Remote working: Is Big Tech going off work from home?(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Remote working: Is Big Tech going off work from home?
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56614285
86 comments
> I will ask that the team work out an appropriate culture, which probably includes coming to the office at least once a week
What a stupid way to ruin most of the remote upside - not having to live in a particular shitty metro.
What a stupid way to ruin most of the remote upside - not having to live in a particular shitty metro.
> I will ask that the team work out an appropriate culture, which probably includes coming to the office at least once a week
That's essentially what this article is saying: The big tech companies are requiring employees to live within commuting distance of offices and to come in for some portion of their time. The question now is where the line is drawn on how often they can work from home.
The companies aren't saying that everyone has to be in office. Most of these quotes suggest that companies will continue to support remote opportunities for some, but not all, of the workforce.
That's essentially what this article is saying: The big tech companies are requiring employees to live within commuting distance of offices and to come in for some portion of their time. The question now is where the line is drawn on how often they can work from home.
The companies aren't saying that everyone has to be in office. Most of these quotes suggest that companies will continue to support remote opportunities for some, but not all, of the workforce.
I personally dislike the hybrid approach because it means everyone still has to remain in the greater Bay Area.
Surely there have to be more people like me that enjoy the bigco work but want to live in more human friendly places where we have an actual shot at establishing roots and living real lives.
Surely there have to be more people like me that enjoy the bigco work but want to live in more human friendly places where we have an actual shot at establishing roots and living real lives.
I hear you and there might be different models that can work for different teams.
And I will note that the greater Bay Area just got a lot bigger if its only once a week.
And I will note that the greater Bay Area just got a lot bigger if its only once a week.
You're right. Instead of 2-3 hours spent commuting each day, this way I'll only have to spend 10-15 hours once a week.
from a fair bit of the LA area, you can do burbank/long beach to oakland/san jose/sfo (though fog delays are common to sfo) and access a fair bit of the bay area in ~3 hours of commute time each way. not ideal, but once a week would be tolerable for many folks. i’ve done that day trip a number of times (though not weekly), and have known folks who did that (or the reverse) on a weekly basis.
I know people whose teams used to meet in person a few times a year. They loved it.
I know someone who had to drive 3 hours for a weekly customer meeting. They started to resent every person they saw those days.
I know someone who had to drive 3 hours for a weekly customer meeting. They started to resent every person they saw those days.
I got the taste of remote work and nothing’s gonna convince me it’s better in the office. Im more productive remotely, I save money on transportation and food, I save time, I am close to my toddler son, I could save the company a lot by not wasting the office space on me and most of all Im an introvert and for a long time I haven’t felt so comfortable. Why change that? I will seek a remote position other place if my company returns to office work.
Completely depends on the person though. I wouldn't be surprised if companies end up with some remote orgs and other office orgs someday. Everyone wants their ideal working environment and, imo, ought to be able to get it simultaneously... By matching people into the right jobs.
[deleted]
One thing I find interesting is that individual contributors always seem to feel they are more productive when WFH. But at least anecdotally the upper management I have talked to in tech companies are saying that WFH has dropped productivity significantly. Now maybe this is just WFH w/ all the stresses of a pandemic vs. WFH in normal times, but it is interesting.
It's a culture and communication issue. Many middle managers are used to back to back meetings and full calendars and hallway conversations and constant face-to-face. Of course it'll be an adjustment. There's no innate limitation of WFH in this scenario, but folks need to adapt to the technology.
Some of the best managers I've ever interacted with managed remote ICs or were remote themselves. Their communication skills were excellent. The average manager I've worked with has poor communication skills (sure, lots of meetings though) and won't adapt well.
Some of the best managers I've ever interacted with managed remote ICs or were remote themselves. Their communication skills were excellent. The average manager I've worked with has poor communication skills (sure, lots of meetings though) and won't adapt well.
As a tech lead, I totally understand that. I'm way more productive at IC work from home, but I really want to be able to meet with my team in person, at least sometimes.
That’s reasonable. But warming up an office chiar for 40 hours a week is the other extreme I don’t want to go back to.
Also anecdotally, upper management I've talked to has noticed little to no difference in productivity.
Perhaps each of these cohorts are speaking out of their own biases and not any kind of impartial findings
> But at least anecdotally the upper management I have talked to in tech companies are saying that WFH has dropped productivity significantly.
Curious: has any major tech company yet publicly provided numbers showing WFH negatively impacts productivity or profitability?
Curious: has any major tech company yet publicly provided numbers showing WFH negatively impacts productivity or profitability?
It’s bullshit. Their “asses in chairs” metric that they use to measure productivity is not working anymore.
> But at least anecdotally the upper management I have talked to in tech companies are saying that WFH has dropped productivity significantly.
Well you need to actually do work to be productive remotely. Upper management doesn't really do anything.
Well you need to actually do work to be productive remotely. Upper management doesn't really do anything.
Same here. I'm already full remote, but if for any reason I weren't, I'd be looking for a new job immediately. Nothing is going to convince me to go back to open office plans. No amount of money will convince me of that. I'm happy to earn less if that's the necessary sacrifice.
It gets old after a while. The first 8-10 years are fun then you just want a change.
Sure. But after 10-20 years of office I’ll take this change. Working from home doesn’t mean that i have to stay home either. Last week I worked from hotel room and from a swimming pool in Orlando. It was wonderful to change the settings and weather (I live in NY) and got to enjoy the the evenings as if I was on vacation. It was a part time vacation to me while not wasting my time off.
> Employees were also expected to "live within commuting distance" of offices.
I can't see how the must-be-in-office companies think they win this in the long term.
All the companies that want to poach from FAANG will offer remote work
I can't see how the must-be-in-office companies think they win this in the long term.
All the companies that want to poach from FAANG will offer remote work
> All the companies that want to poach from FAANG will offer remote work
Some people will always pick remote jobs over all else, but the high compensation of FAANG is a huge hurdle to overcome for most employees.
Companies willing to pay FAANG competitive compensation and let people work fully remote are few and far between.
Most companies that start hiring remote quickly discover that they can save on compensation by hiring from locations where people don't have FAANG as an option.
Some people will always pick remote jobs over all else, but the high compensation of FAANG is a huge hurdle to overcome for most employees.
Companies willing to pay FAANG competitive compensation and let people work fully remote are few and far between.
Most companies that start hiring remote quickly discover that they can save on compensation by hiring from locations where people don't have FAANG as an option.
They are probably betting that this isn’t that big a deal for those of us that like remote work, and that ultimately when the day comes, we’d be unwilling to quit over it. We will see how well that ultimatum works out for them.
Something a lot of comments here seem to be missing: lots of people (anecdotally I would say it's most people) prefer an office to working remotely. So companies that don't offer remote work will limit their hiring pool a bit, but remote-only companies will also limit their hiring pool by turning off people who want to go into an office.
Sure but before the pandemic probably 99% of office jobs were onsite. If 15% of workers prefer remote while only 1% of companies operate that way, being remote will be a competitive advantage for companies that do it for the foreseeable future.
Agreed, I do think there will be a lot of rebalancing going on. Though I think your numbers are a bit off; this was already a phenomenon pre-pandemic, though I do agree that it will accelerate.
They aren't going to win this without tossing titanic amounts of money around to land folks that are willing to do this.
You assume that developers won't work for lower salaries, in exchange for the value that WFH provides?
In practice, I've found that most candidates don't really care about anything other than total compensation.
I've worked at companies that offered private offices, work from home, great health insurance, flexible schedules, catered lunch every day, and all of the usual perks. We'd still lose out on hires to companies offering a couple thousand more than we did.
Come decision time, few people are actually willing to take the lower number. People willing to compromise compensation for other benefits are out there, but they're more rare than you might think.
I've worked at companies that offered private offices, work from home, great health insurance, flexible schedules, catered lunch every day, and all of the usual perks. We'd still lose out on hires to companies offering a couple thousand more than we did.
Come decision time, few people are actually willing to take the lower number. People willing to compromise compensation for other benefits are out there, but they're more rare than you might think.
Netflix was pretty famous for pushing the idea that employees respond to cash more than anything else and did a lot to promote this idea among hot tech companies and I absolutely believe this is the mindset many managers have.
I've got to say though even if people are obsessed with the bottom line when it comes to picking a job, I've got to think stuff like WFH also impacts retention in some way. For me I'm physically healthier under WFH which means just my ability to keep a job skews me towards WFH jobs even before we consider preference.
I've got to say though even if people are obsessed with the bottom line when it comes to picking a job, I've got to think stuff like WFH also impacts retention in some way. For me I'm physically healthier under WFH which means just my ability to keep a job skews me towards WFH jobs even before we consider preference.
> I absolutely believe this is the mindset many managers have
I went into this thinking Netflix was wrong and that most employees valued the big picture more than total comp.
For the most part, the hiring market proved me wrong and Netflix right. :)
I went into this thinking Netflix was wrong and that most employees valued the big picture more than total comp.
For the most part, the hiring market proved me wrong and Netflix right. :)
Any sufficiently big company is working remote already, because not all employees fit in one room or even one building.
Working from home is just a small step after that.
Working from home is just a small step after that.
I think there is an advantage to having folks in the office one day a week.
The pandemic has shown us that we definitely can work from home - but on the other hand it also sucks to only see your teammates exclusively on zoom.
I think there is room to find a more rational engineering culture that balances the time and carbon from your commute with the fact that we are all human and need some face to face.
The pandemic has shown us that we definitely can work from home - but on the other hand it also sucks to only see your teammates exclusively on zoom.
I think there is room to find a more rational engineering culture that balances the time and carbon from your commute with the fact that we are all human and need some face to face.
It's the 9-5 plus overtime in the office culture that has no justification, let's not even get into the 80 hour work week cultures you see or 996. It's stressful to the employees and you really don't need your employees all within walking distance of eachother every hour of every shift. That's obvious enough now. Especially when it's costing companies so much money they shove people into overcrowded open offices which gut productivity.
Yes, I really want to do my team meetings and one-on-ones in person, but am perfectly happy to do everything else remotely.
Agreed on both points.
I mean my biggest pet peeve is just drawing a simple diagram. No drawing tools seem to be as good as a good old fashioned white board.
This is especially true when trying to make a system diagram on the fly or come back to a previous discussion...
I mean my biggest pet peeve is just drawing a simple diagram. No drawing tools seem to be as good as a good old fashioned white board.
This is especially true when trying to make a system diagram on the fly or come back to a previous discussion...
Couldn't agree more! That's the exact reason why we're working on our app (sharetheboard.com). If you're willing, I'd love some feedback on the app (or roadmap, for that matter).
I know people whose teams used to meet in person a few times a year. They loved it.
I know someone who had to drive 3 hours for a weekly customer meeting. They started to resent every person they saw those days.
I know someone who had to drive 3 hours for a weekly customer meeting. They started to resent every person they saw those days.
> but on the other hand it also sucks to only see your teammates exclusively on zoom
Doesn't bother me
Doesn't bother me
I can't personally say with confidence that these big companies are not being influenced by political motivations.
I'm confident that if CBDs essentially die because of remote working it will be a financial apocalypse. There is so much wealth tied up in inflated inner city property that if it is suddenly not in demand anymore there will be a huge correction that is going to hurt a lot.
I'm confident that if CBDs essentially die because of remote working it will be a financial apocalypse. There is so much wealth tied up in inflated inner city property that if it is suddenly not in demand anymore there will be a huge correction that is going to hurt a lot.
I can't say that the "health of CBDs" has come up in my company's discussions over the future of remote work. And I'm not sure why the company would care. We don't own any real estate. We lease our office space. I think this must be true of 95%+ of companies in Boston/Cambridge, where I'm located.
And similar statements came up from the C-level at my previous company as well.
I know members of c-level meet with politicians and even leaders at the likes of Google. Are these conversations happening? I don't know, but I would not be surprised.
I know members of c-level meet with politicians and even leaders at the likes of Google. Are these conversations happening? I don't know, but I would not be surprised.
Sure, but Google, one of the highlighted companies in the featured article, owns an estimated 100B+ of commercial real estate.
According to Forbes it’s 50B+: https://news.yahoo.com/google-doubles-down-commercial-real-1...
Only if they prefer people
working less hours. I get so much more done and stay working much later when I am just working right there. When I have to go in, I don’t go in till after my kids school starts and I return before the someone needs me. Now I wake up, chat with IST team, do a little breakfast wake up school stuff, take some meetings, and work for like fourteen hours without getting too stressed or that feeling I have to escape the cold and sunless office. When I am stuck on something I can take a walk.
Management is terrified of remote work because it reveals how useless many middle managers actually are.
I honestly feel the opposite. It's more necessary for people managers to be greasing the skids of communication and inter-organizational awareness when I'm not bumping into people in the halls.
If a manager needs to do this it’s a smell of other team issues. A solid team is self organizing and delivers. You can mask the smell with someone policing... I guess it kind of works but will always be meh.
A self organizing team is a managers nightmare. They end up transitioning to a QC role which is 1000% better use of their time
A self organizing team is a managers nightmare. They end up transitioning to a QC role which is 1000% better use of their time
No, it is inefficient for all team members to be tied into the priorities of and in communication with all other relevant parts of the organization. Specialization is good.
I often feel like people started swinging the pendulum away from manager-as-micromanaging-supervisor, and just letting it keep swinging to managers-are-pointless, and failed to notice when it swung past the useful managers-as-support-staff equilibrium point between those extremes.
I often feel like people started swinging the pendulum away from manager-as-micromanaging-supervisor, and just letting it keep swinging to managers-are-pointless, and failed to notice when it swung past the useful managers-as-support-staff equilibrium point between those extremes.
I'm not disagreeing. Great managers are needed, and can still be great managers in a remote team.
One implication of work from home is that it makes manager performance more auditable. Everything a manager does is logged.
Exactly. And when most of your time is spent bringing people into your office to ask them for a project summary you could get online, remote shines a bright light on it.
Pre-pandemic, the growth of remote orgs was borderline rampant. Covid just accelerated the timelines. We'll see some rebound back to offices, but the ball has been set in motion:
Remote work is here to stay.
Remote work is here to stay.
[deleted]
A larger role will be the team you work on. If the team wants to WFH then your set, if that’s what you want. If your team goes into the office they will expect you to do the same. Companies that have a heavy management layer will be more likely to say to get real work done you need to be in the office - just a hunch.
Personally, my team would be half day a week encouraged (the same day for everyone), all else optional.
Personally, my team would be half day a week encouraged (the same day for everyone), all else optional.
Is “encouraged” here also optional or is this a euphemism for required?
It’s hard to say. I think it will depend on the group social pressure. Encouraged = at least give it a decent try. But if it sucks for you and damages your life then stay home. Nobody wants to be around a sour puss.
I suspect there will be a great sort between remote-only and office-only, with employees choosing one or the other. Some people really love working from home and some really hate it. Both models can work well, but what works less well is a lot of mixing of the two models within a single organization.
What I'm curious about though is what level this sort might happen at. Maybe it doesn't need to be at the company level. Maybe it can be at the level of an "office" (in abstract terms), which I think is what Stripe seems to be trying to do with their "remote headquarters", or maybe it could be whole product orgs choose one or the other. Or maybe it works at even more granularity, down to the individual team level.
I'm not sure how it will work, but something the pandemic has taught me is that there are a lot of people who love the office, and a lot of people who love being remote. I think figuring out some way to give both kinds of people what they want, somehow, is going to be the way to go.
What I'm curious about though is what level this sort might happen at. Maybe it doesn't need to be at the company level. Maybe it can be at the level of an "office" (in abstract terms), which I think is what Stripe seems to be trying to do with their "remote headquarters", or maybe it could be whole product orgs choose one or the other. Or maybe it works at even more granularity, down to the individual team level.
I'm not sure how it will work, but something the pandemic has taught me is that there are a lot of people who love the office, and a lot of people who love being remote. I think figuring out some way to give both kinds of people what they want, somehow, is going to be the way to go.
Sad to see it, but I'm not terribly surprised either. I wrote about this after reading a few articles as well [0]. I also wonder if a lot of it is sunk cost related to office space.
[0]: https://phillipcarter.dev/posts/remote-skeptical/
[0]: https://phillipcarter.dev/posts/remote-skeptical/
Our office lease ends in a few months. Yet we’re looking at moving to a larger space to accommodate all the new hires. I don’t think this has as much to do with sunk cost as it does with increasing collaboration.
[deleted]
Is this really a shock? As far as I know Google never said anything about remote work being the new norm. Certainly some other tech companies like Twitter made more bold statements. But they are in the minority. Seems like most of the large tech companies are planning on heading back the office perhaps with some additional WFH flexibility.
[deleted]
They’re going to try. A lot of tech “benefits” revolve around quirky office space. When you remove that you have something missing. Furthermore if they didn’t press it, there would probably be an even greater collapse to the real estate market.
> A lot of tech “benefits” revolve around quirky office space. When you remove that you have something missing.
Trading one benefit for a different benefit is a pretty normal thing to do. If you can offer "work remotely", why would you need to offer "we have a quirky office"?
> Furthermore if they didn’t press it, there would probably be an even greater collapse to the real estate market.
...so what? Why would the companies care? To the extent they rent offices, that's just a huge, unalloyed benefit. To the extent they own extra offices and rent them out to other companies, sure, that's bad for the landlord, but that business model crucially depends on a bunch of other companies renting.
Trading one benefit for a different benefit is a pretty normal thing to do. If you can offer "work remotely", why would you need to offer "we have a quirky office"?
> Furthermore if they didn’t press it, there would probably be an even greater collapse to the real estate market.
...so what? Why would the companies care? To the extent they rent offices, that's just a huge, unalloyed benefit. To the extent they own extra offices and rent them out to other companies, sure, that's bad for the landlord, but that business model crucially depends on a bunch of other companies renting.
There is no collapse in any real estate markets, at all.
Midtown Manhattan RE is definitely seeing a contraction, as is retail across most of NYC. Can’t speak to California real estate, although my understanding is that several tech companies have paid large amounts (8 figures) to terminate leases early.
“Collapse” I’d agree is too strong of a word, but there is clearly distress in some RE asset classes.
“Collapse” I’d agree is too strong of a word, but there is clearly distress in some RE asset classes.
I think he is talking about commercial real estate -- which very well might collapse.
[deleted]
Company A: pays a ton for office, cleaning, etc. Pays employees the SF/NYC rate.
Company B: pays for team Meetups once a quarter or half a year. Workers take slightly lower pay because they can live anywhere.
Company B has way more bang for the buck on average.
Company B: pays for team Meetups once a quarter or half a year. Workers take slightly lower pay because they can live anywhere.
Company B has way more bang for the buck on average.
> "If they want to become a people manager, if they want to get increasing responsibilities, or if they want to build a culture within their teams, how are we going to do that remotely?" he asked.
I love how these executives are all of a sudden so worried about my career trajectory. Maybe you should assume I’ve thought about this trade-off and decided that I’m fine with no promotions if it meant I can work remotely.
EDIT: It just seems so suspicious that a whole bunch of things they never cared about in the past are now oh-so-important. Like those now-critical serendipitous hallway conversations. In the past, we’d be chastised for spending too much time at the water cooler, but now they are a vital reason to return to the office!
It’s almost like in the absence of measurable evidence they are scrambling to find something, anything, to justify their already-made decision after-the-fact.
I love how these executives are all of a sudden so worried about my career trajectory. Maybe you should assume I’ve thought about this trade-off and decided that I’m fine with no promotions if it meant I can work remotely.
EDIT: It just seems so suspicious that a whole bunch of things they never cared about in the past are now oh-so-important. Like those now-critical serendipitous hallway conversations. In the past, we’d be chastised for spending too much time at the water cooler, but now they are a vital reason to return to the office!
It’s almost like in the absence of measurable evidence they are scrambling to find something, anything, to justify their already-made decision after-the-fact.
We are going to get more responsibility by being good at remote people management! :)
aka: We are going to take YOUR job since you apparently can't adapt.
aka: We are going to take YOUR job since you apparently can't adapt.
When you learn more and take on more responsibility and have more impact it helps the company, not just you. So they’re incentivized to keep you on a growth trajectory, regardless of your preferences.
I think it was more of an indictment on the actual effectiveness of management's attempts at providing career growth in the general sense.
Can always job hop for promotions, no need for your manager to be involved
Can always job hop for promotions, no need for your manager to be involved
It's more than that, job hopping seems like the only way to actually get promotions.
[deleted]
What's especially weird about this is that any executive will tell you they do a ton of their job on the phone and doing video calls both internally and with customers.
Speaking for myself, my job has become increasingly less local the further up I've moved, specifically because my influence is broader and requires touchpoints across the org regardless of geography.
Now as a staff manager? Yeah, remote 1:1s and coaching is inferior to in person, at least IME. But that's about the only part of my job I would prefer to do in person. And its just that, a preference, as witnessed by the fact that I continue to do it even though I work from home full time right now and haven't seen my direct reports in person in over a year.
Speaking for myself, my job has become increasingly less local the further up I've moved, specifically because my influence is broader and requires touchpoints across the org regardless of geography.
Now as a staff manager? Yeah, remote 1:1s and coaching is inferior to in person, at least IME. But that's about the only part of my job I would prefer to do in person. And its just that, a preference, as witnessed by the fact that I continue to do it even though I work from home full time right now and haven't seen my direct reports in person in over a year.
Also, this is bullshit. As if you can’t build culture remotely. SMH
From experience, its the boomer class of engineers stuck in middle management that are totally against, and want to sabotage it.
Exactly. They’re unwilling to adapt or understand that their sphere of influence will be diminished.
Haha. Good luck taking it off people. Anyone remember what happened to Yahoo after they pulled work from home?
In the fight for talent, however, it is not clear that they have the upper hand, because, I, for one, will be more that willing to offer your employee the ability to work from home. I will ask that the team work out an appropriate culture, which probably includes coming to the office at least once a week -- but certainly not on the other hand four days a week.
And I work for a bigco, so either you are going to have to throw even more money at them to show up to your dumb box everyday, or I will win. :)