Big Myths Employers Are Using to Force “Return to Office”(kenyarmosh.com)
kenyarmosh.com
Big Myths Employers Are Using to Force “Return to Office”
https://kenyarmosh.com/10-big-myths-forcing-return-to-office/
75 comments
> offices foster collaboration and culture sharing...
for you
> offices foster collaboration and culture sharing...
for you
Not everyone is like you. Your claims simply don't apply to those of us who have an easier time collaborating with professional colleagues remotely. It's unfortunate that we are completely disregarded and told what our preferences should be by people who completely fail or are unwilling to understand us
for you
> offices foster collaboration and culture sharing...
for you
Not everyone is like you. Your claims simply don't apply to those of us who have an easier time collaborating with professional colleagues remotely. It's unfortunate that we are completely disregarded and told what our preferences should be by people who completely fail or are unwilling to understand us
I think the future is probably a set of companies that are full remote and a set that have some sort of hybrid model. You can go ahead and work at the remote companies, but saying "The office fosters culture and collaboration is a myth" just because of the way you work and a few companies that have figured out a good remote situation rings hollow.
I don't think he said that offices foster collaboration is a myth. He said (which I agree) is that an office fosters collaboration for some people and it does not foster collaboration for other people and that it is in the best interest of a company's shareholders if they evaluate and consider the opinions of its workers who are on both sides of the spectrum.
Not everyone is like you either.
What new information does this comment add to the conversation? I never said everyone is like me, I'm responding to someone making a blanket statement that doesn't actually apply to everyone.
Ironically I think those are the same companies that aren't willing to put in the work required to build strong collaborative cultures _onsite_.
(I work at one of the listed companies, and these views are my own.)
Honestly, on-site just wouldn’t work well with the existing company culture at all. My current team has members in at least 7 countries in North America and Europe. Some teams are more time-zone collocated, but many are not. The culture is built so that async communication — and in particular, publicly searchable written communication — is the default for nearly everything. So having a big time zone split isn’t a problem when you’re used to communicating via long-form written communication.
Obviously, on-site is hugely different. If I went on-site, I would not be working with my specific team. I’m not even sure how the company could possibly reorganize to make that happen at all. It’s not like new hires in X geographic region are placed in Y division. So the best that could be done on-site is you get to make social connections. Can’t really have an on-site collaborative culture if none of your teammates live in the same city. And you can’t change that after the fact either, because people live in so many different places!
And as a side note, having frequently worked in OSS projects, communication and work is very distributed anyways. So it’s important to be habitually in tune with that style of communication and work to be effective in a large OSS project with maintainers spread the world.
So I would argue that even trying to have an on-site collaborative culture doesn’t make any sense if your company is truly globally distributed.
Honestly, on-site just wouldn’t work well with the existing company culture at all. My current team has members in at least 7 countries in North America and Europe. Some teams are more time-zone collocated, but many are not. The culture is built so that async communication — and in particular, publicly searchable written communication — is the default for nearly everything. So having a big time zone split isn’t a problem when you’re used to communicating via long-form written communication.
Obviously, on-site is hugely different. If I went on-site, I would not be working with my specific team. I’m not even sure how the company could possibly reorganize to make that happen at all. It’s not like new hires in X geographic region are placed in Y division. So the best that could be done on-site is you get to make social connections. Can’t really have an on-site collaborative culture if none of your teammates live in the same city. And you can’t change that after the fact either, because people live in so many different places!
And as a side note, having frequently worked in OSS projects, communication and work is very distributed anyways. So it’s important to be habitually in tune with that style of communication and work to be effective in a large OSS project with maintainers spread the world.
So I would argue that even trying to have an on-site collaborative culture doesn’t make any sense if your company is truly globally distributed.
> Ironically I think those are the same companies that aren't willing to put in the work required to build strong collaborative cultures _onsite_.
Having worked for a company with a strong in-office culture that's significantly eroded during remote work, no, this isn't remotely true and is an almost comical underestimation of how hard it is to convert from an office-first to remote-first company.
The real issue is that if you're gonna be a remote-first company, you have to truly commit to it, and that requires significant effort and a complete change in mindset across many activities, including a profound retraining of management and staff behaviours.
Having worked for a company with a strong in-office culture that's significantly eroded during remote work, no, this isn't remotely true and is an almost comical underestimation of how hard it is to convert from an office-first to remote-first company.
The real issue is that if you're gonna be a remote-first company, you have to truly commit to it, and that requires significant effort and a complete change in mindset across many activities, including a profound retraining of management and staff behaviours.
I would argue the same things that make remote successful (good communication, documentation, processes) are things that would benefit an onsite company just as much.
I am interested in what you strong in-office culture, like, what does that mean? What things didn't translate to remote?
I am interested in what you strong in-office culture, like, what does that mean? What things didn't translate to remote?
Well, as just one example, communication patterns have to drastically change.
Ours is a very open access office culture. If someone wants to come and ask me a question they are encouraged to do so because we strongly believe in open information sharing, quick decision making, and a high level of autonomy. The result is I cannot count the number of times colleagues have taken advantage of the fact that they could just pop by to ask a quick question, inform me of a decision they're taking, or raise a concern.
The remote work equivalents of that are ad hoc text-based communications--which are extremely low bandwidth, disadvantage slow typists, and lack the emotional subtext provided by facial expressions or body language--or scheduling voice or video calls, which is relatively high friction and still is at best a lackluster substitute for a face-to-face conversation due to poor quality, laggy audio, crappy video, and so forth.
As a result, a ton of that communication has simply shut down in our organization.
The reality is we are not, and for a very long time will not be, in a world where virtual communications tools are as effective as face-to-face interactions. In this world of Zoom, who hasn't accidentally interrupted a colleague, struggled to get a word in edgewise, or found it difficult to hear someone due to a poor audio connection? Or wished for a whiteboard you could use to draw out a concept during an ad hoc problem solving activity? Or thought about pinging someone to have a quick conversation about some topic, only to give up and just write an email because setting up a video session just seemed like a little too much work?
And if your organization relies on a lot of ad hoc communication to function, it will suffer without changes to culture and practices.
Ours is a very open access office culture. If someone wants to come and ask me a question they are encouraged to do so because we strongly believe in open information sharing, quick decision making, and a high level of autonomy. The result is I cannot count the number of times colleagues have taken advantage of the fact that they could just pop by to ask a quick question, inform me of a decision they're taking, or raise a concern.
The remote work equivalents of that are ad hoc text-based communications--which are extremely low bandwidth, disadvantage slow typists, and lack the emotional subtext provided by facial expressions or body language--or scheduling voice or video calls, which is relatively high friction and still is at best a lackluster substitute for a face-to-face conversation due to poor quality, laggy audio, crappy video, and so forth.
As a result, a ton of that communication has simply shut down in our organization.
The reality is we are not, and for a very long time will not be, in a world where virtual communications tools are as effective as face-to-face interactions. In this world of Zoom, who hasn't accidentally interrupted a colleague, struggled to get a word in edgewise, or found it difficult to hear someone due to a poor audio connection? Or wished for a whiteboard you could use to draw out a concept during an ad hoc problem solving activity? Or thought about pinging someone to have a quick conversation about some topic, only to give up and just write an email because setting up a video session just seemed like a little too much work?
And if your organization relies on a lot of ad hoc communication to function, it will suffer without changes to culture and practices.
I don't think they have to change though. As long as there is transparency and an "open door", those same folks can ask questions in open channels on slack or elsewhere. I really don't understand why the can't pop by virtually...
The benefit of this is folks who would otherwise be left in the dark also get the benefits of seeing whatever answers are given (and recorded!), and reciprocate in realizing that there is a no culture of fear around questions or consulting others for advice / help.
You dismiss communications tools, but it's more about who is using them than the tools themselves in my opinion.
I work at an all remote org and we have definitely believe in open information sharing, quick decision making, and a high level of autonomy. And folks definitely take advantage of being able to pop by (huddle in slack, etc.), inform others of decisions, or raise concerns virtually.
On the flip side, I've worked in an org that was "move fast, open door, etc." but onsite and folks were constantly accidentally out of the loop because decisions would be made face to face but not propagated to the rest of the company (oops, sorry Jim, we forgot you were in the other office or god forbid on vacation). That's what I mean when I say these remote practices (ask in the open, having processes, effective communication) actually help onsite companies as well, and I feel most onsite companies simply ignore them for adhoc face to face lossy communication.
The benefit of this is folks who would otherwise be left in the dark also get the benefits of seeing whatever answers are given (and recorded!), and reciprocate in realizing that there is a no culture of fear around questions or consulting others for advice / help.
You dismiss communications tools, but it's more about who is using them than the tools themselves in my opinion.
I work at an all remote org and we have definitely believe in open information sharing, quick decision making, and a high level of autonomy. And folks definitely take advantage of being able to pop by (huddle in slack, etc.), inform others of decisions, or raise concerns virtually.
On the flip side, I've worked in an org that was "move fast, open door, etc." but onsite and folks were constantly accidentally out of the loop because decisions would be made face to face but not propagated to the rest of the company (oops, sorry Jim, we forgot you were in the other office or god forbid on vacation). That's what I mean when I say these remote practices (ask in the open, having processes, effective communication) actually help onsite companies as well, and I feel most onsite companies simply ignore them for adhoc face to face lossy communication.
> You dismiss communications tools, but it's more about who is using them than the tools themselves in my opinion.
And in my opinion those virtual tools are inferior in many ways to face to face communication (and superior in other ways, as you point out), and those pros and cons matter and are genuinely impactful regarding how people should communicate and collaborate in a remote setting vs an in-person setting.
All that being said, getting back to the original claim:
I think those are the same companies that aren't willing to put in the work required to build strong collaborative cultures _onsite_.
Looking at my reply I realize it wasn't sufficiently responsive to the statement.
I think I have a deeper claim, which is that in a face-to-face office setting, culture is more likely to evolve on its own accidentally because human beings are inherently social creatures, and incidental interactions in an in-person setting result in a culture developing.
In a remote setting, those incidental interactions are far less likely to happen. That means the development of culture, and social connections within the organization in general, are less likely to occur organically. Instead, you have to rely on much more deliberate culture building.
So I think I agree with the statement that "companies with a strong practice of building and developing a work culture in an in-office setting will have an easier time transitioning to remote work, because they have practices in place to be intentional about work culture development and reinforcement".
I don't agree with the inverse statement (as posited by the person I responded to) that "companies that don't have a practice of building a strong culture in a remote setting will not have a strong culture in an in-person setting" because I think office culture is more likely to grow organically in a face-to-face setting where incidental interactions with people are more likely to occur.
And in my opinion those virtual tools are inferior in many ways to face to face communication (and superior in other ways, as you point out), and those pros and cons matter and are genuinely impactful regarding how people should communicate and collaborate in a remote setting vs an in-person setting.
All that being said, getting back to the original claim:
I think those are the same companies that aren't willing to put in the work required to build strong collaborative cultures _onsite_.
Looking at my reply I realize it wasn't sufficiently responsive to the statement.
I think I have a deeper claim, which is that in a face-to-face office setting, culture is more likely to evolve on its own accidentally because human beings are inherently social creatures, and incidental interactions in an in-person setting result in a culture developing.
In a remote setting, those incidental interactions are far less likely to happen. That means the development of culture, and social connections within the organization in general, are less likely to occur organically. Instead, you have to rely on much more deliberate culture building.
So I think I agree with the statement that "companies with a strong practice of building and developing a work culture in an in-office setting will have an easier time transitioning to remote work, because they have practices in place to be intentional about work culture development and reinforcement".
I don't agree with the inverse statement (as posited by the person I responded to) that "companies that don't have a practice of building a strong culture in a remote setting will not have a strong culture in an in-person setting" because I think office culture is more likely to grow organically in a face-to-face setting where incidental interactions with people are more likely to occur.
Why is it much harder? I disagree. In office I usually only ever talk to people I directly work with. And, as an engineer, not very often. Every time I'd go in an office I'd just be sitting in front of a computer. If they had lunches then we'd all chat but it was all just bullshitting. I don't see how remote makes it harder to collaborate or 'culture share'. Culture sharing seems something woke people like to do a bit too much these days anyways. Rather stay home and keep my opinions to myself.
Because it filters out the people who do all of category B (bullshitting, talking, having meetings) who normally spend their time taking away from category A (I am paid to do a task which I will do, and then be paid)
> but it is absolutely much harder
Agree. But the upside is big too.
Is learning to ride a bicycle hard? Of course. But once you learn to ride a bicycle, the benefits are immense. That is why people learn to ride a bike in spite of the initial difficulty. They know that the payoff is much larger in the end.
If you can figure out how to be effective in a remote setup, you will not only learn how to work remotely, but also how to communicate well in a team. Physical distance should and will become a nonissue for a software development team.
Is learning to ride a bicycle hard? Of course. But once you learn to ride a bicycle, the benefits are immense. That is why people learn to ride a bike in spite of the initial difficulty. They know that the payoff is much larger in the end.
If you can figure out how to be effective in a remote setup, you will not only learn how to work remotely, but also how to communicate well in a team. Physical distance should and will become a nonissue for a software development team.
How do we even know they have great culture? A year ago Basecamp would have 100% been included in that list. They have great marketing.
If the claim is a universal then just one exception disproves it.
Anecdata: I’ve noticed that the voices in an organisation who are more keen for a return to the office tend to be the managers, directors, leadership sort of roles.
I wonder if being in the office is just simply more enjoyable for those with power and influence, while individual contributors (trying to get their work done) find they like it more at home?
I wonder if being in the office is just simply more enjoyable for those with power and influence, while individual contributors (trying to get their work done) find they like it more at home?
> I wonder if being in the office is just simply more enjoyable for those with power and influence, while individual contributors (trying to get their work done) find they like it more at home?
Alternate take 1: If IC positions attract strongly introverted people, ICs as a cohort will naturally be less desirous of returning to the office than cohorts that require some ability to extrovert (such as management).
Alternate take 2: ICs are responsible for their tasks/goals. Managers are responsible for the tasks/goals of their managed individuals as well as the health of the team. People aren't machines. Managing people is not as simple as checking if they're completing sprints on time. Are they overworked? Underworked? Happy? Depressed? Engaged? Disinterested? These sorts of assessments are important yet can be hard to determine remotely.
If managing requires some amount of extroversion, and also the ability to not just measure that boxes have been checked but attest that boxes will continue to be checked in the future, it follows that managers likely are "more keen for a return to the office".
Alternate take 1: If IC positions attract strongly introverted people, ICs as a cohort will naturally be less desirous of returning to the office than cohorts that require some ability to extrovert (such as management).
Alternate take 2: ICs are responsible for their tasks/goals. Managers are responsible for the tasks/goals of their managed individuals as well as the health of the team. People aren't machines. Managing people is not as simple as checking if they're completing sprints on time. Are they overworked? Underworked? Happy? Depressed? Engaged? Disinterested? These sorts of assessments are important yet can be hard to determine remotely.
If managing requires some amount of extroversion, and also the ability to not just measure that boxes have been checked but attest that boxes will continue to be checked in the future, it follows that managers likely are "more keen for a return to the office".
Managerial types who value interpersonal interactions definitely value being in the office. But I've noticed that a lot of individual contributors in the technology field are almost outright antisocial. Perhaps their days are so full of pointless emails and conference calls that they justifiably dread human interaction. If so, then these workplaces have much deeper issues with productivity and communication efficiency.
From personal experience, technical individual contributors tend to be much more introverted, and something like ADHD can make constant interruptions far worse than a mere inconvenience. Still, some of them come across as outright misanthropes for some reason.
Introversion is fine, and even introverted managers can do OK so long as they don't bite off more than they can chew. But you cannot manage people if you don't have basic interpersonal skills. In fact, it's helpful to be able to look someone in the eye and see how motivated they are.
From personal experience, technical individual contributors tend to be much more introverted, and something like ADHD can make constant interruptions far worse than a mere inconvenience. Still, some of them come across as outright misanthropes for some reason.
Introversion is fine, and even introverted managers can do OK so long as they don't bite off more than they can chew. But you cannot manage people if you don't have basic interpersonal skills. In fact, it's helpful to be able to look someone in the eye and see how motivated they are.
Having people at least looking like they're hard at work must be highly gratifying to managers, because managers (as a whole) do a lot of things that make their employees unhappy, and have no measurable effect, or even a negative on productivity.
I've come to believe that a lot of what managers, from those immediately overseeing workers, to executive directors, do is pleasurable to them individually, but really has no business reason. That is, it's all about personal power and making their subordinates do work they don't want to do.
If my belief is true, managers will of course be in favor of a return-to-office even if there's no rational reason for that to happen.
I've come to believe that a lot of what managers, from those immediately overseeing workers, to executive directors, do is pleasurable to them individually, but really has no business reason. That is, it's all about personal power and making their subordinates do work they don't want to do.
If my belief is true, managers will of course be in favor of a return-to-office even if there's no rational reason for that to happen.
The thing is, you have to produce results when you are remote. In an office, you can get by looking busy. I think the people who insist on going back to the office are the ones who are missing the stage on which they used to perform without actually doing real work.
in functional orgs, looking busy will catch up to you eventually, remote or otherwise.
I'm an IC and I'm way more productive in the office without the distractions of home. Also it's a lot easier to peek over to see if someone's busy or not before hitting them on chat to see if they're busy for a quick informal discussion. It's less of an event when you walk by the person every day.
Finding a way to reduce distractions is easier at work: it's a lot easier to change jobs than to change families :-)
Finding a way to reduce distractions is easier at work: it's a lot easier to change jobs than to change families :-)
I unfortunately agree with you.
I wish I was better at home than the office, but I am not.
I wish I was better at home than the office, but I am not.
Well, almost 40% of people who had an affair at work were owners or executives at the company, according to the fine folks at
https://2date4love.com/workplace-affairs-statistics/
And one in ten workers admit sleeping with their boss, according to
https://www.studyfinds.org/third-office-romances-involve-mar...
Perhaps managers are missing a very particular type of non-virtual interaction. Surprised this isn’t mentioned more in this era of #MeToo. And I’d imagine that would provide a very strong incentive for many managers to push RTO.
https://2date4love.com/workplace-affairs-statistics/
And one in ten workers admit sleeping with their boss, according to
https://www.studyfinds.org/third-office-romances-involve-mar...
Perhaps managers are missing a very particular type of non-virtual interaction. Surprised this isn’t mentioned more in this era of #MeToo. And I’d imagine that would provide a very strong incentive for many managers to push RTO.
My experience matches yours and I've always thought it was due to trust. Leadership doesn't trust their team and have no idea if they're being productive or not. So they use "at desk not talking with head down" as a proxy.
That's a pretty cynical take. Everyone is trying to get their work done, it's more of a question of whether remote work makes that easier or harder.
- People whose productivity is based on regular social interaction will work faster face-to-face.
- People whose productivity is based on long periods of focus will work faster remotely.
- People whose productivity is based on regular social interaction will work faster face-to-face.
- People whose productivity is based on long periods of focus will work faster remotely.
[deleted]
Manager type roles, where interactions, communication and interpersonal relationships matter, unlike développement care about meeting physically.
What a shocker!
What a shocker!
well leadership are, naturally, very people-heavy jobs, so it's much more likely that they would be more inclined to work together in person.
[deleted]
>MYTH # 2: The office promotes connections
I just find this bit entirely unconvincing. I don't have data to back up my claim, but IME 1 in-person interaction is worth ~5-10 'virtual coffee' type interactions via Donut or one of the similar apps. Maybe others feel differently, but I haven't found any substitute for live, in-person get togethers for connecting with colleagues on a personal level.
I just find this bit entirely unconvincing. I don't have data to back up my claim, but IME 1 in-person interaction is worth ~5-10 'virtual coffee' type interactions via Donut or one of the similar apps. Maybe others feel differently, but I haven't found any substitute for live, in-person get togethers for connecting with colleagues on a personal level.
OTOH it's also possible to have conversations of a whole other nature online. The pace is different, and the urgency is different. You can have hours long discussions about interesting stuff with someone you've never even met. For instance I talk to a professor in my field about stuff, and it's not that easy to find someone to just do that. Similarly I've had a lot of slow but insightful conversations with teammates about various technical issues, or personal issues.
"Maybe others feel differently." Come on. How can anyone who grew up during or after the BBS era could have this attitude? You can obviously have deep online interactions with people. We've been doing it for decades. You have to be open to it. It is a different type of interaction.
edited to add: People have also fallen in love online for decades. I know several people who met their spouses online.
What evidence would convince you that you don't need to discuss Johnny Carson's monologue at the watercoolor to interact with colleagues in a meaningful way?
edited to add: People have also fallen in love online for decades. I know several people who met their spouses online.
What evidence would convince you that you don't need to discuss Johnny Carson's monologue at the watercoolor to interact with colleagues in a meaningful way?
> I know several people who met their spouses online.
Sure. But I'll bet you that sooner or later they've moved their relation from mostly online to mostly offline.
Sure. But I'll bet you that sooner or later they've moved their relation from mostly online to mostly offline.
The myth sounds mostly based on all the other issues the office brings with it. In a vacuum, would people communicate more in face given they had enough similarities, the work at hand would greatly benefit from it and there were no negatives? Well, I think so.
But that's not what reality is. Many people work in a lousy, suboptimal open office. They don't get to handpick their teammates. They might have to spend a lot of time commuting at times not matching their natural rhythm, which inadvertently has an effect on their mood.
And that's really all there is to it. If there's truth to how many people just "glue code together" in their developer jobs, then the immediate follow-up is "do you really need to discuss that much to glue code together, when requirements are already far out of your reach?" For many, the work literally becomes a case of "the more you bother me, the less work I'll get done", which coupled with the above and pressure to perform, is a recipe for disaster.
Given something closer to the ideal with more collaborative requirements, then yes, in-office would be better no doubt. With the caveat of the disadvantages one would still have.
But that's not what reality is. Many people work in a lousy, suboptimal open office. They don't get to handpick their teammates. They might have to spend a lot of time commuting at times not matching their natural rhythm, which inadvertently has an effect on their mood.
And that's really all there is to it. If there's truth to how many people just "glue code together" in their developer jobs, then the immediate follow-up is "do you really need to discuss that much to glue code together, when requirements are already far out of your reach?" For many, the work literally becomes a case of "the more you bother me, the less work I'll get done", which coupled with the above and pressure to perform, is a recipe for disaster.
Given something closer to the ideal with more collaborative requirements, then yes, in-office would be better no doubt. With the caveat of the disadvantages one would still have.
Not all of us seem to connect with colleagues on a personal level, and prefer to instead optimize for what’s necessary to get our work done. These are not friends; they are workers who share a common compensation provider.
When the going gets tough, these people are very hard to work with. The lack of connection means it will be hard to understand each other when a solution must be worked out collaboratively. And the lack of a prior emotional connection between two people will make it very easy to escalate from "I disagree with your point" to "you're dumb and an asshole".
Maybe some jobs don't require that, but as a software engineer I've needed to tread those interpersonal waters a lot. Discussions about interfaces, pushing back on requirements, picking up neat tricks, offering tough estimates, it's all much easier if there's already some report there.
Maybe some jobs don't require that, but as a software engineer I've needed to tread those interpersonal waters a lot. Discussions about interfaces, pushing back on requirements, picking up neat tricks, offering tough estimates, it's all much easier if there's already some report there.
[deleted]
...
[deleted]
So is being so extremely judgmental without even considering things from GP's perspective.
They are trying to keep things in harmony while focusing on output. It might not leave the work environment socially positive, but they aren't actively trying to make the place worse socially, either. That doesn't sound a bad deal considering some of us are very selective with relationships and frankly, selecting companies for colleagues would be a ridiculously long and potentially fruitless endeavor. Meanwhile, what you do get is someone who is a large net positive on other fronts.
They are trying to keep things in harmony while focusing on output. It might not leave the work environment socially positive, but they aren't actively trying to make the place worse socially, either. That doesn't sound a bad deal considering some of us are very selective with relationships and frankly, selecting companies for colleagues would be a ridiculously long and potentially fruitless endeavor. Meanwhile, what you do get is someone who is a large net positive on other fronts.
I assume a lot of HN participants only get social interaction at work, or their colleagues are their only or primary friends, which leads to the idea “if you don’t have friendships with these people, you’re a bad worker.”
One can deliver quality work cordially, but at a distance socially, in my experience.
One can deliver quality work cordially, but at a distance socially, in my experience.
personally I find 1x1s over Zoom extremely fatiguing. No app will ever help with that, ever. I'd even take an in-person 1x1 in a drab conference room over Zoom.
It's way less fatiguing for me since I switch off my cam or at least the display of my own video image.
You should give it a try. :)
Yeah, but then you're talking to an emotionless box in a Zoom window, which is even worse.
but then you lose out on a massive amount of information sharing that you'd normally get via body language
On the other side of that: I am forced to go to work so that I don’t die basically. I don’t use it as a social occasion and in general all of the tedious people who either can’t make friends or have an enjoyable life on their own time, get in the way.
Workplaces that try to use Work and Pay as a reason to have a social outing aren’t workplaces. I’ll fake it to be paid but if remote means it goes away… that is a very very good thing.
Workplaces that try to use Work and Pay as a reason to have a social outing aren’t workplaces. I’ll fake it to be paid but if remote means it goes away… that is a very very good thing.
I actually don’t care whether I’m more productive at home or in the office. I’m positive
I’m more productive in the office but I won’t return either way. It makes no difference to me.
My life is not about my employer extracting 100% of my productivity from me. I have a better quality of life working from home and I’m going to keep it.
My life is not about my employer extracting 100% of my productivity from me. I have a better quality of life working from home and I’m going to keep it.
Yes, this is an unjustly ignored point. The nigh-100% focus on which one is more productive is a blaring signal of how sick work culture is. At times we seem to simply accept that employers/managers are the dictators, and employees are the subjects, rather than that both are equal humans.
Tbh I don’t think I do more or less work than I did in office.
The difference is now when I’m waiting for bureaucratic machines to move, I can at least do it in the comfort of my home.
I’d be willing to go back into office for the right job, but history tells me they don’t even want to interview me anyway :)
The difference is now when I’m waiting for bureaucratic machines to move, I can at least do it in the comfort of my home.
I’d be willing to go back into office for the right job, but history tells me they don’t even want to interview me anyway :)
NOOOOOOO… you HAVE to be a cog in the machine and not enjoy your own life because… because…
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO lol
GP made a really good point and perhaps you also had something interesting to share from your experience. However, the snark distracts from the discussion and adds noise to GPs comment thread.
I mean this without sarcasm, the 'Guidelines' at the bottom of the page and in particular the 'In Comments' section are really on point and worthwhile to read.
I mean this without sarcasm, the 'Guidelines' at the bottom of the page and in particular the 'In Comments' section are really on point and worthwhile to read.
I have read the guidelines. Could you tell me where it says “don’t make jokes”? The guidelines aren’t rules, they’re guidelines. Otherwise they would be called rules. You can’t break a guideline, to wit.
I think you’re really overestimating how much my comment either adds or detracts from the conversation.
But I can say it in a clearer way: I do not care one single iota about the investment companies have made in leasing buildings whatsoever. I do not care to be babysat at work and I leave places that choose such paths. I look down on people who want to have that either as an occupation or a career. I will be laughing the entire time the physical workplace burns because it’s comical.
Have you ever read Candide by Voltaire?
I think you’re really overestimating how much my comment either adds or detracts from the conversation.
But I can say it in a clearer way: I do not care one single iota about the investment companies have made in leasing buildings whatsoever. I do not care to be babysat at work and I leave places that choose such paths. I look down on people who want to have that either as an occupation or a career. I will be laughing the entire time the physical workplace burns because it’s comical.
Have you ever read Candide by Voltaire?
This seems to be a thinly disguised bit of content marketing for the author's consulting practice.
"Thought leadership"
This is probably the number 1 modern internet phenomenon I absolutely hate. Blogspam articles trying to sell me something have destroyed search engines I swear.
I still haven't seen any articles about the money. If people are being herded back into offices there's likely money behind it.
The owners of all of that office space are going to lose a lot if nobody goes back to the office. Are they paying to incentivize any of this "return to office" stuff?
Likewise, if the business real estate market crashes, what are all the ripples? Are there people paying to prevent the crash because it would hit them indirectly?
The owners of all of that office space are going to lose a lot if nobody goes back to the office. Are they paying to incentivize any of this "return to office" stuff?
Likewise, if the business real estate market crashes, what are all the ripples? Are there people paying to prevent the crash because it would hit them indirectly?
This is scaler talk about an issue that will require some vector solutions. Having consulted for several F500 corporations, I've seen first hand that they mostly suck, and a lot of this culture talk is driven by Bill Lumbergh not being able to do his cube circuit every day.
The direction of decentralized work effort has let people step back from the trees to see the forest, and simply ask why a company thinks it's even worth their in-person time. This should even be a stockholder fundamental question if a chunk of company expenses goes to keeping lights turned on.
The direction of decentralized work effort has let people step back from the trees to see the forest, and simply ask why a company thinks it's even worth their in-person time. This should even be a stockholder fundamental question if a chunk of company expenses goes to keeping lights turned on.
I don't care one way or another is someone works remotely or in the office. What I do care about is effective communication between co-workers. Unfortunately though, for remote workers, there is an enormous elephant in the room; namely non-verbal communications. Truth is that study after study (after study) has shown how large of a role non-verbal clues are in the human communications process (some show 90%). To my mind, argue all you want about video conferencing and chat apps, humanity is innately social, and when you cut out large chunks of that social engagement and replace it with remote-work, there will be enormous social and work environment impacts.
Of course not all shared-location work environments are created equal, and too many in management are both lazy and power hungry. They (and their companies) want to blame anything but their own horrific employment practices and lazy, out-of-date policies. So it's not all a bad thing remote-work has become as big as it has. However, like all human activity pendulums, the remote-work vs in-presence work one WILL swing back. I expect many of us will get a great deal of enjoyment in seeing it when it does.
Of course not all shared-location work environments are created equal, and too many in management are both lazy and power hungry. They (and their companies) want to blame anything but their own horrific employment practices and lazy, out-of-date policies. So it's not all a bad thing remote-work has become as big as it has. However, like all human activity pendulums, the remote-work vs in-presence work one WILL swing back. I expect many of us will get a great deal of enjoyment in seeing it when it does.
My team meets in-person every other week for most of a work day. I have lunch with other colleagues on a semi-regular basis. I have long-going conversations on teams with several colleagues. Nobody in my circle of contacts which consists of roughly 200 people want to return to the office full-time - and I work at a Fortune 200 company with a big office tower downtown. They're fully onboard with this working model after seeing the productivity numbers.
Maybe part of the difference is my company has dozens of field offices scattered across multiple states, so they're already used to a lot of their employees essentially being remote.
Maybe part of the difference is my company has dozens of field offices scattered across multiple states, so they're already used to a lot of their employees essentially being remote.
I should also point out we're using remote work as a means to hire also. We're hiring people from all over the country and allowing them to stay put. Some have chosen to move here so they can have some in-person time every now and then, others have decided to remain where they are. We've been doing this successfully for over two years now.
Bloomberg: Bosses Don't Follow Their Own Advice in Returning to the Office
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-19/bosses-do...
While 35% of non-executive employees are in the office five days a week, just 19% of executives can say the same, according to a survey by Future Forum, a research consortium backed by messaging channel Slack.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-19/bosses-do...
While 35% of non-executive employees are in the office five days a week, just 19% of executives can say the same, according to a survey by Future Forum, a research consortium backed by messaging channel Slack.
I favor the proliferation of remote work environments, but I disagree with much of this article.
Yes, maintaining a positive and welcoming work culture is intentional. However, human-to-human interaction is a big part of that. There's a big difference between having a few get-togethers per year and being able to ask someone (who might not be in your immediate circle) out to an actual coffee.
Also, career growth is 100% about who you know. Knowing everyone is easy at small companies but is impossible at larger ones. Yes, you can ask your skip-level for an intro to someone outside of your immediate silo, but I'd argue that this is more difficult for people that aren't intrinsically-motivated to make that leap themselves. This is something else that is bolstered by closer proximity and person-to-person interactions.
Everything else mentioned here varies from person to person, IMO.
Offices can be very fun places to be, even if you have a thriving social life. For many, it is very difficult to make friends outside of your regular social interactions.
Yes, there's Meetup, but (a) not even town has a thriving Meetup scene; you can almost bet on Meetup sucking in rural/suburban neighborhoods, and (b) it takes a real ability to go into an event knowing that you'll know no-one and that you'll do your best to leave knowing someone. I hosted large Meetup groups for many years, have gone to countless events and have interacted with probably thousands of people, and I still have a lot of trouble with this because I strongly prefer, and have always preferred, being by myself. Anyone that says "it's easy bro" is probably naturally good at this and doesn't comprehend that someone could struggle here.
On the other hand, offices can be a means to an end for people with families who want to spend as much time with them as possible. For these people, perks and social outings aren't incentivizing. However, many people with families are CONSTANTLY distracted in ways that they wouldn't be in an office. Crying babies, toddlers being toddlers, pets, random noises, etc. are common enough to create a bingo card out of. I don't think this reduces "productivity" (which is in the eyes of the beholder), but these things definitely wouldn't happen in offices.
Yes, maintaining a positive and welcoming work culture is intentional. However, human-to-human interaction is a big part of that. There's a big difference between having a few get-togethers per year and being able to ask someone (who might not be in your immediate circle) out to an actual coffee.
Also, career growth is 100% about who you know. Knowing everyone is easy at small companies but is impossible at larger ones. Yes, you can ask your skip-level for an intro to someone outside of your immediate silo, but I'd argue that this is more difficult for people that aren't intrinsically-motivated to make that leap themselves. This is something else that is bolstered by closer proximity and person-to-person interactions.
Everything else mentioned here varies from person to person, IMO.
Offices can be very fun places to be, even if you have a thriving social life. For many, it is very difficult to make friends outside of your regular social interactions.
Yes, there's Meetup, but (a) not even town has a thriving Meetup scene; you can almost bet on Meetup sucking in rural/suburban neighborhoods, and (b) it takes a real ability to go into an event knowing that you'll know no-one and that you'll do your best to leave knowing someone. I hosted large Meetup groups for many years, have gone to countless events and have interacted with probably thousands of people, and I still have a lot of trouble with this because I strongly prefer, and have always preferred, being by myself. Anyone that says "it's easy bro" is probably naturally good at this and doesn't comprehend that someone could struggle here.
On the other hand, offices can be a means to an end for people with families who want to spend as much time with them as possible. For these people, perks and social outings aren't incentivizing. However, many people with families are CONSTANTLY distracted in ways that they wouldn't be in an office. Crying babies, toddlers being toddlers, pets, random noises, etc. are common enough to create a bingo card out of. I don't think this reduces "productivity" (which is in the eyes of the beholder), but these things definitely wouldn't happen in offices.
I'm surprised security and confidentiality hasn't been more of an issue point. Especially for Apple.
I feel like for many companies that was a problem that had to be solved a long time ago. It's pretty rare that you're not taking home a work laptop, or have work data on your phone or at least a company-provided phone already.
It's not going to get solved, simply ignored and pushed under the rug.
Oh for sure a lot of companies never bothered to solve it, but the problem existed prior to everyone working from home.
I agree, but in the opposite sense you are probably meaning. If office buildings have been left vacant for many months, I would wonder what sort of sophisticated surveillance systems could have been installed, tested, and activated in the interim. Easier to compromise the physical security of one large complex than 10000 home offices. The last place I would trust from a security standpoint would be the meeting rooms of a major HQ at this point, until they have been sanitized one-by-one.
I really wish this debate would move to be more about preference rather than right/wrong. Everyone works better in certain situations. We aren't robots. There are enough companies giving everyone a choice that everyone should just be happy and stop dunking on everyone else.
I would also like to see more discussion of which activities and situations are better handled in person and which are better WFH. I think there's a lot of nuance there that could really improve the debate and work situations.
E.g. - training a junior developer vs. turning a senior "debug commando" loose, - collaborating on an architecture vs. deep thinking about an algorithm, - screen sharing vs. whiteboard doodling, - dealing with an underperformer vs. getting out of the way of an overperformer, - when to check in with a home worker vs. when to let an office worker focus, - etc.
There's just so many people completely focused on One Right Answer to the question. Even if it's a different One Right Answer for different people. As an engineer I'm interested in the trade-offs in every choice, but the discussion is so polluted that you can't really trust anyone to treat the subject with intellectual honesty.
E.g. - training a junior developer vs. turning a senior "debug commando" loose, - collaborating on an architecture vs. deep thinking about an algorithm, - screen sharing vs. whiteboard doodling, - dealing with an underperformer vs. getting out of the way of an overperformer, - when to check in with a home worker vs. when to let an office worker focus, - etc.
There's just so many people completely focused on One Right Answer to the question. Even if it's a different One Right Answer for different people. As an engineer I'm interested in the trade-offs in every choice, but the discussion is so polluted that you can't really trust anyone to treat the subject with intellectual honesty.
Agreed. People today seem so focused on other people being "wrong" and no one is interested in this kind of thoughtful discourse.
I really don't think pointing to a couple companies that are remote and have decent culture invalidates the point that offices foster collaboration and culture sharing. No, it's not impossible to do those things in a remote environment, but it is absolutely much harder. It's not that hard to understand some companies aren't willing to put in the work required to build strong collaborative cultures remotely.