A Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Permanently Flipped Workplace(blog.usejournal.com)
blog.usejournal.com
A Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Permanently Flipped Workplace
https://blog.usejournal.com/a-hitchhikers-guide-to-the-permanently-flipped-workplace-40a1106764f0
69 comments
So long as an employer has approved you to go remote from an office, the cost of you coming into an office now and then is on them. And, frankly, if you just move without telling them, you're potentially committing tax fraud. Of course, it's possible to reach informal agreements--let me go remote and I'll pay for coming in now and then. Though, personally, I'd hesitate to do so because that agreement might not last beyond getting a new manager.
some employers do pay for employee transportation but for this case it depends on how you got hired. this is a point for negotiation.
assuming you previously lived near the office and then decided to move without there being any benefit to the employer then why should they pay for your additional expenses?
unless of course they decide to cut your salary because of your new location. then it's up to negotiations again.
assuming you previously lived near the office and then decided to move without there being any benefit to the employer then why should they pay for your additional expenses?
unless of course they decide to cut your salary because of your new location. then it's up to negotiations again.
As long as they also pay you for the office space you would have used had you been local it seems fair to me.
It's an interesting question. If you're a sales guy, traveling is part of your job and the company pays for it. Anyone who is required to be in the office is assumed to be "commuting" and that is often not compensated (but sometimes is if you use public transit etc). So maybe the fuzzy line is personal travel to work isn't compensated but travel away from work/home for the purposes of work is.
I'm not sure there is any rock solid logic behind any of this though.
I'm not sure there is any rock solid logic behind any of this though.
> I strongly suggest a blanket policy for video-on during all Zoom calls.
How about: Hell, no!?
Video is a distraction at best. Usually it prevents discussion by emphasizing shallow sidechannels to the communication that add nothing but mislead everyone. People need to say what they think and not rely on nonverbal clues. Those only work in person, not over video. A talking head doesn't have posture. Lag means mimic and speech are misaligned.
Just treat it like a phone call, no video, just maybe shared slides or whiteboards. More happiness, more productivity, less misunderstandings.
How about: Hell, no!?
Video is a distraction at best. Usually it prevents discussion by emphasizing shallow sidechannels to the communication that add nothing but mislead everyone. People need to say what they think and not rely on nonverbal clues. Those only work in person, not over video. A talking head doesn't have posture. Lag means mimic and speech are misaligned.
Just treat it like a phone call, no video, just maybe shared slides or whiteboards. More happiness, more productivity, less misunderstandings.
> People need to say what they think and not rely on nonverbal clues.
Sorry, but this just isn't how human beings work. Those non-verbal queues may not be important to you, but they carry a huge amount of information that is apparently passing you by. And not small, unimportant things, but big things like that quiet shy QA engineer in the corner of the room who clearly wants to say something but can't find an opening or the organiser getting aggravated by a side-discussion.
Sorry, but this just isn't how human beings work. Those non-verbal queues may not be important to you, but they carry a huge amount of information that is apparently passing you by. And not small, unimportant things, but big things like that quiet shy QA engineer in the corner of the room who clearly wants to say something but can't find an opening or the organiser getting aggravated by a side-discussion.
People have a lot of good reasons not to turn on their cameras, though.
If you live in a small house or apartment, there are often going to be other people in the background who likely do not want to be on camera.
It is one thing if people choose to work from home; you can have a reasonable expectation that they should have a proper work setup at their house.
That is not what is happening now.
If you live in a small house or apartment, there are often going to be other people in the background who likely do not want to be on camera.
It is one thing if people choose to work from home; you can have a reasonable expectation that they should have a proper work setup at their house.
That is not what is happening now.
Digital background on Zoom should help you there. One of my coworkers has their apartment with no people in it set as their digital background.
That's a cool idea!
[deleted]
also it's much harder to read the internet, check your phone or leave your desk during a call when you have video on. People did all of these back during the in-person days, but it took more effort or less caring. Now it seems S.O.P.
I actually agree with you, those clues are very important. But video conferencing is bad at conveying those clues. So bad actually, that apart from the QA engineer waving at the camera, you wouldn't notice. There is no corner he can shrink into, you will never see that body language looking at his head. He won't shrink away from the people in the room, because there are no people to shrink away from. All those things require actual presence to work. A camera is no substitute and will always mislead you.
Yeah. No one should generally be forced to put their video on but it should usually be the default for smaller meetings.
I worked on two separate remote teams over the past year.
The first team had video on and zoom calls and my current team has video off. Small anecdotal sample size, but in my experience with the video-on team there was a much stronger sense that I knew who the team was, felt responsible to them, and generally we felt more cohesive as a team even though I never met them in person.
My current team no one ever turns their cameras on, I only know what they look like from their employee IDs, and I have zero sense of camaraderie with them. Meetings tend to drag on at least twice as long, since people can easily check out and stop paying attention if something doesn’t seem relevant to them. There’s no small talk or banter, and I find I just kind of listen passively while working until I hear my name and then jump back to full attention. I definitely get the sense that’s what everyone else does as well, since very few people ever speak up unless explicitly called on. Everything feels less tight and less personal. It’s great for the individual employee’s ability to crank out work, but if you care about the actual team cohesiveness and productivity, enforced video on feels like it can make a difference.
The first team had video on and zoom calls and my current team has video off. Small anecdotal sample size, but in my experience with the video-on team there was a much stronger sense that I knew who the team was, felt responsible to them, and generally we felt more cohesive as a team even though I never met them in person.
My current team no one ever turns their cameras on, I only know what they look like from their employee IDs, and I have zero sense of camaraderie with them. Meetings tend to drag on at least twice as long, since people can easily check out and stop paying attention if something doesn’t seem relevant to them. There’s no small talk or banter, and I find I just kind of listen passively while working until I hear my name and then jump back to full attention. I definitely get the sense that’s what everyone else does as well, since very few people ever speak up unless explicitly called on. Everything feels less tight and less personal. It’s great for the individual employee’s ability to crank out work, but if you care about the actual team cohesiveness and productivity, enforced video on feels like it can make a difference.
Hmm...could it be that your current team is over-using synchronous communication (calls) where they should be using asynchronous communication?
Intersperse occasional video calls for the other stuff.
Intersperse occasional video calls for the other stuff.
In these two instances we have about the same amount of synchronous video calls on a weekly basis, so I don’t think there’s a difference there. I do agree that in general teams have too many synchronous calls that could be done via email or Slack messages, but as that factor did not vary among these two teams I think it’s a valid apples to apples comparison.
The sidebar discussion point is interesting: this is an area where technology could help out a lot by only sharing those 2 (or 3 etc) audio streams with one another.
That has the potential of being a lot less disruptive than people in a real physical room chatting.
Course this will be hard to implement, just like in chat rooms where it easy to get overwhelmed by more than one conversation. Maybe have voice clues like “ask Jimmy about project Thunderdome” creating a TODO list that then are matched up with people and prompted to engage when they are free.
That has the potential of being a lot less disruptive than people in a real physical room chatting.
Course this will be hard to implement, just like in chat rooms where it easy to get overwhelmed by more than one conversation. Maybe have voice clues like “ask Jimmy about project Thunderdome” creating a TODO list that then are matched up with people and prompted to engage when they are free.
My personal objection here is more like: I have a 600-square-foot living space, I don't trust background replacement all that much, and people keep insisting on using video conferencing that doesn't have background replacement in the first place. If you want me to leave video on all the time, give me a $100K bonus so I can upgrade to a home with a dedicated office.
At my office it's noticeable (well, modulo sample size) that video goes on between people who trust each other and off otherwise. Call with subcontractor? Video off. CEO on the call? Video off. Engineers only? Video on. Means you don't have to monitor your expression all the time.
This is exactly what I've noticed as well, the closer the people in the call work with each other the more likely the video will be on. The main exception being (at least for me and those I've spoken to), one-on-one it's usually on, even if we've not spoken directly before.
I have a standup every morning and am happy we are not obligated or somehow pressured to turn video on.
I don't have to shave. I don't have to put on a business casual shirt. I don't have to clean up my living room. I don't have to be aware I am being looked at the whole time - seemingly paying attention when someone rambles on about a topic which I am not involved in, not scratching my ear when I want to, whatever.
Every two weeks or so, we do have a meeting where people turn their camera on, which is fine. Every morning would be too much of a hassle with everything else going on though.
I don't have to shave. I don't have to put on a business casual shirt. I don't have to clean up my living room. I don't have to be aware I am being looked at the whole time - seemingly paying attention when someone rambles on about a topic which I am not involved in, not scratching my ear when I want to, whatever.
Every two weeks or so, we do have a meeting where people turn their camera on, which is fine. Every morning would be too much of a hassle with everything else going on though.
We're all on video with all our meetings. I shave about once every three weeks. Most are wearing t shirts all the time and nobody cares about attire.
I don't really understand the big deal. I usually have video on. I'm essentially always in a T-shirt. If I have to run down and get a coffee or whatever, I shut video off. I'm on video from my desktop and I'm generally in agenda/email/etc. on another system but I can do it on my desktop as well.
I'm working about 80% right now from my back yard in shorts, t-shirt and flip flops. However that's no different than when in the office. Not sure why people are still dressing up for work calls.
I don't actually like working outside that much because of screen glare etc. But, yeah, I'll wear a polo shirt "uniform" when I'm recording a presentation or whatever but otherwise I'm wearing a T.
I have 2 apple trees in my hard which provide very good shade. I'm using 2 laptops, my newer one for coding and the other one on a milk crate for hangouts. The big issue is actually when I don't notice sun dappling through and I get a neck burn.
Indeed. I work for a company whose portfolio includes a well known video chat/collaboration tool, and internally we've not only (unofficially) discouraged video where not necessary (it seems middle management seems unable to catch this clue), but asking employees to start staggering meeting start times to times other than :00 and :30 to keep some "big bang" load off the infrastructure.
That's an interesting technical phenomenon, do you do anything special for this kind of pulsed load?
Not to my knowledge, and to be honest I don't know if the suggested to stagger start times was based in evidence or just "gut feel", and/or what effect it may have had. I know that a lot of my meetings have adopted "weird" start times, which is fine w/me; it's still just a notice by my calendar client.
[deleted]
Regardless of the reason for the article, the sheer quantity of links to all the back-office HR-related outsourcing companies is impressive.
One might say that space is over-invested; at the same time, it does make a startup a lot easier to operate.
One might say that space is over-invested; at the same time, it does make a startup a lot easier to operate.
Video is unfortunately a poor substitute for in-person interaction but better than voice alone.
I suspect over time that teams building a defined product will persevere while teams that relied upon to design a product, such as my own, will experience a gradual breakdown of trust as individuals split off in their thinking. It’s hard to find words sometimes for a concept that’s strictly a mental product and not everyone is practiced or skilled at elocution. Strong designers with poor vocal skills will undoubtedly experience frustration with remote work which is essentially a voice-primary medium.
I suspect over time that teams building a defined product will persevere while teams that relied upon to design a product, such as my own, will experience a gradual breakdown of trust as individuals split off in their thinking. It’s hard to find words sometimes for a concept that’s strictly a mental product and not everyone is practiced or skilled at elocution. Strong designers with poor vocal skills will undoubtedly experience frustration with remote work which is essentially a voice-primary medium.
This permanent work from home theory sits really wrong with me. In particular this part;
> Permanently upgrade all employee’s work from home environments so they are the same quality as their in-office stations. This may come in the form of stipends, lump sum payments, or redistribution of office property, depending on job function.
It's extremely unlikely that a company is going to offer me a lump sum payment that anywhere near makes up for the increased floor space and altered layout of my home to give me a proper office-like environment to work in. Few companies will shell out $50,000 for me to extend my home to build an office, and I see no reason why I should work for an organisation that demands I do so myself. For many people in HCOL areas it's totally unreasonable to expect people to shell out double their rent or more to get an extra bedroom/office space.
Look, I live in New Zealand. I can tell you that this whole "everything has changed forever" attitude that I am hearing from Americans will pass, very quickly, when this pandemic ends. We will most likely see employers becoming a lot more flexible with WFH arrangements, which is a really nice silver lining. But the idea that the office is done for? Forget about it.
> Permanently upgrade all employee’s work from home environments so they are the same quality as their in-office stations. This may come in the form of stipends, lump sum payments, or redistribution of office property, depending on job function.
It's extremely unlikely that a company is going to offer me a lump sum payment that anywhere near makes up for the increased floor space and altered layout of my home to give me a proper office-like environment to work in. Few companies will shell out $50,000 for me to extend my home to build an office, and I see no reason why I should work for an organisation that demands I do so myself. For many people in HCOL areas it's totally unreasonable to expect people to shell out double their rent or more to get an extra bedroom/office space.
Look, I live in New Zealand. I can tell you that this whole "everything has changed forever" attitude that I am hearing from Americans will pass, very quickly, when this pandemic ends. We will most likely see employers becoming a lot more flexible with WFH arrangements, which is a really nice silver lining. But the idea that the office is done for? Forget about it.
I strongly agree with your last paragraph. It is a very bad habit, from within the event, for people to conclude that everything has changed, that this thing, which is ephemeral, will have the particular long term impact that the authors are wishing for.
There may be long term effects, but ... In the valley, the number of people I personally know who are moving - not talking about it, actually moving - out of the city, in particular, but also out of the peninsula, is actually quite surprising. But I saw this happen in 2000-2002, as well, and half of them moved back by 2004.
There may be long term effects, but ... In the valley, the number of people I personally know who are moving - not talking about it, actually moving - out of the city, in particular, but also out of the peninsula, is actually quite surprising. But I saw this happen in 2000-2002, as well, and half of them moved back by 2004.
The housing market in the Santa Cruz mountains is exploding as people from the city are buying homes in the mountains, enabled by WFH policies.
Yeah, though, once offices reopen and the remote employees are being passed over for promotions and raises, I suspect they'll be back right quick.
Or maybe people will decide that as long as they can afford to live in the Santa Cruz mountains, all the office crap doesn't really matter very much. More generally I expect a lot of people are rethinking their priorities.
If the difference in cost and quality of living this enables is sufficient maybe fewer people will chase promotions.
Heck, even single family homes on the Peninsula and in the East Bay are flying off the market as people leave the metro areas and look for places with yards and pools.
Yeah. I've been strongly thinking it's time to sell my house in the peninsula.
[deleted]
Why and when do you think it will end?
Did you see how quickly the networks were upgraded? Within weeks around my way... So, infrastructure was upgraded quickly.
You are probably aware of what's going on in Australia - where lockdowns are returning, with certain tower blocks in Melbourne locked in, and the army making house to house calls.
Did you see how quickly the networks were upgraded? Within weeks around my way... So, infrastructure was upgraded quickly.
You are probably aware of what's going on in Australia - where lockdowns are returning, with certain tower blocks in Melbourne locked in, and the army making house to house calls.
It will end because many people derive a good portion of their day-to-day socialization from work. This is especially true of people new to cities, younger folks without immediate family in the area, and so on.
Here's why I'll head back to the office the first chance I get:
1. I don't want to live my entire life within a 750 square foot allotment.
2. I find my ability to balance work and life enhanced by going somewhere to work. The physical separation between the two creates a mental / emotional separation.
3. Socializing with a bunch of people.
4. Enhanced impact: much of the truly innovative and impactful stuff I've done in my career originated from ad-hoc conversations with people around me. It's not the same over Slack.
5. Someone on my team announced on Friday they were leaving the team and expressed how much they enjoyed working with us over the last 6 months. My immediate reaction was... wait, we worked together? for 6 months? I don't really know who you are. The only people I actually feel connected to at work are the ones I worked with before this madness kicked off.
Humans are fundamentally social animals. That's why it will end.
As for when? Once herd immunity is established, either the American way by throwing old folks and the immunocompromised under the bus until nobody's left, or a vaccine, which will likely be available in global quantities by EOY 2021 -- according to manufacturers in late-stage trials. That's when it will end.
IMO, of course.
Here's why I'll head back to the office the first chance I get:
1. I don't want to live my entire life within a 750 square foot allotment.
2. I find my ability to balance work and life enhanced by going somewhere to work. The physical separation between the two creates a mental / emotional separation.
3. Socializing with a bunch of people.
4. Enhanced impact: much of the truly innovative and impactful stuff I've done in my career originated from ad-hoc conversations with people around me. It's not the same over Slack.
5. Someone on my team announced on Friday they were leaving the team and expressed how much they enjoyed working with us over the last 6 months. My immediate reaction was... wait, we worked together? for 6 months? I don't really know who you are. The only people I actually feel connected to at work are the ones I worked with before this madness kicked off.
Humans are fundamentally social animals. That's why it will end.
As for when? Once herd immunity is established, either the American way by throwing old folks and the immunocompromised under the bus until nobody's left, or a vaccine, which will likely be available in global quantities by EOY 2021 -- according to manufacturers in late-stage trials. That's when it will end.
IMO, of course.
Counterpoint: I'm loving the increased time I have with my wife at home and flexible scheduling . I invested years of my life making friends outside of an office; I'm going out with them more, inviting them to galleries, playing board games with them a bunch.
The mistake was turning our workplace into our everything. Hail the new era, where we find our friends some other way.
The mistake was turning our workplace into our everything. Hail the new era, where we find our friends some other way.
I don't disagree with you, but there's a hidden third dynamic here. If we agree some people want to work in offices and some people don't, we'll need to accommodate both. We'll have offices for some and remote for others. However, now there's two groups -- and I'll dig up some studies, but I believe remote workers are passed over for promotions and raises since they're out-of-sight, out-of-mind for the in-office crowd. This is going to pressure a return to the status quo IMO.
I think that there are four groups who will really embrace going back to the office, and I think it will gradually change the underlying narrative about what it means for someone to prefer to be in the office:
1. People who are fantastic team players in an organization that does a good job of facilitating group work. I hate the term “team player”, and I think most teams are a farce, but watching an effective team work is like magic to me. This is the best outcome, imho, but I think that this will be a tiny percentage of the folks who embrace going back in (mainly due to workplace structure and incentives, but that’s a slightly different issue).
2. Extroverts. These folks just need to be around other people if you want them to be productive. This group is a push — neither good nor bad imho.
3. The office politicians. My guess is that this will be the vast majority of people who rush back to work. They look busy, but they don’t do very much, yet they know how to work the system. These folks are a tax on mid- and large-sized companies, and I think that folks who prefer being in the office will be perceived as being this type of person, rightly or wrongly.
4. Folks who have tight living quarters or some sort of taxing home restraints. This could be a small living space that is common in a large city, a family who is not particularly accommodating (e.g., kids or a demanding spouse), etc. I have a friend for whom going to the office and working feels like a break for him and his wife due to having three young kids at home — I totally understand.
Part of the potential stigmatization of being a politico who goes in all the time or someone who prefers WFH can be mitigated by having office time be limited to one or two days a week. This puts everyone on equal footing, while reducing a lot of the burden of working in an office. One issue with this is that it still means that people need to live somewhat in the same area as their workplace, but I think that this type of arrangement increases the radius of reasonable living places as related to distance from workplace by quite a bit.
Note that I am shooting from the hip here. I personally think that a large percentage of the innovative and disruptive companies moving forward will be some form of remote-first work. I think this mainly due to the incredible flexibility in hiring that remote-first provides. That said, it will only happen with folks who are comfortable with the format, and I think that is mostly (although definitely not exclusively) people who are (spitballing here) in their 20s or younger.
1. People who are fantastic team players in an organization that does a good job of facilitating group work. I hate the term “team player”, and I think most teams are a farce, but watching an effective team work is like magic to me. This is the best outcome, imho, but I think that this will be a tiny percentage of the folks who embrace going back in (mainly due to workplace structure and incentives, but that’s a slightly different issue).
2. Extroverts. These folks just need to be around other people if you want them to be productive. This group is a push — neither good nor bad imho.
3. The office politicians. My guess is that this will be the vast majority of people who rush back to work. They look busy, but they don’t do very much, yet they know how to work the system. These folks are a tax on mid- and large-sized companies, and I think that folks who prefer being in the office will be perceived as being this type of person, rightly or wrongly.
4. Folks who have tight living quarters or some sort of taxing home restraints. This could be a small living space that is common in a large city, a family who is not particularly accommodating (e.g., kids or a demanding spouse), etc. I have a friend for whom going to the office and working feels like a break for him and his wife due to having three young kids at home — I totally understand.
Part of the potential stigmatization of being a politico who goes in all the time or someone who prefers WFH can be mitigated by having office time be limited to one or two days a week. This puts everyone on equal footing, while reducing a lot of the burden of working in an office. One issue with this is that it still means that people need to live somewhat in the same area as their workplace, but I think that this type of arrangement increases the radius of reasonable living places as related to distance from workplace by quite a bit.
Note that I am shooting from the hip here. I personally think that a large percentage of the innovative and disruptive companies moving forward will be some form of remote-first work. I think this mainly due to the incredible flexibility in hiring that remote-first provides. That said, it will only happen with folks who are comfortable with the format, and I think that is mostly (although definitely not exclusively) people who are (spitballing here) in their 20s or younger.
I think I'm #1, definitely not #2 or #4 and with honesty a little bit of #3, if only because it's a necessary but not sufficient part of #1.
I've taken the summer off work rather than continue WFH because I just don't see myself or others being very effective and it destroyed my motivation and love for what we were doing. I manage 2 teams of 10 developers and truly believe they do better work when given time to work colocated. Funny enough my best was (and is) the only true 100% remote worker. He's strong technically & domain and I see how much extra effort he puts in to make remote work; I don't believe everyone else has the foundation or work ethic to do the same.
If we don't go back to a majority of colocated working I'll probably find another job or do something independent. If I'm going to work from home I might as well do it my way...
I've taken the summer off work rather than continue WFH because I just don't see myself or others being very effective and it destroyed my motivation and love for what we were doing. I manage 2 teams of 10 developers and truly believe they do better work when given time to work colocated. Funny enough my best was (and is) the only true 100% remote worker. He's strong technically & domain and I see how much extra effort he puts in to make remote work; I don't believe everyone else has the foundation or work ethic to do the same.
If we don't go back to a majority of colocated working I'll probably find another job or do something independent. If I'm going to work from home I might as well do it my way...
I appreciate your perspective and I'm afraid folks like yourself will be among the most affected long term. Based on everything I see, the "new normal" will be a lot more remote and at least partial working from home. I don't expect a lot of tech companies will go back to 4-5 days of office work as the standard. Where I work admittedly had a fairly significant remote/WFH component but it's pretty clear that it's going to go way up.
The people I know anxious to go back to the office are essentially all number 4. (For context, this is at a company that was already significantly remote/WFH.) People crammed in small urban apartments and people with kids that make it hard to work from home without constant distractions.
To other comments, those in small urban apartments who really want to keep living in the city--especially after restrictions let up--are also the group for whom working at home is also a crappy financial deal. For people who have decent home offices in houses and no longer need to do a long commute, this is a good deal financially. For people living in studios near the office who walked or biked to work, not so much.
>That said, it will only happen with folks who are comfortable with the format, and I think that is mostly (although definitely not exclusively) people who are (spitballing here) in their 20s or younger.
I would have thought the opposite. More senior people, used to working independently, who have nice houses in the suburbs or exurbs like ditching the commute in many cases and don't care about the office socializing. People in their 20s, in many cases, really miss being with their "team" in the office.
To other comments, those in small urban apartments who really want to keep living in the city--especially after restrictions let up--are also the group for whom working at home is also a crappy financial deal. For people who have decent home offices in houses and no longer need to do a long commute, this is a good deal financially. For people living in studios near the office who walked or biked to work, not so much.
>That said, it will only happen with folks who are comfortable with the format, and I think that is mostly (although definitely not exclusively) people who are (spitballing here) in their 20s or younger.
I would have thought the opposite. More senior people, used to working independently, who have nice houses in the suburbs or exurbs like ditching the commute in many cases and don't care about the office socializing. People in their 20s, in many cases, really miss being with their "team" in the office.
> I would have thought the opposite. More senior people, used to working independently, who have nice houses in the suburbs or exurbs like ditching the commute in many cases and don't care about the office socializing. People in their 20s, in many cases, really miss being with their "team" in the office.
Good point.
Most of that type of younger folks are dead weight anyway, imo, and my comment was related to the nature of high-performing, disruptive companies moving forward.
Maybe a clearer way of saying that is that I think a disproportionate percentage of the people who flock to high-performing remote workplace environments will be younger in general.
I definitely have seen an anecdotal correlation between age and effective use of typical WFH media. 60+ typically struggles, 50-60 slightly less. 40-50 seems to be natural if they are tech-oriented people, but closer to 50-60 if not. 30-40 (millennials) mostly get it. Folks in their teens and 20s seem to thrive in it more often than not.
Thanks for the comment. It will be interesting to see how the workplace ecology develops.
Good point.
Most of that type of younger folks are dead weight anyway, imo, and my comment was related to the nature of high-performing, disruptive companies moving forward.
Maybe a clearer way of saying that is that I think a disproportionate percentage of the people who flock to high-performing remote workplace environments will be younger in general.
I definitely have seen an anecdotal correlation between age and effective use of typical WFH media. 60+ typically struggles, 50-60 slightly less. 40-50 seems to be natural if they are tech-oriented people, but closer to 50-60 if not. 30-40 (millennials) mostly get it. Folks in their teens and 20s seem to thrive in it more often than not.
Thanks for the comment. It will be interesting to see how the workplace ecology develops.
The office politicians. My guess is that this will be the vast majority of people who rush back to work. They look busy, but they don’t do very much, yet they know how to work the system
Smart companies will have very easily figured out who those people are over the last few months. Sadly there are few smart companies.
Smart companies will have very easily figured out who those people are over the last few months. Sadly there are few smart companies.
On number 4, if all you need to do is go in one day per week, wouldn’t the radius increase to how far you can get in a roughly two hour flight? This opens up Seattle, Boise, Salt Lake, Las Vegas, Phoenix, LA, San Diego...
So long as the company pays for T&E. Otherwise the bill will add up.
Hopefully I never have to set foot inside a noisy distracting open office again. My current role was always designed to be remote.
I live in the suburbs of a major metropolitan city where we just bought a 3100 square foot house, brand new build, great school system in 2016. Total cost - $2200/month with around an $11K down payment. Any average SAAS CRUD developer making the average pay with 5 years of experience could afford it.
I balance my work and home by closing the door to my office.
I live in the suburbs of a major metropolitan city where we just bought a 3100 square foot house, brand new build, great school system in 2016. Total cost - $2200/month with around an $11K down payment. Any average SAAS CRUD developer making the average pay with 5 years of experience could afford it.
I balance my work and home by closing the door to my office.
> It will end because many people derive a good portion of their day-to-day socialization from work.
People did this because it was the easiest thing.
When you work from home, you still derive a goodly portion of social interaction from work, using appropriate media. What else happens is you discover a whole world of life outside the office too, and that life is vastly more expansive and valuable in the long term.
You're not a job. You're not even a career. The cow orkers you see from time to time at the office are ephemeral friends at best as you move on to different jobs. Your family, spouse, kids, neighbours, religious or sports community, or local pub are all better and more appropriate lonog-term social commitments than your workplace.
People did this because it was the easiest thing.
When you work from home, you still derive a goodly portion of social interaction from work, using appropriate media. What else happens is you discover a whole world of life outside the office too, and that life is vastly more expansive and valuable in the long term.
You're not a job. You're not even a career. The cow orkers you see from time to time at the office are ephemeral friends at best as you move on to different jobs. Your family, spouse, kids, neighbours, religious or sports community, or local pub are all better and more appropriate lonog-term social commitments than your workplace.
I think WFH will be very different when there isn’t a global pandemic going on. You can have more working environment flexibility with public or coworking spaces and it will be much easier to have a more social life.
In between jobs, I enjoyed freelancing at a coworking place for people in programming fields called Code & Supply in Pittsburgh. I also enjoyed a Makerspace in Miami called Moonlighter makespace which had coworking tables, 3D printers, a CNC machine and other items. I image more niche type spaces may grow if WFH continues after COVID.
In between jobs, I enjoyed freelancing at a coworking place for people in programming fields called Code & Supply in Pittsburgh. I also enjoyed a Makerspace in Miami called Moonlighter makespace which had coworking tables, 3D printers, a CNC machine and other items. I image more niche type spaces may grow if WFH continues after COVID.
Being socially isolated might end then but it doesn’t have to be by going into an office.
Perhaps now people will start to socialize with their friends more often during normal working hours. Now you can drive whenever you want to see people meaning that rush hour traffic won’t kill off meeting people that are 15 miles away as it will take forever to get there. Just go at 11am for lunch.
Perhaps now people will start to socialize with their friends more often during normal working hours. Now you can drive whenever you want to see people meaning that rush hour traffic won’t kill off meeting people that are 15 miles away as it will take forever to get there. Just go at 11am for lunch.
Ive pushed back hard against video on for everyone. There is usually very little gained for everyone having video on besides allowing the meeting host to see who’s paying attention. If I’m spending time with my friends that’s different because the point is to see their faces and be social, but my coworkers I don’t need to see their faces just their presentation.
You've just got to love the tone of these articles: the future of work is here. You don't have any control over it, you don't have any say over it. If it's cheaper for us to make you work in your bedroom for the rest of your life, then that's just how it's going to work. This decision has already been made for you.
> Set clear guidelines for what should be communicated where (meetings vs. e-mail vs. Asana vs. Slack vs. text message, vs. phone calls) and what are expected response times on each medium. Hold everyone at every level accountable for abiding by these guidelines...
John, I noticed that your response time to Slack messages has fallen behind your email response rate and your Asana turnaround time. Is there something you're not enjoying about your new freedom?
> Set clear guidelines for what should be communicated where (meetings vs. e-mail vs. Asana vs. Slack vs. text message, vs. phone calls) and what are expected response times on each medium. Hold everyone at every level accountable for abiding by these guidelines...
John, I noticed that your response time to Slack messages has fallen behind your email response rate and your Asana turnaround time. Is there something you're not enjoying about your new freedom?
This is pretty much what happens on high-performing teams, but not quite how you seemed to present it.
1. Expectations are set at a reasonable level, not a “jump when I say jump, damn it!” level.
2. If someone is not meeting expectations, people check in to see if they can help. If something is not working consistently, then adjustments to the process need to be made. Occasionally the issue is the person in the job — that is, they can’t do it. This is a hiring issue that will need to be addressed. They need to be put in a position they can succeed in or they need to be removed.
1. Expectations are set at a reasonable level, not a “jump when I say jump, damn it!” level.
2. If someone is not meeting expectations, people check in to see if they can help. If something is not working consistently, then adjustments to the process need to be made. Occasionally the issue is the person in the job — that is, they can’t do it. This is a hiring issue that will need to be addressed. They need to be put in a position they can succeed in or they need to be removed.
> The second wave of COVID-19 infections has dashed all illusions of going back to the way things before
I didn't read this much further, honestly. It's exhausting to keep reading authors who don't really invest time in understanding the dynamics of what's going on.
For those who want to dive in to this particular leaf: https://theconversation.com/the-us-isnt-in-a-second-wave-of-...
It really is useful to try and understand these things so you don't go around making muddied predictions.
(Also I should note that I disagree with some things in that linked article, in case anyone is feeling like attacking other points that it makes)
I didn't read this much further, honestly. It's exhausting to keep reading authors who don't really invest time in understanding the dynamics of what's going on.
For those who want to dive in to this particular leaf: https://theconversation.com/the-us-isnt-in-a-second-wave-of-...
It really is useful to try and understand these things so you don't go around making muddied predictions.
(Also I should note that I disagree with some things in that linked article, in case anyone is feeling like attacking other points that it makes)
I think this may have devolved into nitpicking semantics.
While a "second wave" I don't think is a widespread phenomenon in the sense of cases dying down and then coming back in a given place, some places could be considered to have a "second wave" in the sense that their wave has or will peak later than the wave in other places.
For instance, Florida isn't having a second wave relative to itself, but it could be construed as a second wave relative to NY or NJ. It seems to me to boil down to a different arbitrary definition.
While a "second wave" I don't think is a widespread phenomenon in the sense of cases dying down and then coming back in a given place, some places could be considered to have a "second wave" in the sense that their wave has or will peak later than the wave in other places.
For instance, Florida isn't having a second wave relative to itself, but it could be construed as a second wave relative to NY or NJ. It seems to me to boil down to a different arbitrary definition.
It's quite important semantically because for people who don't stay well informed 'second wave' might imply that areas which have "gone through" the wave are benig hit again, which so far is not the case.
Essentially a lot of news reporting on this at the moment seems to be fearmongering and maybe an attempt at face-saving from politicians, who will at some point not be able to escape the reality that many of the measures they instituted were not the ones which would actually have saved lives (such as stricter policies about care homes).
Essentially a lot of news reporting on this at the moment seems to be fearmongering and maybe an attempt at face-saving from politicians, who will at some point not be able to escape the reality that many of the measures they instituted were not the ones which would actually have saved lives (such as stricter policies about care homes).
[deleted]
This just reads like shilling for a bunch of random products. Not worth the few minutes to read.
[deleted]
So the author is a GP in a VC firm focusing on the future of work", who thinks that many (most?) of the challenges of the "permanently flipped workplace" can be solved with the combination of SASS tooling and essentially mission statements. I'm sorry but this type of advice is neither actionable or helpful:
"Establish and communicate clear guidelines.."
"Engage managers in building the right workflow for their respective teams."
"Do whatever is necessary to achieve executive-level clarity on your priorities, values, and goals"
"Interview team leaders and managers on what unites them as a team in both theory and in practice."
...And on it goes. The only thing I can conclude is that in this flipped-around future of work everyone works in HR.
"Establish and communicate clear guidelines.."
"Engage managers in building the right workflow for their respective teams."
"Do whatever is necessary to achieve executive-level clarity on your priorities, values, and goals"
"Interview team leaders and managers on what unites them as a team in both theory and in practice."
...And on it goes. The only thing I can conclude is that in this flipped-around future of work everyone works in HR.
> SASS tooling
Alright, so this is the third time I've seen this today - is it an acronym I'm not aware of, or is it a typo/autocorrect of "SaaS tooling"?
The only SASS that comes to mind is Syntactically-Awesome StyleSheets, which makes no sense in context.
Alright, so this is the third time I've seen this today - is it an acronym I'm not aware of, or is it a typo/autocorrect of "SaaS tooling"?
The only SASS that comes to mind is Syntactically-Awesome StyleSheets, which makes no sense in context.
Really? If my employer started doing this, I would be looking for a new employer long before I'd start paying for my own travel costs.