A Hybrid Approach to Work(blog.google)
blog.google
A Hybrid Approach to Work
https://blog.google/inside-google/life-at-google/hybrid-approach-work/
168 comments
> you harm people out of the office
I have seen this implication frequently in these discussions, that remote workers will get fewer promotions, lower ratings, etc.
The assumption is that this therefore makes remote work non-viable. I don't really get that. Trading off better compensation through promos and ratings is just a business decision for the potential remote worker.
Personally, I would trade never getting a promotion again for remote work. Google and the other companies like it already pay very, very well. If you've reached E6+, it's "FIRE in <10 years" well, even if you get "meets all" ratings forever. If you're in that position, you can be making 10x the median household income. You've basically won at money.
Commuting is miserable, and I bike, easily one of the two least miserable methods (walking being the other) of doing so. Open offices are miserable. Flexibility at home is amazing. Having my own space is amazing. Making my own food for lunch, in my kitchen, is great. Feeling unfocused and deciding to just take a nap in my own bed for an hour.
So yeah, maybe I'll never get a promotion. But, I don't think I'll do poorly enough to get fired, so... good enough for me.
I have seen this implication frequently in these discussions, that remote workers will get fewer promotions, lower ratings, etc.
The assumption is that this therefore makes remote work non-viable. I don't really get that. Trading off better compensation through promos and ratings is just a business decision for the potential remote worker.
Personally, I would trade never getting a promotion again for remote work. Google and the other companies like it already pay very, very well. If you've reached E6+, it's "FIRE in <10 years" well, even if you get "meets all" ratings forever. If you're in that position, you can be making 10x the median household income. You've basically won at money.
Commuting is miserable, and I bike, easily one of the two least miserable methods (walking being the other) of doing so. Open offices are miserable. Flexibility at home is amazing. Having my own space is amazing. Making my own food for lunch, in my kitchen, is great. Feeling unfocused and deciding to just take a nap in my own bed for an hour.
So yeah, maybe I'll never get a promotion. But, I don't think I'll do poorly enough to get fired, so... good enough for me.
> trade never getting a promotion again for remote work
Trade you say? Sounds like win-win to me! Not being made to manage/lead a bunch of other engineers sounds pretty nice
Trade you say? Sounds like win-win to me! Not being made to manage/lead a bunch of other engineers sounds pretty nice
Eventually you might master your domain of expertise and solving the same problem again and again for different customers may become boring. Helping more junior coworkers mostly do the projects themselves with your assistance for the cruxes could be rewarding and multiply your output far beyond what you could achieve just working on it yourself.
[deleted]
You don't need to enter a formal team lead or management role to coach / teach younger co-workers.
Leadership also implies that you are responsible / accountable for the performance of your team. Both your team as well as outside stakeholders will look to you for answers. Hence "management is not a promotion". Not everyone is cut out take on such a role, and not everyone is willing to take on such so role.
> Eventually you might master your domain of expertise and solving the same problem again and again for different customers may become boring
Can I pick this apart?
In the short run? Perhaps. In the long run? That's highly dependent on the industry and your role. Sure, the foundational challenges might be the same - e.g. reconcile user experience, content management and data storage - but the surface level solutions and problems are always evolving, which can keep the job engaging as you grow into it.
The "you're going to get bored in 5 years time" argument is value attribution. Would you make the same assertion towards a medical specialist having a long career in liver or eye surgery? Or an artisanal cabinet maker? Or a shoe designer? Likely not.
Then there are specialists in other industries like oil, welding, car body work, paint jobs,... I mean, even hair dressers - arguably - do the same thing year in year out. Many make careers out of those, and many others move out after a few years feeling that the job has stopped giving them value.
Now, the big risk with a job is that it becomes extremely repetitive and there's little potential for agency as a worker to change the job. For instance, nobody gets happy spending 20 years in front of a screen clicking the same five buttons doing micro-jobs or data entry, or banging in the same 20 commands on a prompt for that matter,... But this has far less to do with the particular role, and everything with the work itself.
In that regard, it's arguable that "move towards a leadership role", or even "coach co-workers", are the only career options to move out of job which just doesn't give you pride and satisfaction after some time.
Moving lateral towards another engineering role, inside or outside your current organization, are completely valid strategies as well. Heck, it doesn't even have to be an engineering role at all. It's completely valid to leave the industry and do something totally different, if you have the financial freedom, and/or freedom from other personal obligations, to do so.
Of the young co-workers I've coached over a decade ago, about half went on in IT, and the other half moved towards entirely different industries doing entirely different things with their lives. And that's entirely fine by me if that's what helps them live happy lives.
Leadership also implies that you are responsible / accountable for the performance of your team. Both your team as well as outside stakeholders will look to you for answers. Hence "management is not a promotion". Not everyone is cut out take on such a role, and not everyone is willing to take on such so role.
> Eventually you might master your domain of expertise and solving the same problem again and again for different customers may become boring
Can I pick this apart?
In the short run? Perhaps. In the long run? That's highly dependent on the industry and your role. Sure, the foundational challenges might be the same - e.g. reconcile user experience, content management and data storage - but the surface level solutions and problems are always evolving, which can keep the job engaging as you grow into it.
The "you're going to get bored in 5 years time" argument is value attribution. Would you make the same assertion towards a medical specialist having a long career in liver or eye surgery? Or an artisanal cabinet maker? Or a shoe designer? Likely not.
Then there are specialists in other industries like oil, welding, car body work, paint jobs,... I mean, even hair dressers - arguably - do the same thing year in year out. Many make careers out of those, and many others move out after a few years feeling that the job has stopped giving them value.
Now, the big risk with a job is that it becomes extremely repetitive and there's little potential for agency as a worker to change the job. For instance, nobody gets happy spending 20 years in front of a screen clicking the same five buttons doing micro-jobs or data entry, or banging in the same 20 commands on a prompt for that matter,... But this has far less to do with the particular role, and everything with the work itself.
In that regard, it's arguable that "move towards a leadership role", or even "coach co-workers", are the only career options to move out of job which just doesn't give you pride and satisfaction after some time.
Moving lateral towards another engineering role, inside or outside your current organization, are completely valid strategies as well. Heck, it doesn't even have to be an engineering role at all. It's completely valid to leave the industry and do something totally different, if you have the financial freedom, and/or freedom from other personal obligations, to do so.
Of the young co-workers I've coached over a decade ago, about half went on in IT, and the other half moved towards entirely different industries doing entirely different things with their lives. And that's entirely fine by me if that's what helps them live happy lives.
Thanks for your thoughts. Currently isolated, bored and not getting much satisfaction
Totally agree. I love having a team lead to worry about the arbitrary deadlines and difficult conversations so I don't have to. Not worth the extra money to me.
At these companies, "management is not a promotion"™, so it's not exactly that. But yeah, you usually have to deal with more people stuff, even as an IC.
This is 100% my calculus. I do not care if remote work harms my career because it is so amazingly valuable to me in other ways. Being given the choice to decide what my priorities are is way better than being told "well it'll hurt your career so we won't let you do it".
Exactly. I would trade career progress and comp for “ability to work from a low COL state and not have my 4.5+ hour commute” any day. Bring it on!
This is very sensible point you have made. I said something similar in another thread that not everyone is looking for in-person watercooler conversation, office politics, promotions / raise and so on. Some people like me are fine with finishing up assigned work, attend phone/webex meetings and be done with it. It is usually run-of-the-mill n-tier business application for next requirement for last 10 years. By not going to office the only thing I am missing in 2 hr commute and crowded elevators and rest rooms.
>that remote workers will get fewer promotions, lower ratings, etc
I don't believe it works like that. U get fewer promotion not because you are remote worker. The problem is that you can become less valuable resource, who can effectively make less overall impact on the product. Hence lower rating. So for employer is not trade-off between pay/remoteness, rather between better employee or remoteness. Basically nobody cares if you are remote or not if you can do your job efficiently. And be transparent and manageable.
I don't believe it works like that. U get fewer promotion not because you are remote worker. The problem is that you can become less valuable resource, who can effectively make less overall impact on the product. Hence lower rating. So for employer is not trade-off between pay/remoteness, rather between better employee or remoteness. Basically nobody cares if you are remote or not if you can do your job efficiently. And be transparent and manageable.
> It just doesn't work when half of the team can walk by each other's desk, do some impromptu planning, and the other half are spread out across the world effectively uninvolved in these conversations. Nobody wants to go through the trouble of setting up a zoom for the 2 min conversation you have about a thing, or nobody is going to loop in a remote colleague when the team has lunch or coffee together.
This is a tired take. Google Hangouts and Slack Video are quick and work great.
This is a tired take. Google Hangouts and Slack Video are quick and work great.
> Nobody wants to go through the trouble of setting up a zoom for the 2 min conversation you have about a thing
I have set aside 30 minute blocks on my calendar for "drop-ins" for exactly this flavor of conversation. I'm the only person on the invite list, but others know about its existence and will find the link on my calendar as needed. Sometimes no one shows up, other days the block turns into an impromptu large group brainstorm, other times it's back-to-back 2 min conversations.
I have set aside 30 minute blocks on my calendar for "drop-ins" for exactly this flavor of conversation. I'm the only person on the invite list, but others know about its existence and will find the link on my calendar as needed. Sometimes no one shows up, other days the block turns into an impromptu large group brainstorm, other times it's back-to-back 2 min conversations.
> You either choose to be fully digital, and make digital communication the way work gets done, or you harm people out of the office.
I say this as someone who managed mixed distributed / WFH teams: If in-person conversations are an advantage (and they are), no company is going to willingly surrender them for the sake of catering to the people who aren't in the office.
That doesn't mean teams can ignore the remote team members. It's everyone's responsibility to communicate and share information. However, there's no sense in reducing the efficiency of in-office employees just to level the playing field.
The strategies that worked best for my teams were to structure the hires and the workloads according to who could work best together. For example, having an in-office back end team combined with a WFH front-end team works well, because the communication is naturally segmented across team boundaries anyway.
On the other hand, if you put one of the front-end devs in the office with the back-end devs while everyone else is WFH, you need to be prepared to make that in-office person the team lead because they're going to become the primary communication point whether you want it or not.
I love my mixed distributed/WFH teams, but I'll never deny that in-office communication still reigns supreme. That said, distributed can be made to work as long as you do your planning and structuring around the natural communication lines rather than trying to fight it.
I say this as someone who managed mixed distributed / WFH teams: If in-person conversations are an advantage (and they are), no company is going to willingly surrender them for the sake of catering to the people who aren't in the office.
That doesn't mean teams can ignore the remote team members. It's everyone's responsibility to communicate and share information. However, there's no sense in reducing the efficiency of in-office employees just to level the playing field.
The strategies that worked best for my teams were to structure the hires and the workloads according to who could work best together. For example, having an in-office back end team combined with a WFH front-end team works well, because the communication is naturally segmented across team boundaries anyway.
On the other hand, if you put one of the front-end devs in the office with the back-end devs while everyone else is WFH, you need to be prepared to make that in-office person the team lead because they're going to become the primary communication point whether you want it or not.
I love my mixed distributed/WFH teams, but I'll never deny that in-office communication still reigns supreme. That said, distributed can be made to work as long as you do your planning and structuring around the natural communication lines rather than trying to fight it.
What if a front-end engineer wants to switch to back-end (or vice versa)? Do they need to stop coming into the office, for example?
No, anyone who can come into an office should come into the office. We have very flexible work hours with some core days/hours where everyone's schedules should overlap. FWIW, most people I've worked with prefer in-office to WFH unless they have extenuating circumstances like a long commute. Having a good, quiet office with respectful coworkers and management makes for a great environment.
The organization will never be perfect and stay perfect, but as long as you pay attention to it when hiring and designing teams then it can be close.
The organization will never be perfect and stay perfect, but as long as you pay attention to it when hiring and designing teams then it can be close.
I’m not sure I completely buy that in-person conversations are a net positive. Constantly being interrupted with drop-in conversations definitely hurts productivity. The vast majority of the time those conversations could have been an email and our two minute chat is going to take me ten minutes to get back in the zone of what I was working on.
It's a matter of etiquette, and of boundaries. In-person conversations are definitely a net positive if your coworkers are well-mannered.
Also, there's this new invention called "doors" that I wish companies would get on board with. I hear that "opening" one's "door" can be used as an invitation to chat. :)
Also, there's this new invention called "doors" that I wish companies would get on board with. I hear that "opening" one's "door" can be used as an invitation to chat. :)
In retrospect, having an office was one of the few redeeming perks of academia. They were so far behind the times, they may have been ahead of their time.
I've had a lot of jobs in academia and only had an office once, for about 6 months, because nobody else needed it.
Not a contradiction in any way, but you reminded me of the dark side of academia and offices with a story I heard from my local university.
They had a new building constructed, including a very coveted corner office. A student organization was absolutely delighted when they received that corner office, and thought it was a sign of growing appreciation for their work. Turns out, it was actually a way out of a political quagmire: professors had fought for that office so bitterly that it had gotten to a web of "ok, I will accept that you're not giving it to me, as long as X doesn't get it either". The student organization wasn't really hated by anybody enough to be part of this web, so they got it just as a way to avoid pissing anyone off too much.
They had a new building constructed, including a very coveted corner office. A student organization was absolutely delighted when they received that corner office, and thought it was a sign of growing appreciation for their work. Turns out, it was actually a way out of a political quagmire: professors had fought for that office so bitterly that it had gotten to a web of "ok, I will accept that you're not giving it to me, as long as X doesn't get it either". The student organization wasn't really hated by anybody enough to be part of this web, so they got it just as a way to avoid pissing anyone off too much.
Moving from the academy to tech right now and dreading open office.
>Also, there's this new invention called "doors"
Must be very new since our office had none bar for the meeting rooms.
Must be very new since our office had none bar for the meeting rooms.
Same. Two to four person office where I can commute by bike? Sign me up. Sitting in a 30+ person open office with >1h one way commute vs working from home? Thanks, I‘ll work as long as possible from home.
You have evidence?
Indeed. And everything must be documented anyway, before you start building, otherwise all you're getting is n different recollections of the same meeting causing problems, whether it was in meatspace or not.
The decision-making process much (and by high margin) more effective in-person. Email is too slow, chat is too frustrating (too many back-and-forth messages just to make sure everyone on the same understanding level).
The simple questions (how to do smth, where to find smth and so on) are better and less disturbing - via chat. You can always answer later, when you have time.
And good co-workers know how to distinguish one from another and use right way to discuss it.
You put this very nicely, thanks. There are different ways of doing things for the different purposes.
This reminds me the time I was working at the office. We had an open floor plan, and so no doors (except the CEO).
It was sometimes nice to talk to people, but there were times when I was deeply in code, and someone asked a small random question from me. It was clearly because he/she wanted just to talk. This would have been better to ask through Slack as I could then continue my work and answer later.
So what I usually did was a) stayed home for deep work hours or b) put on my headset and listened to music to indicate that my "door" was closed.
And yes, with the CTO the physical door was an indication: if it was open, we went in and discussed something, and he was always happy to do so. When it was closed, we didn't interrupt him, and when we did, you could feel that he was feeling indeed interrupted.
This reminds me the time I was working at the office. We had an open floor plan, and so no doors (except the CEO).
It was sometimes nice to talk to people, but there were times when I was deeply in code, and someone asked a small random question from me. It was clearly because he/she wanted just to talk. This would have been better to ask through Slack as I could then continue my work and answer later.
So what I usually did was a) stayed home for deep work hours or b) put on my headset and listened to music to indicate that my "door" was closed.
And yes, with the CTO the physical door was an indication: if it was open, we went in and discussed something, and he was always happy to do so. When it was closed, we didn't interrupt him, and when we did, you could feel that he was feeling indeed interrupted.
I like you are having success here, and the key item "natural communication lines" which I very much agree with. We will always deliver conway's law.
I am curious on 1) the size of your teams, and 2) your opinion on how this would work with E2E product domain based teams (mixed skill sets) vs skills based teams e.g. User engagement team (front and backend devs covering sign on, emails, etc) vs Backend engineers (maintain all backend systems, etc).
I am curious on 1) the size of your teams, and 2) your opinion on how this would work with E2E product domain based teams (mixed skill sets) vs skills based teams e.g. User engagement team (front and backend devs covering sign on, emails, etc) vs Backend engineers (maintain all backend systems, etc).
> there's no sense in reducing the efficiency of in-office employees just to level the playing field.
There is no sense in not teaching high level math to gifted children, yet it is still happening in the name of equity. Just watch and see in person meeting getting banned in the name of equity as we progress from shareholder capitalism to stakeholder capitalism.
There is no sense in not teaching high level math to gifted children, yet it is still happening in the name of equity. Just watch and see in person meeting getting banned in the name of equity as we progress from shareholder capitalism to stakeholder capitalism.
> It just doesn't work when half of the team can walk by each other's desk, do some impromptu planning, and the other half are spread out across the world effectively uninvolved in these conversations.
Seems like giving people a choice is the right idea. Maybe being less involved in these impromptu conversations is a worthwhile tradeoff for being able to live where they want.
Seems like giving people a choice is the right idea. Maybe being less involved in these impromptu conversations is a worthwhile tradeoff for being able to live where they want.
Xoogler here. Google has been doing remote-work from the office for years. The campuses are so big and have so many buildings that meetings are often held over VC anyway so people don't have to walk back and forth. I occasionally had VC meetings with people elsewhere in the same building. Meetings between campuses are also common and obviously require VC regardless of laziness.
VC is automatically added to meetings, every room is equipped with the proper AV, and culturally, people often actually click the right buttons to start the VC even when they aren't expecting VC guests. I don't remember ever attempting to join a meeting over VC and having the main location forget to join (although it probably happened to someone every once in a while).
At least on our team, we tended not to have those 2 minute conversations. The code-review tools are top tier, so we would use those if at all possible. Most of our non-meeting communication otherwise was in buganizer (the bug tracker), Google groups via email, Google docs, or IRC (they were getting rid of it around when I left).
I think the only exception was Nooglers. We had Nooglers sit next to a mentor on the team, and they would usually ask lots of simple questions out loud throughout the day.
VC is automatically added to meetings, every room is equipped with the proper AV, and culturally, people often actually click the right buttons to start the VC even when they aren't expecting VC guests. I don't remember ever attempting to join a meeting over VC and having the main location forget to join (although it probably happened to someone every once in a while).
At least on our team, we tended not to have those 2 minute conversations. The code-review tools are top tier, so we would use those if at all possible. Most of our non-meeting communication otherwise was in buganizer (the bug tracker), Google groups via email, Google docs, or IRC (they were getting rid of it around when I left).
I think the only exception was Nooglers. We had Nooglers sit next to a mentor on the team, and they would usually ask lots of simple questions out loud throughout the day.
people often actually click the right buttons to start the VC even when they aren't expecting VC guests
In at least one Google building I worked in, for a while conference rooms were in such short supply that if you didn't start the VC, after a few minutes some calendar bot would decide that the room wasn't being used, remove your reservation from the room, and five minutes later someone else would show up and try to kick you out.
In at least one Google building I worked in, for a while conference rooms were in such short supply that if you didn't start the VC, after a few minutes some calendar bot would decide that the room wasn't being used, remove your reservation from the room, and five minutes later someone else would show up and try to kick you out.
I see you also worked in SF...
I remember flying down from Waterloo for the annual display ads multiple day conference thingy to attend sessions and finding that we were split into multiple rooms and VCing into sessions anyways. So in many cases I could have just stayed in Canada and tuned into the conferences from there.
And this 3 days in the office business won't work well either. If not everyone on the team picks the same 3 days to be in office, then what are you gaining? How would it make sense if there's barely any overlap among team members?
I don't think these companies have thought this through. Logically, the 3 days a week in office will slowly become 2, then 1. Or maybe teams will decide to only get together 3 days a month or something like that.
At that point, you're effectively fully virtual anyway.
These companies need to just dive right in, because the suggested format smells of poorly thought out compromise.
I don't think these companies have thought this through. Logically, the 3 days a week in office will slowly become 2, then 1. Or maybe teams will decide to only get together 3 days a month or something like that.
At that point, you're effectively fully virtual anyway.
These companies need to just dive right in, because the suggested format smells of poorly thought out compromise.
I get what you are saying. But for some folks even few days per week of avoiding commute hell and general dreariness of office is better than everyday at workplace. I'd be happy if my employer allows that.
Sounds like teams (and other job factors), not individuals, decide which days will be in-office. The post says: “your product areas and functions will help decide which days teams will come together in the office.”
If people in the building have private offices, and the buildings have floors, there are a lot of psychological barriers that people either didn’t notice of have forgotten about because we’ve been trying to do our best imitation of a feedlot.
I’m not going to go across a building and up steps to ask someone a question unless I am out of other options. I’m not. You’re not. I’ve done too many 5 Why’s where one of the answers was “they made a guess because they couldn’t be arsed to cross the building to verify things”.
We might message that person, if we use it and they actually read their messages. At which point being in the office isn’t quite as transformative.
I’m not going to go across a building and up steps to ask someone a question unless I am out of other options. I’m not. You’re not. I’ve done too many 5 Why’s where one of the answers was “they made a guess because they couldn’t be arsed to cross the building to verify things”.
We might message that person, if we use it and they actually read their messages. At which point being in the office isn’t quite as transformative.
There's definitely a balance. I shared an office with one other guy before the pandemic. It was great being able to go, "Hey fred, are you busy? you seen something like this before?" and instantly have the coworker fix some super specific issue they faced before related to our setup that would have taken an afternoon or more stringing together the right generic stackoverflow questions.
Now I have to find time in our day loaded with zoom meetings with other people with just as convoluted zoom meeting schedules to zoom with Fred for ten minutes. We might not find a good mutual time to meet until next week.
Scheduling zoom calls vs. leaning back in your chair when your coworker has a second is an entirely different animal when it comes to workplace efficiency. I'd say I'm spending a lot more of my working time scratching my head than getting things done vs. before the pandemic.
There are good things about working from home, but this is probably one of the worst parts in terms of work. It's like studying alone in your cramped bedroom vs in the library with your buddies in college.
Now I have to find time in our day loaded with zoom meetings with other people with just as convoluted zoom meeting schedules to zoom with Fred for ten minutes. We might not find a good mutual time to meet until next week.
Scheduling zoom calls vs. leaning back in your chair when your coworker has a second is an entirely different animal when it comes to workplace efficiency. I'd say I'm spending a lot more of my working time scratching my head than getting things done vs. before the pandemic.
There are good things about working from home, but this is probably one of the worst parts in terms of work. It's like studying alone in your cramped bedroom vs in the library with your buddies in college.
Depends how you are wired, all of my group study interactions in college were thinly veiled romantic efforts, whereas I got my actually studying done at 2am in a mostly empty cafe.
> or you harm people out of the office
Some people work half time, should we all not socially interact during their absence, because it would disadvantage them as well?
The enemy of better is best, and I feel you are actually making a case against home working by being so extreme in your demands. Some people would like to work from home, understanding it adds a social challenge, but still prefer it for a myriad of reasons.
And some people need to be in an office to be productive. I think it's a nobler goal to try cater to both, than set up some extreme all or nothing scenario.
Some people work half time, should we all not socially interact during their absence, because it would disadvantage them as well?
The enemy of better is best, and I feel you are actually making a case against home working by being so extreme in your demands. Some people would like to work from home, understanding it adds a social challenge, but still prefer it for a myriad of reasons.
And some people need to be in an office to be productive. I think it's a nobler goal to try cater to both, than set up some extreme all or nothing scenario.
The purpose of the "hybrid working" pitch is to force those who would prefer to work remote back into the central location using "Fear Of Missing Out" (FOMO)
It's essentially another of the very popular nudge tricks that are all the rage at the moment, and will result in everybody being back in the office. The 'choice' on offer isn't a choice at all. It's a management device to all but eliminate remote working and allow them back into their comfort zone.
For remote to work everybody has to be remote and work via a central communication device. That way everybody is in the same 'office space' and the culture evolves around that to get the work done. Management then changes natures to suit the remote environment. (Note you can do 'all remote' on a campus - you give everybody an office!)
I can guarantee you that if firms were required by law to pay for the time spent commuting, they would all choose to go remote permanently unless there was a physical reason to be in the same space.
But it is for the workers to see commuting as part of work time, and calculate what they are getting paid per hour accordingly.
It's essentially another of the very popular nudge tricks that are all the rage at the moment, and will result in everybody being back in the office. The 'choice' on offer isn't a choice at all. It's a management device to all but eliminate remote working and allow them back into their comfort zone.
For remote to work everybody has to be remote and work via a central communication device. That way everybody is in the same 'office space' and the culture evolves around that to get the work done. Management then changes natures to suit the remote environment. (Note you can do 'all remote' on a campus - you give everybody an office!)
I can guarantee you that if firms were required by law to pay for the time spent commuting, they would all choose to go remote permanently unless there was a physical reason to be in the same space.
But it is for the workers to see commuting as part of work time, and calculate what they are getting paid per hour accordingly.
> reset days
I think it's time we admit that a five day work week is counterproductive.
Even Google notices this but is probably too big to make that change to a shorter work week; the best they can do is "reset days." Smaller companies seem to be doing fine with a shorter week.[1]
[1] Buffer comes to mind first, other examples on 4dayweek.io
I think it's time we admit that a five day work week is counterproductive.
Even Google notices this but is probably too big to make that change to a shorter work week; the best they can do is "reset days." Smaller companies seem to be doing fine with a shorter week.[1]
[1] Buffer comes to mind first, other examples on 4dayweek.io
In Spain:
"Under the plans, an estimated 200 to 400 Spanish companies will voluntarily take part in the project by reducing their employees’ working week to 32 hours while keeping their salaries the same. The government will compensate participating businesses for any higher costs incurred by the changes, such as the need to hire additional staff or to reorganize scheduling and shift patterns. That investment will be financed through Spain’s share of the EU Coronavirus Recovery Fund."
https://reasonstobecheerful.world/spain-four-day-work-week-n...
(check out the graph "Annual working hours per worker" and see which country has the fewest working hours annually; you might be surprised)
And Microsoft Japan:
https://www.npr.org/2019/11/04/776163853/microsoft-japan-say...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26495933
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21919721
"Under the plans, an estimated 200 to 400 Spanish companies will voluntarily take part in the project by reducing their employees’ working week to 32 hours while keeping their salaries the same. The government will compensate participating businesses for any higher costs incurred by the changes, such as the need to hire additional staff or to reorganize scheduling and shift patterns. That investment will be financed through Spain’s share of the EU Coronavirus Recovery Fund."
https://reasonstobecheerful.world/spain-four-day-work-week-n...
(check out the graph "Annual working hours per worker" and see which country has the fewest working hours annually; you might be surprised)
And Microsoft Japan:
https://www.npr.org/2019/11/04/776163853/microsoft-japan-say...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26495933
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21919721
> The government will compensate participating businesses for any higher costs incurred by the changes, such as the need to hire additional staff
This is strange. They're paying companies to hire extra workers so everyone can work fewer hours? Sounds more like a jobs program than anything.
This is strange. They're paying companies to hire extra workers so everyone can work fewer hours? Sounds more like a jobs program than anything.
[deleted]
Sounds like a reasonable accommodation to help pilot a labor regulation to substantially boost everyone's quality of life. Most people work to live, not live to work.
Two birds with one stone? Unemployment in Spain is crazy high.
Isn’t that the justification France used when they went to 37 hours and aren’t they down to 35 now? Fewer hours means a couple more positions to keep an eye on things, even if productivity doesn’t drop for everyone else.
In France this didn't really work, in corporate jobs anyways, people would just work their old hours anyway, which they then take off as 'vacation days' - typically in the vacation periods where there's downtime anyways. Doesn't seem like it's worked to help increase total employment.
Interacting with companies in several countries, my impression is that many companies in France will hire more people and share knowledge so that the higher-than-average 'vacations days' do not impact business continuity. It's certainly the case in companies that I've worked for.
I haven't seen any studies but I'd not be surprised if this translates into an increase in total employment.
Another benefit I perceive is that by assuming that people will be absent, companies have higher bus factors by default and the increased resilience that goes with it. And of course, the reduced efficiency that comes hand in hand. I've lived through enough crises to favour resilience.
I haven't seen any studies but I'd not be surprised if this translates into an increase in total employment.
Another benefit I perceive is that by assuming that people will be absent, companies have higher bus factors by default and the increased resilience that goes with it. And of course, the reduced efficiency that comes hand in hand. I've lived through enough crises to favour resilience.
The protection racket so many of my fellow American programmers euphemistically refer to as job security, - or just unselfconsciously don’t refer to or think about at all - has always left me cold. Occasionally it rises to the level of disgust.
One of the important currencies in our industry is trust, and people only trust That Guy grudgingly. Sharing info is often reciprocated, and you have a clearer picture of the whole project. Something very necessary if you ever hope to be in leadership.
One of the important currencies in our industry is trust, and people only trust That Guy grudgingly. Sharing info is often reciprocated, and you have a clearer picture of the whole project. Something very necessary if you ever hope to be in leadership.
Isn't everything a job program?
Googler, opinions are my own.
I don't agree with you. My read on why they keep doing reset days is that "down" time doesn't really exist anymore. When in the office at Google, there are lots of "fun" things that can eat up time. Be it team off-sites (this is a big one for me), office events, fun classes, etc... we don't have those. To me, reset days are making up for people working more due to being at home with fewer outlets to take up their time.
I also get the feeling that people are taking way less vacation. Vacation is important to most people's sanity at a company, so reset days help with that as well.
I don't agree with you. My read on why they keep doing reset days is that "down" time doesn't really exist anymore. When in the office at Google, there are lots of "fun" things that can eat up time. Be it team off-sites (this is a big one for me), office events, fun classes, etc... we don't have those. To me, reset days are making up for people working more due to being at home with fewer outlets to take up their time.
I also get the feeling that people are taking way less vacation. Vacation is important to most people's sanity at a company, so reset days help with that as well.
I'm interested to know what the idea is behind it being 4 days, why not 3? Or why not a longer week followed by a shorter week?
If we make it a 4 day work week, once it becomes the norm whats to say that people wont want a 3 day work week?
If we make it a 4 day work week, once it becomes the norm whats to say that people wont want a 3 day work week?
There's a happy medium imo. Output / value vs hours has diminishing returns over time and such:
- 4 days != 80% output (it's more like 85%)
- 3 days != 60% output (it's more like 70%)
I may be biased though as I run https://4dayweek.io/ - Software Jobs with a better work life / balance.
I wrote about the advantages of a 4 day week (for employers) here:
https://4dayweek.io/hire-engineers
I may be biased though as I run https://4dayweek.io/ - Software Jobs with a better work life / balance.
I wrote about the advantages of a 4 day week (for employers) here:
https://4dayweek.io/hire-engineers
Shameless promotion: https://parttime.careers
I plan to add a feature where you can advertise yourself on this website that you are looking for part-time jobs. How many hours are you willing to work. What skills do you have. You will be able to login using GitHub account.
Part-time jobs are getting more popular. Anecdotal case: https://twitter.com/zachcodes/status/1390033250148655111
I plan to add a feature where you can advertise yourself on this website that you are looking for part-time jobs. How many hours are you willing to work. What skills do you have. You will be able to login using GitHub account.
Part-time jobs are getting more popular. Anecdotal case: https://twitter.com/zachcodes/status/1390033250148655111
5 days are fine ... if I can choose which of the five I am working. I'm a big fan of CPGrey's Wednesday concept ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALaTm6VzTBw )
> We’ll also offer opportunities for you to apply for completely remote work (away from your team or office) based on your role and team needs. Before the pandemic, we had thousands of people working in locations separate from their core teams. I fully expect those numbers to increase in the coming months as we develop more remote roles, including fully all-remote sub teams.
This is the most interesting bit that I saw. For a year+ the official stance has been that there won't be any more fully-remote work after the pandemic than there was before.
This is the most interesting bit that I saw. For a year+ the official stance has been that there won't be any more fully-remote work after the pandemic than there was before.
10+ of my co-workers at Google have left for permanent wfh positions in the last month or so, I suspect that significantly influenced their decision to change their stance.
Before that, their attitude was "people will vote with their feet" and when people started actually voting with their feet, this got announced pretty quickly.
My Googler friend already found remote jobs as he started looking a few months ago to go remote (moved from LA to Florida), and he says that he will probably move anyways as the other offers are great.
I was taken aback by how much more relaxed I felt in general after going 100% remote, after spending 10+ years commuting up to 4 hours round trip per day in the SF bay area.
My comp is lower now but it's easily a net win.
My comp is lower now but it's easily a net win.
I turned down a very good return offer with google because I knew I wanted to take a 100% remote job (and I let my recruiter know that). Yet another anecdata point.
I'm assuming many folks would be scared away from going remote due to the career ramifications of their peers not going remote.
Recent and related:
Over the next year or so, Google will try out new office designs - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27007898 - May 2021 (179 comments)
Over the next year or so, Google will try out new office designs - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27007898 - May 2021 (179 comments)
3 days in the office and 2 days "where ever they want".
This is meaningless. Either WFH completely or not, this in between thing doesn't work. Employees don't have the freedom to live where they want. All those dreams about Silicon Valley dispersing all over the country are just dashed. People still live close to work and they just get to stay home a couple days a week. That's all.
This is meaningless. Either WFH completely or not, this in between thing doesn't work. Employees don't have the freedom to live where they want. All those dreams about Silicon Valley dispersing all over the country are just dashed. People still live close to work and they just get to stay home a couple days a week. That's all.
“3 days in, 2 days out” is what they’ve been saying for a while.
The news here is that they’ll allow some employees to work in remote offices, and some to go fully remote.
The news here is that they’ll allow some employees to work in remote offices, and some to go fully remote.
Focus time works as poorly in an open office as collaboration and community do from home. Mixing and matching plays each to its strength.
For what its worth, the A16Z boss talk podcast episode/clubhouse this week had everyone (incl Databricks CEO) basically agree with this model. Most people in the office 2-3 days/week. Some full remote.
Seems like that is the way the valley is headed.
Seems like that is the way the valley is headed.
"Pending approval from your manager/lead"
- Corporate doublespeak for Don't even think about going full time remote. We are going to drag you back kicking and screaming.
I don't really agree.
It's obviously purposefully non-committal, which makes sense, as Google leadership clearly is not inclined to want to be remote-first.
Lots of stuff is really group-specific at many firms. Google aims to be more top-down than most companies its size about these sorts of things, but it's a valid model to say some-teams-this-is-acceptable-some-it-is-not.
It's obviously purposefully non-committal, which makes sense, as Google leadership clearly is not inclined to want to be remote-first.
Lots of stuff is really group-specific at many firms. Google aims to be more top-down than most companies its size about these sorts of things, but it's a valid model to say some-teams-this-is-acceptable-some-it-is-not.
it is a typical corporate doublespeak and approach for stratification of perks - the higher strata would easily be granted the approval, no questions asked, while the lower - what you described.
Restrictions apply to plebians only. Patricians are always exceptions :)
Reminds me of the quote (from, of course, more grim contexts):
"For my friends everything, for my enemies the law"
Apparently by "Oscar R. Benavides, President of Peru from 1933 to 1939" (https://www.quora.com/Who-originally-said-To-my-friends-ever...)
"For my friends everything, for my enemies the law"
Apparently by "Oscar R. Benavides, President of Peru from 1933 to 1939" (https://www.quora.com/Who-originally-said-To-my-friends-ever...)
This is really stupid. Most people do not need to be in an office to get work done. Google, and all these other tech companies, made record profits this year.
I just don't get why they insist on keeping people in a seat? At least for google, offering all these on-site only perks is just a scheme to keep employees at work for as long as possible.
I just don't get why they insist on keeping people in a seat? At least for google, offering all these on-site only perks is just a scheme to keep employees at work for as long as possible.
did you even read it? Google is committing to offering fully remote opportunities now.
They are offering some, whereas other roles are clearly needing to adapt to some consistent in-office time.
It will be interesting to see how all this ultimately plays out. My best guess is that companies like Shopify, who are fully committing to remote work, with in-office options, are going to end up with better retention. However, it also seems plausible that places requiring in-office schedules will simply attract people wanting that and the places offering remote will attract people wanting that.
From what I see, there is a pretty clear line in the sand between folks that want an office and folks that don't. While a 3/2 hybrid schedule may be better than in the office 5 days a week, it's still quite a bit worse than being remote 5 days a week if that's your preference.
I've been working remotely for the past three years and it's crazy to think back how relatively rare of an opportunity it was when I started doing it. It's everywhere now and a ton of people across the world have gotten the opportunity to try it out. You hear a lot about how COVID accelerated a lot transformations by 3-5 years. I think it accelerated remote work by at least a decade, probably more.
It will be interesting to see how all this ultimately plays out. My best guess is that companies like Shopify, who are fully committing to remote work, with in-office options, are going to end up with better retention. However, it also seems plausible that places requiring in-office schedules will simply attract people wanting that and the places offering remote will attract people wanting that.
From what I see, there is a pretty clear line in the sand between folks that want an office and folks that don't. While a 3/2 hybrid schedule may be better than in the office 5 days a week, it's still quite a bit worse than being remote 5 days a week if that's your preference.
I've been working remotely for the past three years and it's crazy to think back how relatively rare of an opportunity it was when I started doing it. It's everywhere now and a ton of people across the world have gotten the opportunity to try it out. You hear a lot about how COVID accelerated a lot transformations by 3-5 years. I think it accelerated remote work by at least a decade, probably more.
Why not give employees the choice? Google already claims to hire 'the best'; do they not trust 'the best' to capably manage their own productivity wrt wherever they decide to work?
[deleted]
Well, it's explicitly stated that productivity is not their top priority, right? "We’ll move to a hybrid work week where most Googlers spend approximately three days in the office and two days wherever they work best." That's an explicit recognition that they're expecting not to get the best work from a bunch of people for approximately three days a week; presumably senior management is fine with this, or they wouldn't have done it or said it.
They're explicitly recognizing that for three days a week, a bunch of people will not be where they individually work best.
That doesn't necessarily mean their top priority isn't productivity, because the productivity of an organization is not simply the sum of the individual, independent productivities of its members.
They may, for instance, believe something along the following lines. 1. All else being equal, most people are more productive individually at home than in the office. 2. Individuals' productivity in the office is higher when other people are also in the office, because they can cooperate. 3. Individuals' productivity is better directed (i.e., the stuff they're productive at is a better match for the actual needs of the company) if at least some of the time they're physically in the same place as their colleagues. Without that, they may work more efficiently but they are less likely to be working on the right things. 4. Because of 3 (backed up by 2) the amount of value provided to the company is greater when employees spend some time together in the office.
Whether any of that is actually true is another matter. And of course they may also just like the power-trip of seeing all their minions working busily. But it's not true that the words you quoted have to mean that productivity isn't what they care about most.
(In case it matters to anyone: I am not a Googler, have no interest in watching minions working busily and furthermore have no minions, and much prefer working from home though whether I'm actually more productive there I don't know.)
That doesn't necessarily mean their top priority isn't productivity, because the productivity of an organization is not simply the sum of the individual, independent productivities of its members.
They may, for instance, believe something along the following lines. 1. All else being equal, most people are more productive individually at home than in the office. 2. Individuals' productivity in the office is higher when other people are also in the office, because they can cooperate. 3. Individuals' productivity is better directed (i.e., the stuff they're productive at is a better match for the actual needs of the company) if at least some of the time they're physically in the same place as their colleagues. Without that, they may work more efficiently but they are less likely to be working on the right things. 4. Because of 3 (backed up by 2) the amount of value provided to the company is greater when employees spend some time together in the office.
Whether any of that is actually true is another matter. And of course they may also just like the power-trip of seeing all their minions working busily. But it's not true that the words you quoted have to mean that productivity isn't what they care about most.
(In case it matters to anyone: I am not a Googler, have no interest in watching minions working busily and furthermore have no minions, and much prefer working from home though whether I'm actually more productive there I don't know.)
That seems to be what they are doing. They are estimating that 20% of the company will be permanently remote. Last I saw, something like 25% of the company expressed interest in permanent remote work. So in most cases people will have the choice.
Just a friendly reminder that the HN site guidelines discourage comments that ask "did you even read it?"
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Aside from jobs that actually need to be done in person, I think it really comes down to leadership egos. Probably just feels good to walk by a sea of minions on your way to the corner office.
Yup that's exactly right. Google classifies office leases as "Ego stroking and miscellaneous". It's right there in the SEC filings.
In my experience at google, vps don’t have corner offices.
> I just don't get why they insist on keeping people in a seat? At least for google, offering all these on-site only perks is just a scheme to keep employees at work for as long as possible.
Fwiw I find the opposite to be true: I have had a much easier time disconnecting from work when my workspace wasn't in my bedroom.
Fwiw I find the opposite to be true: I have had a much easier time disconnecting from work when my workspace wasn't in my bedroom.
[deleted]
If you're right, then wfh companies will out compete the rest and there's nothing to worry about. My guess is there are a lot of benefits to face to face communication and the separation of work and home but we'll just have to see.
Well 60% of their workers chose to come back to the office. I guess not everybody likes working from home full time. Google can't really ignore that.
How many of those are quite aware that if they don't choose, they're on the chopping block? So far I've known exactly two people who actually want to return to the office more than just like once in a while for fun, regardless of what they tell their boss. And one shouldn't count much because she also is going to retire shortly. I'm pretty sure I'm an outlier but not a "no really it's 60%" outlier.
Google has never had a chopping block. And your speculations are wild. But hey, at least you have those two anecdotes.
The Google equivalent of a chipping block in most cases is not getting promoted. But Google has a very level-focused culture and many Googlers are highly motivated to keep getting promotions, so the incentives are there.
The Google equivalent of a chipping block in most cases is not getting promoted
Do tell, given what you know about the Google promotion process, how a choice to work remotely would translate to a decreased likelihood to be promoted (and, importantly, to an unfair degree)?
Do tell, given what you know about the Google promotion process, how a choice to work remotely would translate to a decreased likelihood to be promoted (and, importantly, to an unfair degree)?
Realized I have a typo from relying too heavily on auto-correct. Sorry about that.
I worked at Google for four years. I've seen many people I know basically "play it safe" by making conservative decisions in order to minimize the likelihood of hurting one's promo chances. Despite all the talk about this, nobody really knows for sure what will affect their promo. For example, people will stay on a team they hate rather than risk "resetting the promo clock". There is also a general understanding that being outside the Bay Area hurts your career growth.
Given these tendencies and the fact that people who work remotely often find themselves more isolated than their in-office colleagues, I fully expect that people will hesitate to adopt remote work if they're not in the majority.
I worked at Google for four years. I've seen many people I know basically "play it safe" by making conservative decisions in order to minimize the likelihood of hurting one's promo chances. Despite all the talk about this, nobody really knows for sure what will affect their promo. For example, people will stay on a team they hate rather than risk "resetting the promo clock". There is also a general understanding that being outside the Bay Area hurts your career growth.
Given these tendencies and the fact that people who work remotely often find themselves more isolated than their in-office colleagues, I fully expect that people will hesitate to adopt remote work if they're not in the majority.
* There is also a general understanding *
Got it. So when it was asked, "how many know they're on the chopping block if they work remotely" and it was redefined to ask "how many know their chances for promotion might be affected by working remotely?"... The answer is "almost everyone".
Many people will happily choose to work remotely, even if it makes promotion harder, because that's a good trade-off for them. Exactly like people will happily work from other offices.
So what's the problem?
Got it. So when it was asked, "how many know they're on the chopping block if they work remotely" and it was redefined to ask "how many know their chances for promotion might be affected by working remotely?"... The answer is "almost everyone".
Many people will happily choose to work remotely, even if it makes promotion harder, because that's a good trade-off for them. Exactly like people will happily work from other offices.
So what's the problem?
Do you realize I am not the person who wrote the original "chopping block" comment? I'm just adding context here based on my experience. I don't understand why your tone in this thread is so hostile.
It's kind of strange to wander into a conversation, and then balk at the fact that people expect your contributions to be relevant to the conversation.
If you don't get promotions you lose certain stock grants which greatly reduces your pay
The entire system is a scam and built specifically to keep you at google and drinking the kool aid
The entire system is a scam and built specifically to keep you at google and drinking the kool aid
You're misinformed. Please stop spreading misinformation.
That's not entirely untrue. Even if you do get promoted, the four year cliff is real. I got promoted and still experienced a substantial loss in total comp at year 4, with good performance and what seemed to be typical refresh grants.
But that’s the opposite of what the post said. The cliff is real and happens regardless of promo because everybody gets refreshes every year regardless of promotions.
I would like to continue working from home, as I've found it allows me to better align my time with my priorities and to be more productive. Since I'm in a great relationship and keep up with friends, I don't feel isolated. I don't miss the 2 hours of commuting on the N each day. I didn't expect any of this to be the case - I thought WFH would make me depressed and lonely.
That said, I know many people who really miss being in the office, including many former colleagues at Google. Some of them have kids, while others need the social aspect of in office culture. I really believe that at least half the company wants to work from an office.
That makes me wonder what happens with the other half. Having part of a team work remotely isn't ideal for those people - they end up being left out of things. On the other hand, it doesn't really make sense to just forget everything we've learned from the last year of remote work and force a big percentage o people back to a situation where they're less productive.
I suspect though that the latter is exactly what will happen to some extent based on Google's own statement, which is a shame. But we all have to give things up for work and many Googlers would be very reluctant to leave.
That said, I know many people who really miss being in the office, including many former colleagues at Google. Some of them have kids, while others need the social aspect of in office culture. I really believe that at least half the company wants to work from an office.
That makes me wonder what happens with the other half. Having part of a team work remotely isn't ideal for those people - they end up being left out of things. On the other hand, it doesn't really make sense to just forget everything we've learned from the last year of remote work and force a big percentage o people back to a situation where they're less productive.
I suspect though that the latter is exactly what will happen to some extent based on Google's own statement, which is a shame. But we all have to give things up for work and many Googlers would be very reluctant to leave.
> Some of them have kids,
Who takes care of the kids while they’re at the office though?
Who takes care of the kids while they’re at the office though?
[deleted]
Teachers usually.
I think that 60% figure is misleading, it must represent people who have just come in to pick something up or drop something off. I'm working at another company in the valley, that is much more HW oriented, and its less than 10% of employees who are coming in with any regularity.
Almost no one is back in the office currently. The 60% is people who are expressing interest in returning to the office according to employee surveys.
The actual quote is "In fact, in places where we’ve been able to reopen Google offices in a voluntary capacity, we’ve seen nearly 60% of Googlers choosing to come back to the office." That doesn't sound like surveys; I think the 60% of people came to the office once or twice interpretation is more likely.
(Also possible that the offices that were opened were more heavy on hardware / "lab" roles, so while maybe it was officially "voluntary", those people effectively had to choose between coming back to the office or doing fake / busy work at home.)
(Also possible that the offices that were opened were more heavy on hardware / "lab" roles, so while maybe it was officially "voluntary", those people effectively had to choose between coming back to the office or doing fake / busy work at home.)
I think the thing you may be missing is that almost all of those offices are in Europe, Asia, or Oceania. I know my coworkers (I work at Google) in those locations are largely back in the office some, and excited by that.
Having worked from the Zurich office myself previously, most people are within walking/biking/a 5 minute train ride to the office, so commute concerns that we have in the US aren't relevant.
Similarly, most people in those locations live in apartments or condos and so may not have a space to make a home office. Returning to the office to make use of the (superior) workspace in the office. I can say that for example on my team, around half of my coworkers (whose offices are open) are consistently in the office.
Having worked from the Zurich office myself previously, most people are within walking/biking/a 5 minute train ride to the office, so commute concerns that we have in the US aren't relevant.
Similarly, most people in those locations live in apartments or condos and so may not have a space to make a home office. Returning to the office to make use of the (superior) workspace in the office. I can say that for example on my team, around half of my coworkers (whose offices are open) are consistently in the office.
Anecdotally, as a Googler, I think I've talked to maybe one person on the teams I've been on in the past year who really wants to stay remote. Nobody else really likes it, and misses the office and being around people.
The new team I'm on is better, as we have a daily standup and more frequent interaction. But I still miss the face to face interaction, spontaneous brainstorming, and ability to just tap someone on a shoulder to ask for help, etc.
Remote works for some people, but it isn't working for me right now.
The new team I'm on is better, as we have a daily standup and more frequent interaction. But I still miss the face to face interaction, spontaneous brainstorming, and ability to just tap someone on a shoulder to ask for help, etc.
Remote works for some people, but it isn't working for me right now.
I agree 100% with the idea that not everyone enjoys remote work, and I think actually the majority of people won't.
But I'd like to point out that working from home this last year (with forced kids at home, no chance to travel, services closed etc) was not the common experience people had in non-pandemic times.
But I'd like to point out that working from home this last year (with forced kids at home, no chance to travel, services closed etc) was not the common experience people had in non-pandemic times.
I lead/oversee a team of 7 that was built across 10 time zones, starting in 2017. The team got to its current size about 6 months before the pandemic hit. Three of us are fully remote, and there are two sub-teams of two in one city, separated by about 40 miles. We've got biz dev, ops, and software development (NLP and image analysis). We definitely dial people in if we need them, and there's a daily stand-up.
So, we were built around a hybrid-ish sort of model from the beginning. I'm honestly not sure how the team would do if we were all together. I know we wouldn't have the same team, that's for sure. A couple of the folks couldn't have taken the jobs if a move had been required.
I oversee work by a number of other teams, they are all working at the international level, and none of them are fully localized. If anything, the one thing I think may change with the pandemic is that people will develop less localization, and travel to visit teammates will become a thing. If I recall, Slack does this: they have everyone meet up once or twice a year. We did that at the beginning and it was super helpful.
So, we were built around a hybrid-ish sort of model from the beginning. I'm honestly not sure how the team would do if we were all together. I know we wouldn't have the same team, that's for sure. A couple of the folks couldn't have taken the jobs if a move had been required.
I oversee work by a number of other teams, they are all working at the international level, and none of them are fully localized. If anything, the one thing I think may change with the pandemic is that people will develop less localization, and travel to visit teammates will become a thing. If I recall, Slack does this: they have everyone meet up once or twice a year. We did that at the beginning and it was super helpful.
Imo all jobs should also be offered as either 5 days or 4 days (@80% salary) as a minimum.
The lack of flexibility annoyed me so much that I built https://4dayweek.io/
Software jobs with a better work / life balance
The lack of flexibility annoyed me so much that I built https://4dayweek.io/
Software jobs with a better work / life balance
Googler here - I speak for myself, not representing the company, yada yada yada...
Google offers really easily 80% time for 80% salary, even for nooglers. You just have to ask for it, some of my friends here went for it straight away after being hired.
Myself I'm on 90% (one every other Friday off) just because that's my optimal balance.
Google offers really easily 80% time for 80% salary, even for nooglers. You just have to ask for it, some of my friends here went for it straight away after being hired.
Myself I'm on 90% (one every other Friday off) just because that's my optimal balance.
Thats so cool! I wasn't aware of this. I wish more companies were as open as this to flexibility, it almost feels like a 'taboo' subject
This is great. In your experience, what % of companies simply pay the 80% for a 4 day week versus 100% of normal 5-day/week salary (i.e. no salary drop)?
Thanks :) It's still early days regarding the 4 day week but more and more companies are making the switch. Of those who have switched, almost all of them have had no salary drop (e.g. Buffer.com) but admittedly there are only a handful of tech companies atm.
From my perspective, I've been talking to companies and using the 80% salary as leverage - it's clearly not ideal but I think it may be a necessary first step to get more companies to make the switch. I'm also trying to convince companies to list their positions as "open to applications for a 4 day week", rather than advertised as a 4 day week
Small steps...
From my perspective, I've been talking to companies and using the 80% salary as leverage - it's clearly not ideal but I think it may be a necessary first step to get more companies to make the switch. I'm also trying to convince companies to list their positions as "open to applications for a 4 day week", rather than advertised as a 4 day week
Small steps...
For me personally this is the future of working:
- No fixed offices. Companies rent smaller offies at co-working spaces (e.g. WeWorks) and pay their employees a WeWork pass so that they can hot desk from any WeWork across the world.
- 3.5 days work, 3.5 days off. Ideal work week would be: Monday, Tuesday full days, Wednesday half day, Thursday full day, Friday, Saturday, Sunday off.
- Everyone works from home and there is no fixed quota of people having to be anywhere. Each team can and should independently decide at which co-working space they want to meet and for which purpose. Everything is remote first set up though so that sharing and working over well established tools is the norm and not an afterthought.
This new "hybrid" approach by Google is a tiny step forward, but still a LOOONG way away from the perfect work life balance and actually feels like a step backwards after the pandemic.
- No fixed offices. Companies rent smaller offies at co-working spaces (e.g. WeWorks) and pay their employees a WeWork pass so that they can hot desk from any WeWork across the world.
- 3.5 days work, 3.5 days off. Ideal work week would be: Monday, Tuesday full days, Wednesday half day, Thursday full day, Friday, Saturday, Sunday off.
- Everyone works from home and there is no fixed quota of people having to be anywhere. Each team can and should independently decide at which co-working space they want to meet and for which purpose. Everything is remote first set up though so that sharing and working over well established tools is the norm and not an afterthought.
This new "hybrid" approach by Google is a tiny step forward, but still a LOOONG way away from the perfect work life balance and actually feels like a step backwards after the pandemic.
> Whether you choose to transfer to a different office or opt for completely remote work, your compensation will be adjusted according to your new location.
That's it, the end of geographic arbitrage. No more working from the mountains on a Silicon Valley salary. Hope everyone enjoyed it while it lasted.
That's it, the end of geographic arbitrage. No more working from the mountains on a Silicon Valley salary. Hope everyone enjoyed it while it lasted.
Still the market will finally decide whether the arbitrage could work out. Plenty of companies aren’t changing pay based on where you live, namely Spotify.
And reddit as far as I know
> That's it, the end of geographic arbitrage. No more working from the mountains on a Silicon Valley salary. Hope everyone enjoyed it while it lasted.
Location-based pay has been the norm at Apple, Google and Facebook already.
Location-based pay has been the norm at Apple, Google and Facebook already.
I don't know how Google is doing it, but the difference at some other companies is not that much. You're probably not getting sent down from 600k TC to 60k, even if that's the going rate for developers in Nowhere, Montana (if there even are any developer jobs there).
Then, consider that much of compensation at higher levels is RSUs you've already been allocated for the next four years anyways.
Then, consider that much of compensation at higher levels is RSUs you've already been allocated for the next four years anyways.
> You're probably not getting sent down from 600k TC to 60k, even if that's the going rate for developers in Nowhere, Montana (if there even are any developer jobs there).
Yeah. Anecdotally, the adjustment in pay within the USA at Big Cos is much lower than the differences in housing costs between SFBA and everywhere else.
(Between countries is another matter though; several years ago I've heard of folks in Europe making 2x/3x less than their American peers. Not sure what the situation is today.)
Yeah. Anecdotally, the adjustment in pay within the USA at Big Cos is much lower than the differences in housing costs between SFBA and everywhere else.
(Between countries is another matter though; several years ago I've heard of folks in Europe making 2x/3x less than their American peers. Not sure what the situation is today.)
> even if that's the going rate for developers in Nowhere, Montana
From what I've read elsewhere on the internet stopping the flow of CA programmers would actually be a god-sent to people who were raised in Nowhere, Montana, the gentrification taking place in the last few years has had very annoying societal side-effects for said local people. As far as I could understood Colorado is already a lost case, though.
From what I've read elsewhere on the internet stopping the flow of CA programmers would actually be a god-sent to people who were raised in Nowhere, Montana, the gentrification taking place in the last few years has had very annoying societal side-effects for said local people. As far as I could understood Colorado is already a lost case, though.
If you're in a relatively low comp area and decide to work remotely from a high comp city, does your location-based pay go up? Or is all "remote" work considered the same location pay-wise?
And furthermore, who's checking all of this—do you have to prove where you work, or just have a mailing address and a place to pay taxes?
I know one place that sent an inspector to verify the home office had the minimum required office equipment: a door and a shredder.
And furthermore, who's checking all of this—do you have to prove where you work, or just have a mailing address and a place to pay taxes?
I know one place that sent an inspector to verify the home office had the minimum required office equipment: a door and a shredder.
I've read that some companies require inspections of home offices in order to comply with insurance rules, especially around workers compensation. As if you get hurt "on the job" but the job happens in the employee's own home it could easily become quite a mess on the insurance side of things trying to figure out who's to blame.
I'm not sure exactly how sales tax rules work, but in the US I believe that if a business has a presence in a given state they are required to collect sales tax in that state. This could matter for smaller companies but probably Google already has a presence in every US state.
Regardless, purposefully lying to your employer about your location seems like something most employers would get really upset about simply on principle once they found out.
I'm not sure exactly how sales tax rules work, but in the US I believe that if a business has a presence in a given state they are required to collect sales tax in that state. This could matter for smaller companies but probably Google already has a presence in every US state.
Regardless, purposefully lying to your employer about your location seems like something most employers would get really upset about simply on principle once they found out.
Not sure it's gotta be so gloomy. You can still work from the mountains very, very comfortably at 50% of a SV salary.
If you aren't working for a major publicly-traded big tech firm, chances are this is not going to be happening to you in the first place. Big tech's motivation for doing this is clearly cost-cutting and avoiding liabilities they cannot yield total control over. If Google can't get you fat & giggly on paternalistic "benefits," hosted on their corporate campus, they're afraid you won't become the subservient non-skeptical workhorse they believe they need. So, they've got to start finding ways to offset the costs they believe will be coming from having employees who aren't being dominated under the total surveillance and control of Google's ever-present watching eyes.
If you aren't working for a major publicly-traded big tech firm, chances are this is not going to be happening to you in the first place. Big tech's motivation for doing this is clearly cost-cutting and avoiding liabilities they cannot yield total control over. If Google can't get you fat & giggly on paternalistic "benefits," hosted on their corporate campus, they're afraid you won't become the subservient non-skeptical workhorse they believe they need. So, they've got to start finding ways to offset the costs they believe will be coming from having employees who aren't being dominated under the total surveillance and control of Google's ever-present watching eyes.
It will be interesting to see the impact of this on the broader tech community.
This is them walking back the permanent remote thing, is it not?
I don't think Google committed to that. Other companies have.
The opposite, this is them walking back their commitment for across-the-board return to onsite.
[deleted]
That meeting room looks super uncomfortable and awkward. Why can’t they just use some simple criteria for coming back to work: if you have two vaccine shots + time for second shot you can come in to work (unless you have a medical/religious reason not to).
Also, if everyone is vaccines can we do away with mask requirements?
Also, if everyone is vaccines can we do away with mask requirements?
> if everyone is vaccines can we do away with mask requirements?
From my understanding, yes as soon as positive tests in the country (or some wide area you're likely to mingle with) are near zero. Until then, there is the risk of someone (not yet vaccinated) who carries the virus developing a mutation that can then try itself on the immune system of a vaccinated person (you). It'll spread if it's resistent, so we should avoid such contracts. As soon as we don't have it roaming around, I think we can do away with these precautions indeed.
From my understanding, yes as soon as positive tests in the country (or some wide area you're likely to mingle with) are near zero. Until then, there is the risk of someone (not yet vaccinated) who carries the virus developing a mutation that can then try itself on the immune system of a vaccinated person (you). It'll spread if it's resistent, so we should avoid such contracts. As soon as we don't have it roaming around, I think we can do away with these precautions indeed.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> Also, if everyone is vaccines can we do away with mask requirements?
We still don't have any hard evidence that the vaccine stops transmission. It's possible that it keeps you from getting sick while being an asymptomatic spreader.
That's why we're still wearing masks even after vaccination until we have better understanding of how the vaccine affects transmission rates.
We still don't have any hard evidence that the vaccine stops transmission. It's possible that it keeps you from getting sick while being an asymptomatic spreader.
That's why we're still wearing masks even after vaccination until we have better understanding of how the vaccine affects transmission rates.
> We still don't have any hard evidence that the vaccine stops transmission. It's possible that it keeps you from getting sick while being an asymptomatic spreader.
Yes we do. I'm not sure that we have peer reviewed published A/B studies yet (but I think we do have some initial ones).
But there is absolutely hard evidence that trasmissions rates decrease among vaccinated populations. We saw this with population level testing among groups that got vaccinated.
Yes we do. I'm not sure that we have peer reviewed published A/B studies yet (but I think we do have some initial ones).
But there is absolutely hard evidence that trasmissions rates decrease among vaccinated populations. We saw this with population level testing among groups that got vaccinated.
From the article:
> Preliminary data points to substantially lower rates of transmission among vaccinated people. [the article then cites a study in Israel, which I was also referring to]
That is some hard evidence. It may not be absolutely conclusive, but yes its evidence. We don't yet have a randomized controlled trial, which is the gold standard, yes. But we do have hard evidence.
> Preliminary data points to substantially lower rates of transmission among vaccinated people. [the article then cites a study in Israel, which I was also referring to]
That is some hard evidence. It may not be absolutely conclusive, but yes its evidence. We don't yet have a randomized controlled trial, which is the gold standard, yes. But we do have hard evidence.
[deleted]
> We still don't have any hard evidence that the vaccine stops transmission. It's possible that it keeps you from getting sick while being an asymptomatic spreader.
We absolutely do and such studies exist, and furthermore you can see a rapid decline in new cases in countries that have achieved high vaccine coverage, which would not have occurred if vaccines did not prevent onward transmission.
We absolutely do and such studies exist, and furthermore you can see a rapid decline in new cases in countries that have achieved high vaccine coverage, which would not have occurred if vaccines did not prevent onward transmission.
> We absolutely do
Source please. CDC hasn't said anything about this.
Source please. CDC hasn't said anything about this.
What do you make of https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases ?
> which would not have occurred if vaccines did not prevent onward transmission.
If vaccinated people can't get it, then it will mean that spreaders have less people to spread it to.
If vaccinated people can't get it, then it will mean that spreaders have less people to spread it to.
[deleted]
it's futile as remote work is self-amplifying. The office is now gonna be the place where people go to work remotely. For a while
> In fact, in places where we’ve been able to reopen Google offices in a voluntary capacity, we’ve seen nearly 60% of Googlers choosing to come back to the office.
They don’t classify if that’s continuous or one-time to get a laptop replacement. I would guess the latter
They don’t classify if that’s continuous or one-time to get a laptop replacement. I would guess the latter
I would also add that 60% coming back doesn't necessarily mean those people prefer working in office full stop. It could be partly that, partly people enjoy flexibility but are tired of the monotony of home, or other factors.
Ask that same 60% if they wanted a month of work from home pre-COVID and I'd bet on at least 33% saying yes, if not more.
Ask that same 60% if they wanted a month of work from home pre-COVID and I'd bet on at least 33% saying yes, if not more.
+1 to this. Remote work vs work from home during pandemic times are very different experiences. The latter is definitely not pleasant in the long run. Even though I worked from home as a usual practice pre pandemic, breaking up the monotony with an occasional hot desking at some other place which may end with a board game night, or working a bit from a coffee shop, is the kind of thing that made remote work such a joy normally.
You don't need to go to office to get laptop replacement at Google..
This is because more than 20% of googles workforce said that they'd quit if they made them come back to office. It's a kind of compromise
It just doesn't work when half of the team can walk by each other's desk, do some impromptu planning, and the other half are spread out across the world effectively uninvolved in these conversations. Nobody wants to go through the trouble of setting up a zoom for the 2 min conversation you have about a thing, or nobody is going to loop in a remote colleague when the team has lunch or coffee together.
You either choose to be fully digital, and make digital communication the way work gets done, or you harm people out of the office. Maybe Google will make a miracle happen, but I've never seen "hybrid" work as optimal as either fully in office, or fully remote.