee is X% more "productive" at the office, that means ignoring all the time/money spent commuting, since that's typically shouldered entirely by employees.
So watch out for people conflating "employers get a better deal" with "offices are good for society."
I'd also like to interject that "Productivity" metrics are almost never some kind of efficiency of human potential to create civilization against a hostile universe. They're b(i)ased on what the employer spends.
So even if a study says an employee is X% more "productive" at the office, that means ignoring all the time/money spent commuting, since that's typically shouldered entirely by employees.
So watch out for people conflating "employers get a better deal" with "offices are good for society."
Nevermind that "the 8 hour work day" included your lunch hour at one point. With an average one-way commute of 30 minutes for my state (California), here's basically 2 hours of on-the-clock time you aren't getting paid for.
9-5 with a whole hour for lunch? Really?
My company does this. if i start work at 7 i can stop at 3, 8-4, etc. Before we went widely WFH if you were in the office for 8 hours that was it. People ought to have been pushing back on the whole “8 hours is actually 9 hours” years ago.
yeah. we used to get pensions too.
I guess that would be the downside
it was, for execs who don't want to pay fair prices for labor. but don't worry, we're waking up again and labor has the numbers on its side.
> You still lose the benefits mentioned above, but don't save anything on costs.
It depends on how you measure the costs of remote... the company I used to work for saved $5 million/year in real estate costs by switching to full remote at the start of covid. That is one thing to consider when comparing remote and on-site costs.
*It took about 2 years to reach those savings as we waited for some leases to expire.
It depends on how you measure the costs of remote... the company I used to work for saved $5 million/year in real estate costs by switching to full remote at the start of covid. That is one thing to consider when comparing remote and on-site costs.
*It took about 2 years to reach those savings as we waited for some leases to expire.
It does mean statements aren't completely honest though. Public statements by companies unsurprisingly tend to leave out the downsides of decisions.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Video calls are like the fast food of social interaction. They are fine in small amounts but when you replace your whole connection to other people with calls and instant messaging, that’s where the deficiencies become noticeable.
I recently moved to the city where the company office is and I feel like a few days face to face with my team was a stronger connection than a year of MS Teams interaction. Suddenly my coworkers became real people rather than just emotionless icons on a screen.
I recently moved to the city where the company office is and I feel like a few days face to face with my team was a stronger connection than a year of MS Teams interaction. Suddenly my coworkers became real people rather than just emotionless icons on a screen.
If CEOs had their way, even the janitors and helpdesk would be "innovative" and they need to bounce ideas off of each other most of the day to do that.
I swear, it isn't just CEOs but most humans just cannot fathom or think of others as living in a completely different headspace. The opposite end is service workers thinking CEOs are overpaid because they sit in a nice office and order people around.
Never wish another person's turd out your arsehole as george washington put it.
I swear, it isn't just CEOs but most humans just cannot fathom or think of others as living in a completely different headspace. The opposite end is service workers thinking CEOs are overpaid because they sit in a nice office and order people around.
Never wish another person's turd out your arsehole as george washington put it.
We should listen to the guy.
Use Slack instead of other suitable platform. Zoom really isn't useful for more than call, that will likely be recorded anyway. Screw Zoom.
Use Slack instead of other suitable platform. Zoom really isn't useful for more than call, that will likely be recorded anyway. Screw Zoom.
I attend the office 4.9 days a week on average because that suits my personality, responsibilities etc. But I do find it baffling: half the time I'm told not to interrupt engineers and we have a whole system to let them get on and work without people making them context switch. The other half of the time I'm told how important it is that we all be together in the same room to build community/relationships!?
Yes I think of solutions for all my awesome work problems in bumper to bumper traffic on my hour long commute. <sarcasm>
Shower thought- people spontaneously form genuine bonds online all of the time. Why do companies struggle with this? Make company intranet or IRC fun. Toss up a Quake, Valheim, or Minecraft server. People outside of work have virtual "teambuilding" exercises all of the time! Am I being naive?
people spontaneously form genuine bonds online all of the time.
Do they?
Maybe I'm the odd one, but all my close friends are from meatspace. I have acquaintances in online communities, but none that I'd consider close. And a predominantly online existence sounds downright miserable to me.
Do they?
Maybe I'm the odd one, but all my close friends are from meatspace. I have acquaintances in online communities, but none that I'd consider close. And a predominantly online existence sounds downright miserable to me.
spending more time trying to internally prove that the product is bad than time spent externally trying to prove it is good is a very strange approach at selling product.
I'm not an expert on building trust, but I do know that one of the quickest ways to burn trust is to mandate an asinine RTO policy without providing good options for your employees, and options for those who may wish to remain remote forever.
Buy them nice houses near the office then
It's a silly gotcha. I don't think Zoom ever advertised itself as eliminating all in person work, it's simply a conferencing tool. Sort of like going "you can't work drunk at the Whiskey distillery, what a bunch of hypocrites!" I said it early during the pandemic already but I think it's become more obvious over time that video conferencing is not a panacea and doesn't wholesale replace face-to-face contact.
Honestly reassuring that a CEO does not treat its own product as the solution to everything.
Honestly reassuring that a CEO does not treat its own product as the solution to everything.
Given that Zoom is paid for monthly but accrues costs by the use, maybe they want to lower the average use of the product to save money. Like how people subscribed to HBO just for GoT.
You know what would be cool? If some company would fix those remote working problems instead of forcing people to work in place.
But I guess it's not their job.
Maybe I’ll take flak for this. I feel like Slack and kin have done the best job here for providing remote collaboration tools.
I feel much more productive in write-first teams. Meetings can be done over Zoom then, and they’re always short and productive. Anything works at that point.
I feel much more productive in write-first teams. Meetings can be done over Zoom then, and they’re always short and productive. Anything works at that point.
Company: we have "connectedness" issues with remote work
Everyone: what have you tried?
Company: Nothing, it didn't work, and we are out of ideas. Back to the office.
Genuinely, all these companies raising issues with training, and collaboration, and connection, but in the last 3 years have put zero effort to address these issues with respect to remote work so they throw the baby with the bath water and force people to return.
Genuinely, all these companies raising issues with training, and collaboration, and connection, but in the last 3 years have put zero effort to address these issues with respect to remote work so they throw the baby with the bath water and force people to return.
What do you suggest? I’m yet to see a company that makes remote work feel as connected and personal as in office work.
The Friday afternoon beer call was funny and entertaining during covid but it’s worn thin and people want to physically meet up again.
The Friday afternoon beer call was funny and entertaining during covid but it’s worn thin and people want to physically meet up again.
Remote work needs "common areas" where people can voluntarily just join and leave their camera/mic on all the time. Like lurking in an IRC chat. This of course would be abused by employers ("why can't I see you at your desk 10 hours a day?") but it seems to me a way of encouraging the sort of water cooler encounters that being in an office provides.
If there was two people in that call neither would get anything done.
If the thought that most communication comes through in a non-verbal queues is true, then this seems to be an obvious observation. Trust between humans is often built by going through tough situations together, so to that extent I don’t expect Zoom to be the trust builder, but rather interesting and difficult problems(which is not that easy to come across in a drab work environment).
A lot of companies are doing this. I wonder how many are doing it because they want to reduce head counts through attrition instead of layoffs?
They will lose some of their best people doing that.
Just a small note: the FLOSS community is essentially remote and in term of innovation is (at least was) definitively innovating.........
> The Reg was quick to point out the paradox of a business that built its fortune on enabling web conferencing throughout the lockdowns of the COVID-19 pandemic only to recall employees living within 50 miles(!!!) back to the office this month for at least two days a week.
Y'all wishing you'd moved really far during those 2+ years.
Y'all wishing you'd moved really far during those 2+ years.
Working in-office and I still use Zoom pretty regularly. I don't think this negates it's value as a tool...
[deleted]
Does the phrase "eat your own dogfood" mean anything to this CEO?
Boomers who have never idled on IRC or met up with friends in video chat live in an entirely different world than those of us who have had experiences collaborating with developer friends internationally, across multiple timezones, right then and there in real-time.
These people live such uninteresting lives.
These people live such uninteresting lives.
The very same boomers that don't mind sending jobs overseas and expect customers to trust them without a brick and mortar store to walk in. Can't make this up.
[deleted]
> These people live such uninteresting lives.
They own real estate. They don't care!
They own real estate. They don't care!
Zoom CEO wants to tank the stock price apparently
Or, he's more focused on his real estate holdings and he'll still be fuck-you rich if Zoom collapses.
So the Zoom CEO doesn't want Zoom data going to ChatGPT, like he does with all customer data??? Signals...
Honestly how many companies are actually innovating, most of the time people are just imitating. I don’t use Zoom but have used Microsoft Teams for the last few years and basically nothing has changed in the app. All their “innovation” is just junk features that they remove from the app 3 months later. They have all this data on how people use the app. How haven’t I improved my productivity at work 10x using this app everyday?
Don’t get high on your own supply
That seems bad for business.
Breaking news: McDonalds CEO doesn't eat at McDonalds for every meal
Actually, he does (well 10 meals a week):
https://www.eatthis.com/mcdonalds-ceo-eats-every-week/
https://www.eatthis.com/mcdonalds-ceo-eats-every-week/
Impressive
nothing beats getting to know each other on IRC
This feels like a slow motion car crash.
Epic own-goal.
So no eating your own dog food there?
idk, Jeffrey Toobin's coworkers probably have a different point of view
Chapter 95 of capitalist owns real estate and does not want to look silly
Because Zoom is utter garbage. The competition is so much better.
What do you recommend?
Which alternatives have you found to be better?
Zoom isn’t great but Teams is worse.
Zoom isn’t great but Teams is worse.
I concur with the other opinions. After having used Microsoft Teams, Zoom, and Google meet in the workplace, I've found Google Meet to easily be the best option.
It feels like I'm taking a big step back when I have to use Teams or Zoom.
It feels like I'm taking a big step back when I have to use Teams or Zoom.
I find Google Meet much better. It has superior audio and video quality and a vastly superior UI all inside the browser.
Teams has persistent chat, instant messaging, integration into enterprise toolset and custom handlers for teams who want to build their own apps. Teams isn't perfect but my experience has it leagues beyond what Zoom is capable of.
Last time I was on teams 2 months ago they still hadn't solved large meetings. You could switch to a different mode to show more people on the screen, but it was extremely blurry, missing parts of the normal UI, and still cut people off after a relatively low number.
My experience with very large meetings on teams has been presentations and the vast majority have been fine. My everyday usage is with 2-20 people at most, so if seeing everyone is important, I can see where someone would prefer zoom as their video streaming tech is better.
I cannot stand Zoom. I had that it tries to install its crapware on the computer.I find Google Meet to be perfect for what we need.
Same here, I just click an URL and I'm in, I close and its gone.
Compared to all the other gymnastics one has to make to get the exact same functionality, plus having to install malware and whatnot, it's a much better UX.
Compared to all the other gymnastics one has to make to get the exact same functionality, plus having to install malware and whatnot, it's a much better UX.
I like it more - the recent addition of time limits is unwelcome but free can’t last forever.
Idk in the long long ago we used skype and slack. They weren't that bad. On slack you just message someone when you get an idea, and then have a skype call to discuss it. End of drama.
Frankly, Google Meet works fairly well.
While I wouldn't have it any other way, I do think collaboration is pretty easy. I have multiple meetings a day with multiple teams and we have always been able to get projects completed.
There are so many collaboration tools out there and with modern, fast, Internet speeds, it's like you're in the same room as the other person.
Some issues I have noticed: Managers need to know how to manage remotely. When a manager can't manage remotely, it shows, and it's bad. A bad manager will just blame the employee (which happened to me).
Something else I noticed is that I am just not that close to my co-workers. While I have a social life outside of work. Many people use work as a social outlet and it can be very lonely working remotely.
I think this is all bullshit. It most likely has to do with rental contracts the company signed and not wanting it to go to waste.