Malcolm Gladwell opposes WFH while he works from his couch for the last 20 years(fortune.com)
fortune.com
Malcolm Gladwell opposes WFH while he works from his couch for the last 20 years
https://fortune.com/2022/08/08/malcolm-gladwell-slammed-after-criticizing-wfh-policies-despite-having-worked-remotely-for-decades/
149 comments
I’m having trouble thinking how to explain to my SO “yeah, I’m going to pay for my own office so I can have more freedom and reduced family responsibilities.”
I might be legitimately sleeping in said office for the foreseen future.
Edit: for context my only child is a teenager, and we have 2 dogs.
Edit: for context my only child is a teenager, and we have 2 dogs.
Allow your SO to do the same, problem solved. Its not "I have an office and you don't" powerplay, its "we both need offices"
the teen and dogs will sort it out. Admittedly, the in-house ground level will be 15cm higher, consisting of compacted chip wrappers, pringles tubes and doritos bags combined with .. something covered in hair, and chopsticks.
the teen and dogs will sort it out. Admittedly, the in-house ground level will be 15cm higher, consisting of compacted chip wrappers, pringles tubes and doritos bags combined with .. something covered in hair, and chopsticks.
I mean, how do you presently manage finances, especially wrt large financial decisions? How do you discuss difficult topics now? Though I imagine framing it differently than “I’m unilaterally deciding to have fewer responsibilities around the house” is going to improve the odds of success.
you need an office so you can focus on your work. to many disruptions at home.
or you need to meet clients
I had a similar setup for a few years in Munich. My office was 5 minutes bike ride from home, I had a nice window and met a lot of interesting people. I would be happy to be in that setup again. The thought of sitting in a cube without window or an open office fills me with dread.
when our team got moved to the companies main office we were going to be put in rooms that were pretty dark and had few windows. i insisted on being in a room with a window or i'd quit. they ended up custom fitting my desk in an empty corner in the hallway which was smaller than your standard cubicle size but had a window.
This is so spot on. Right now I work from like three places every day. I do some work at home. I'll move to a coffee shop or something somewhere and then my company has an office I'll usually spend some time in as well.
I walk between those spots. I like to take meetings on those walks or just use the time to clear my head. It's great.
It's not about officed or not officed... it's about my ability to find the best spot for me to be in any given moment.
I walk between those spots. I like to take meetings on those walks or just use the time to clear my head. It's great.
It's not about officed or not officed... it's about my ability to find the best spot for me to be in any given moment.
With the freedom mindset, would you consider a co-working membership where you could use any number of their locations (if there's availability like that near you)?
I don't know what rationale Gladwell has provided, but I've just got to add (with a throwaway account, naturally) that WFH has been disastrous for me, and indeed a double-digit number of close acquaintances have reported the same. Mitchwell and Webb was pretty prescient as to the reason why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IW3lhfVpLL4
We are not meant to be alone. Weird things happen when we are alone for too long.
We are not meant to be alone. Weird things happen when we are alone for too long.
Pandemic did something that was never possible, show that doing effective work without having to physically put yourself in a specific location was always possible. Higher productivity and record company profits show that it is totally possible. Any push towards bringing people in to work is just about preference now.
The other thing that working remote has done is that it has disillusioned a lot of people. It’s harder to drink the cool aid when you can easily distance yourself. This has also meant all the corporate lies and bullshit are easily called out. And that is where the management struggles and wants to push for in person work. Employees have taken back a lot of power from the management and that is something that doesn’t sit well with them.
The other thing that working remote has done is that it has disillusioned a lot of people. It’s harder to drink the cool aid when you can easily distance yourself. This has also meant all the corporate lies and bullshit are easily called out. And that is where the management struggles and wants to push for in person work. Employees have taken back a lot of power from the management and that is something that doesn’t sit well with them.
I was surprised at how content-free Malcolm Gladwell's position on this really is. The bit about "feeling necessary" really grates and the bit about "sitting in your pajamas" strikes me reductive and borderline insulting.
> “As we face the battle that all organizations are facing now in getting people back into the office, it’s really hard to explain this core psychological truth, which is we want you to have a feeling of belonging and to feel necessary,” he said.
> Gladwell added that it was “not in your best interest to work at home.”
> “I know it’s a hassle to come into the office, but if you’re just sitting in your pajamas in your bedroom, is that the work life you want to live?” he questioned. “Don’t you want to feel part of something?”
This idea that if I don't sit through a boring and pointless commute, then sit in an office all day (no matter how much work may need to be done) in order to feel like I "belong" or that I'm "necessary" is entirely unhinged. The tone here that people just "don't know what's good for them" sounds pretty sanctimonious.
> “As we face the battle that all organizations are facing now in getting people back into the office, it’s really hard to explain this core psychological truth, which is we want you to have a feeling of belonging and to feel necessary,” he said.
> Gladwell added that it was “not in your best interest to work at home.”
> “I know it’s a hassle to come into the office, but if you’re just sitting in your pajamas in your bedroom, is that the work life you want to live?” he questioned. “Don’t you want to feel part of something?”
This idea that if I don't sit through a boring and pointless commute, then sit in an office all day (no matter how much work may need to be done) in order to feel like I "belong" or that I'm "necessary" is entirely unhinged. The tone here that people just "don't know what's good for them" sounds pretty sanctimonious.
Exactly! Frankly the format, tone, context, and delivery look like a low-effort shill by an author who's ran out of ideas.
I don't work in my pajamas and frankly I don't know anyone who does. My wardrobe is different these days - I wear a pair of comfortable shorts and a polo shirt. I'm groomed and professional. If I want a change of scenery I go to a coffee shop. It's been working out quite well for me and others on my team.
I've become so cynical - I wouldn't be surprised if this is the media machine at work.
How do we know that Gladwell isn't saying this at the behest of some third party in some way?
Perhaps we'll see more and more public begin to shame working from home and in the end it's just big companies trying to turn the tide.
How do we know that Gladwell isn't saying this at the behest of some third party in some way?
Perhaps we'll see more and more public begin to shame working from home and in the end it's just big companies trying to turn the tide.
And don't forget WFH vs working in the office are not two sides of a coin where you can pick and choose your adventure and it costs about the same -- working from an office has notably lower productivity (look at the non-FANG studies), costs way, way more for the employee and the employer, and has an unconsciounable carbon footprint (commuting, running AC in the offic 24/7, real estate, vehicles, etc etc).
While I love to hate on forced-in-office work as much as the next guy - the AC point is actually the opposite of the truth. During the hottest hours of the day it's more efficient to cool down a single large space for many people than have everyone running their AC at home - now if your office likes to keep the temperature at 14C and forces most employees to bring in a space heater to keep from getting chills then that's a perfectly valid point... but most offices keep a "reasonable" temperature.
I can believe as a one-to-one comparison, cooling an office is more efficient. But people aren't turning off their home AC when they go into the office. If you figure that a majority of people won't even schedule their thermostat due to laziness, having other people at home, etc, and if even if they do, having their house cool down for their arrival home (5:30-6PM?) is still during a pretty hot time of day.
I would be pretty surprised if offset you could anywhere near the cooling of an entire office building considering all that.
I'm coming from the perspective of Texas where it's 100F effectively all day during the summer and I wouldn't move the thermostat from it's usual daytime setting of ~76F past maybe ~80F. Any more and it would take hours to cool back down.
I would be pretty surprised if offset you could anywhere near the cooling of an entire office building considering all that.
I'm coming from the perspective of Texas where it's 100F effectively all day during the summer and I wouldn't move the thermostat from it's usual daytime setting of ~76F past maybe ~80F. Any more and it would take hours to cool back down.
This is just isn't true. Way way more AC gets used when offices are involved than when they are not (especially if the office building didn't exist in the first place in the flipside scenario). They leave office AC on 24/7, and people leave their home AC on anyway, so it has a multiplicative effect on carbon footprint.
how about the offset on all the vehicles on the road? People still need to cool their homes reasonably while at work (people, pets) when they're not there so the difference might be less important. also this makes the assumption you're living in a place that needs AC. Commute is all year, AC usage maybe not.
I think it’s important to remember that this cannot be true of all jobs and job roles.
Yes, but it could definitely be true of literally every single desk job. There are also many manufacturing, retail, and warehouse jobs that could be done by someone controlling a robot over the internet. If that becomes practical one could envision a 100% WFH economy. IMO it's an inevitability and is way way more practical than autonomous robots replacing jobs.
Why non-FANG studies? Are FANG companies more effective at using people in office?
Can you link to some of these studies? I feel like a lot of articles / comments are pointing to said studies, but rarely link to them. Looking at the people and companies around me I would personally take such a broad conclusion with a grain of salt.
Much of what middle management does is justify its existence. Without being in the office, it is a whole lot harder to justify this existence for people who spend their days in meetings talking about what will happen in other meetings. You can significantly cut these roles out and gain productivity.
I agree. The pandemic weakened the position of a lot of corporate bullshitters.
On the other hand, if management can figure out this asynchronous, remote, results-driven world, they gain a lot of flexibility w.r.t to labor. It's hard to find skilled people. If you can hire globally, it should be a big advantage.
On the other hand, if management can figure out this asynchronous, remote, results-driven world, they gain a lot of flexibility w.r.t to labor. It's hard to find skilled people. If you can hire globally, it should be a big advantage.
Just because profits are higher after the occurrence of working from home, doesn’t mean it is because of it. This is a common logical and statistical fallacy to attribute causality from observation.
That may be true - but at this point the crowd that yells "Working from home lowers productivity and wrecks the economy" is the one that's going to need to actually get some statistics to prove their point.
Neither stance should be taken as a given and, additionally, it's going to vary from person to person - I know some people that were chomping at the bit to get back into the office because they exist best in that sort of a structured environment... and I know a lot who looked at their commute and said "Nah, I'll pass."
Neither stance should be taken as a given and, additionally, it's going to vary from person to person - I know some people that were chomping at the bit to get back into the office because they exist best in that sort of a structured environment... and I know a lot who looked at their commute and said "Nah, I'll pass."
Anecdotally it also looks like productivity / output depends not just on the person but also the organization / team. Probably not feasible to say as a blanket statement either way if WFH is more or less productive.
I agree with this comment. I think as we condition from profession to team to company culture - assuming there is anything causal with WFH - some may be more productive, while others less so.
[deleted]
Remote work isn't just about the company results though (their profits, their effectivity), the point they're making in the article, which I believe in, is the effect on the human wellbeing. On average a lot of people might benefit from a more intimate/collegial environment (which the article says), and depending on your personality and skills it may be harder for some young people to get ahead when not being in the office (they might not be noticed, they might not build the right networks or be part of serendipitous important conversations etc.). I think we're moving fast to a world where many knowledge workers are becoming zero-career fend-for-yourself, kpi-only, you-wont-have-an-office, we-dont-know-you, "widget cranking" gig workers, and trust me that only benefits the shareholders and "the company"..
"I think we're moving fast to a world where many knowledge workers are becoming zero-career fend-for-yourself, kpi-only, you-wont-have-an-office, we-dont-know-you, "widget cranking" gig workers, and trust me that only benefits the shareholders and "the company".."
Employers will do that anyway no matter you are at the office or not.
Employers will do that anyway no matter you are at the office or not.
Yeah ... we got there, in-office, over a decade ago.
> the point they're making in the article
You may want to re-read the article. You’re welcome to prefer working at an office, but the article is heartily roasting a person’s hypocrisy: he famously works remotely himself, but advocates a return to the office for others.
As far as the substance of your opinion as expressed, I’ve worked remotely for the vast majority of the last two decades. There have been times (and specific jobs) I could say matched some of what you describe, other times (including my current role) where there’s no resemblance whatsoever.
But importantly, in no case would I want anyone to arbitrarily determine for me what working arrangement would be best for my wellbeing, unless I’ve been deemed incompetent. I’d certainly listen if a friend outside of work said they think I’d benefit from more time working in an office. But I’m definitely not interested in that insight from business leaders, hypocritical authors, or randos on the Internet.
In short: you want to work in an office? Great, go work in an office!
You may want to re-read the article. You’re welcome to prefer working at an office, but the article is heartily roasting a person’s hypocrisy: he famously works remotely himself, but advocates a return to the office for others.
As far as the substance of your opinion as expressed, I’ve worked remotely for the vast majority of the last two decades. There have been times (and specific jobs) I could say matched some of what you describe, other times (including my current role) where there’s no resemblance whatsoever.
But importantly, in no case would I want anyone to arbitrarily determine for me what working arrangement would be best for my wellbeing, unless I’ve been deemed incompetent. I’d certainly listen if a friend outside of work said they think I’d benefit from more time working in an office. But I’m definitely not interested in that insight from business leaders, hypocritical authors, or randos on the Internet.
In short: you want to work in an office? Great, go work in an office!
The number of people getting ahead at a company is very close to zero sum. Someone needs to manage the team, someone needs to get work done, and companies need to pay market rate for both. Saying some type of people are better off in an equally effect system just means some other group of people are worse off in it.
As to knowledge workers fending for themselves, it’s mostly a question if a company can make full use of an employees specialization. Employees cost less per hour and prioritize the companies work, but must be paid based on the market rate for their most valuable skills. That basic preference for employees isn’t going away.
As to knowledge workers fending for themselves, it’s mostly a question if a company can make full use of an employees specialization. Employees cost less per hour and prioritize the companies work, but must be paid based on the market rate for their most valuable skills. That basic preference for employees isn’t going away.
> On average a lot of people might benefit from a more intimate/collegial environment
I'll decide myself what's better for me "on average"
thanks
I'll decide myself what's better for me "on average"
thanks
You're welcome :) hence why I'm NOT speaking about "you" or "me".. and I'm not talking about the fluffy social side only - there's a lot of interesting studies (incl our own below) and many areas of modern work sucks and that it seems like the more we've moved to remote work in the last couple of years the more we've seen increases in things like working late, doing duplicate work, time spent in unnecessary meetings[1]. Also, we've seen that working parents with children at home are also experiencing a higher level of imposter syndrome (67%) vs non-parents (57%)[2]. Suffice to say "remote work" isn't the answer for everyone and everything (and funnily enough if you read paper #2, turns out people prefer a mix)
[1]: https://asana.com/resources/anatomy-of-work [2]: https://asana.com/resources/anatomy-of-work-summary
[1]: https://asana.com/resources/anatomy-of-work [2]: https://asana.com/resources/anatomy-of-work-summary
“Employees have taken back a lot of power from the management…”
Power?
The only power employees have is the power to quit en masse. A spasmodic riot. Mutiny—which no manager wants on their watch.
If employees continue to WFH it’s still by the consent of the employer, even if it’s reluctant consent. At least that’s the case in New York, an “at-will employment” state.
Maybe it’s different…in France
Power?
The only power employees have is the power to quit en masse. A spasmodic riot. Mutiny—which no manager wants on their watch.
If employees continue to WFH it’s still by the consent of the employer, even if it’s reluctant consent. At least that’s the case in New York, an “at-will employment” state.
Maybe it’s different…in France
>Higher productivity and record company profits show that it is totally possible.
Aren't we in a recession? What's the basis for this claim?
Aren't we in a recession? What's the basis for this claim?
Both of those can be true if some industry is getting destroyed while tech flourishes.
BTW, if you are in the USA, no, we're not in a recession.
A very productive recession. ;)
Malcolm Gladwell is a hack who sells information that seems profound.
"Prepare to be dazzled" is on the cover of Freakonomics, and that's exactly what it is, dazzling. Dictionary definition "brightness that confuses someone's vision temporarily", and that's all that it is. Information that feels right, but is actually just engineered to evoke that feeling, distorting the truth to engage you with the content.
"Prepare to be dazzled" is on the cover of Freakonomics, and that's exactly what it is, dazzling. Dictionary definition "brightness that confuses someone's vision temporarily", and that's all that it is. Information that feels right, but is actually just engineered to evoke that feeling, distorting the truth to engage you with the content.
FYI the authors of Freakonomics are Stephen Levitt and Stephen Dubner, not Malcolm Gladwell.
Sorry, the quote is what Gladwell said about Freakonomics, printed on the cover.
The Freakonomics guys have podcasts and they are fairly good. There’s no boiling things down to a simple sound bite.
Have not reads the books.
Have not reads the books.
There are plenty of counterpoints to freakonomics conclusions as well. https://www.americanscientist.org/article/freakonomics-what-...
It's not about soundbytes but making a good story for entertainment instead of seeking truth.
This happens very broadly with "popular" science kinds of media. A disturbingly high amount of what you read in them is distorted for presentation and entertainment.
It's not about soundbytes but making a good story for entertainment instead of seeking truth.
This happens very broadly with "popular" science kinds of media. A disturbingly high amount of what you read in them is distorted for presentation and entertainment.
Here's another Freakonomics critique:
> "But what’s most troubling about “SuperFreakonomics” isn’t the authors’ many blunders; it’s the whole spirit of the enterprise. Though climate change is a grave problem, Levitt and Dubner treat it mainly as an opportunity to show how clever they are."
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/11/16/hosed
> "But what’s most troubling about “SuperFreakonomics” isn’t the authors’ many blunders; it’s the whole spirit of the enterprise. Though climate change is a grave problem, Levitt and Dubner treat it mainly as an opportunity to show how clever they are."
I have not read the Freakonomics books. I have not read any Gladwell books either. But I have listened to Gladwell's podcast. Gladwell by comparison seems to be, to use what other people have said, a story teller. An easy listening story teller.
Dubner and Levitt's podcasts in comparison, are more likely to interview interesting people, and I leave with more things to consider. This isn't to say they are infallible. And you don't have to agree with everything they say or write.
But Galdwell seems more interested in a neat narrative.
Dubner and Levitt's podcasts in comparison, are more likely to interview interesting people, and I leave with more things to consider. This isn't to say they are infallible. And you don't have to agree with everything they say or write.
But Galdwell seems more interested in a neat narrative.
[deleted]
Malcolm Gladwell constantly makes up shit so I don’t see why this would be any different.
Malcolm Gladwell is the quintessential professional sophist. I remember attempting to read 'Blink' after it was recommended, and I could not force myself to finish it. His (continued) popularity taught me a deep lesson regarding humanity at the time.
My first impression of him was that he was an intellectual con artist.
Gladwell’s stuff can make for entertaining reading but he’s fundamentally at some level a writer looking for views and not a scientist looking to drill down on the details to fully understand something. A lot of what he writes sounds great but doesn’t really survive a deeper dive into the subject where his core arguments start to unravel as inconvenient details he glossed over or didn’t mention at all come to light. Not saying I still don’t sometimes read his stuff, but I take a big grain of salt when doing so.
The sort of thing he’s getting flak for here is right up that alley… preaches about how working from home is terrible but forces his colleagues to adjust to his desire to not work from an office.
The sort of thing he’s getting flak for here is right up that alley… preaches about how working from home is terrible but forces his colleagues to adjust to his desire to not work from an office.
I like your take on it and I'd add it's like his core motto is don't let facts get in the way of a good story. I think he's probably one of the world's best storytellers and I love his passion and how into his work he is, it's just a shame that he'll publish a good idea even if that idea doesn't ultimately pan out.
He's an entertainer, not a scientist. His stuff is definitely entertaining and thought provoking, but he does make some "Gladwellian leaps" to gloss over some inconvenient facts to get to his ideas.
When I see the Gladwell hate threads, I usually conclude that I'm not quite smart enough to truly criticize him. I'm not an intense fan or anything, but I have read a book or two of his, many articles in the new yorker, and listened to some podcast eps. And, yeah, he's entertaining and thought provoking. His podcast endeared me to him since he genuinely seemed to enjoy it (I haven't listened in a couple years - not since WFH and not having to commute!).
Well, most of the criticism is not on charitable interpretation but like nitpicking isolated, out of context statements.
10K hours part is good example where people just jump on him for making this bullshit theory about anyone becoming expert by putting mindless 10,000 hours in any skill one wanted to acquire. But reading that book I never got impression that it is some kind of magic.
What I find most funny is that a lot of people who find MG fraud can easily get hoodwinked with some other person/place/technology/thing if they just happen to like it.
10K hours part is good example where people just jump on him for making this bullshit theory about anyone becoming expert by putting mindless 10,000 hours in any skill one wanted to acquire. But reading that book I never got impression that it is some kind of magic.
What I find most funny is that a lot of people who find MG fraud can easily get hoodwinked with some other person/place/technology/thing if they just happen to like it.
I use one of his books to even out a broken chair I have.
I realize this is ad hominem, but when I used to live in the west village I would see him all over the place in the middle of the day, working, but notably not in an office. It was A Thing. I would see him (frequently, he was a fixture of the Joe's on Waverly in particular) and with envy think about what a great gig he's got, that he had the freedom to work wherever he wanted. Reading about him literally tear up at the thought of all those empty desks in all those empty buildings across Manhattan is hilarious.
I also happen to have it on good authority that when he did show up to an office he would arrive, and I am not making this up, in pajamas.
I also happen to have it on good authority that when he did show up to an office he would arrive, and I am not making this up, in pajamas.
Sounds like totally normal Bay Area behavior :)
Separating work from your home life is important. Collaborating with co-workers is important. Not having to do a long commute is important. Not having to go to the office because your family needs you at home is important. And on and on...
Ultimately, we will find that both sides have good points. I'm one that believes that there needs to be a balance where an individual can decide how much work will be done at home while going to the office as needed or desired. 100% at home or 100% at work is not healthy. We need both. What the pandemic has shown is that many of us don't have to be in the office 100% to be productive. Let's find a balance.
Ultimately, we will find that both sides have good points. I'm one that believes that there needs to be a balance where an individual can decide how much work will be done at home while going to the office as needed or desired. 100% at home or 100% at work is not healthy. We need both. What the pandemic has shown is that many of us don't have to be in the office 100% to be productive. Let's find a balance.
The year before the pandemic I worked at a company that attracted a lot of younger, hipper people. It was crazy to me just how many people hung out at the office on a Friday night.
Now that I'm 40, that life just isn't for me. I know what I'm a part of, and I don't need to be in an office to delude me into thinking my job is changing the world. Maybe Gladwell is speaking to those 20-somethings and not to me, but he just sounds like a con man.
Now that I'm 40, that life just isn't for me. I know what I'm a part of, and I don't need to be in an office to delude me into thinking my job is changing the world. Maybe Gladwell is speaking to those 20-somethings and not to me, but he just sounds like a con man.
Your hanging out when you were 20 cemented relationships that you benefit from later in your career. I see this all the time — the 40 year-olds make the transition to remote work just fine and thrive. The 20-somethings become isolated and languish.
That's a fair assessment
Malcolm "I write from my couch" Gladwell said this? Go look at any article about this topic on LinkedIn, and you will find a bunch of wannabe influencer-managers crying about not being able to "shoot the shit over the water-cooler" anymore, and a ton of brave employees telling them that they never, ever want to go back.
Sorta interesting that the millionaire class is all about being back in the office, while the rank and file general salaried employee wants no part of it. Wonder why that is? My guesses are that (a) managers want to be seen managing in order to get promotions, and (b) they actually believe that the average employee buys into this "team" bullshit while barely being able to afford day-to-day life. That's dead. They killed it. It's not coming back. Shouldn't have pocketed millions in PPP loans while lobbying against people getting a stimulus check if you didn't want people to notice the star differences between the classes. Also shouldn't have bragged to us about how management, in many of companies that have lost money for years, set aside their quarterly bonuses while still making multiples of what the average employee makes.
Sorta interesting that the millionaire class is all about being back in the office, while the rank and file general salaried employee wants no part of it. Wonder why that is? My guesses are that (a) managers want to be seen managing in order to get promotions, and (b) they actually believe that the average employee buys into this "team" bullshit while barely being able to afford day-to-day life. That's dead. They killed it. It's not coming back. Shouldn't have pocketed millions in PPP loans while lobbying against people getting a stimulus check if you didn't want people to notice the star differences between the classes. Also shouldn't have bragged to us about how management, in many of companies that have lost money for years, set aside their quarterly bonuses while still making multiples of what the average employee makes.
Well said. Another reason that management doesn’t care is that the main cost to employees, time (especially commuting), is not born by them.
This is purely anecdotal, but the eagerness people have in telling other people how they should work seems to be something of a "tell" regarding their personalities. It gives away that secretly (or not so secretly) they get off on making others do what they want and it's all the more disturbing as it's dressed up as being vital for success or some other questionable unsubstantiated justification when really it's just about pushing people around.
It's quite a surprise to hear Gladwell's hypocrisy as he usually comes across as far more considered but i maybe with time he's slipping into bad habits.
It's quite a surprise to hear Gladwell's hypocrisy as he usually comes across as far more considered but i maybe with time he's slipping into bad habits.
Just one person's perspective - but I completely agree with the idea of wanting to feel part of something and not getting that with 100% WFH. Most of us spend a good chunk of our adult waking lives working, we might as well try to make the time as fulfilling as possible. I get energized by being on a team and building something together. WFH is just not the same for me.
I know others can be fulfilled working from home, so I'm not advocating forcing anyone back into the office. But I could see a scenario where companies differentiate into pure wfh and 2 or 3 days/week in the office. I may be weird, but I would chose the latter, all other things being equal.
I know others can be fulfilled working from home, so I'm not advocating forcing anyone back into the office. But I could see a scenario where companies differentiate into pure wfh and 2 or 3 days/week in the office. I may be weird, but I would chose the latter, all other things being equal.
"All other things being equal" is a massive qualification though.
The reason people like WFH often begins and ends at "No commute". If your commute is roughly an hour you get 2 hours of your day back instantly. Tough sell for come into the office when the options are "feeling part of something" vs getting 2 hours of the day back.
The reason people like WFH often begins and ends at "No commute". If your commute is roughly an hour you get 2 hours of your day back instantly. Tough sell for come into the office when the options are "feeling part of something" vs getting 2 hours of the day back.
This is where I think many people talk past each other in the great wfh debate. If your commute is an easy 20 minutes where you listen to a podcast or an audiobook, and you find collaboration easier in-person rather than via Teams, it's a completely different equation to an introvert with a 1 hour commute through gridlock. Personally my commute isn't too bad & I'm far more productive at the office, though I do appreciate the opportunity to work from home 1-2 days per week.
I listen to audiobooks in the car. So it doesn't feel like time wasted to me.
You can still listen to audiobooks and walk your dog, do gardening or laundry or whatever else you want. All of which are more relaxing to me than driving in traffic - and that’s after the fact that I have a car I actually like driving.
Now imagine if you could get the same 2 hours of daily audiobooking and it’s a workout or getting chores done. You can do that when you aren’t stuck in a car, activities.
Technically a safety hazard.
Or you know, we live on the other side of the country and we don't want to have to pay 5x for a comparable home in commuting distance...
> “I know it’s a hassle to come into the office, but if you’re just sitting in your pajamas in your bedroom, is that the work life you want to live?” he questioned.
Yes! That sounds awesome, and is in fact what I did during COVID. Well, minus the bedroom part; I at least went downstairs to the couch.
> “Don’t you want to feel part of something?”
Grossssss. I don't need to be brainwashed into being a worker bee for someone else's "vision". I don't need to get emotionally involved with my employer. I'll just do the job and take my paycheck, thank you very much.
Yes! That sounds awesome, and is in fact what I did during COVID. Well, minus the bedroom part; I at least went downstairs to the couch.
> “Don’t you want to feel part of something?”
Grossssss. I don't need to be brainwashed into being a worker bee for someone else's "vision". I don't need to get emotionally involved with my employer. I'll just do the job and take my paycheck, thank you very much.
I see Gladwell's comments as being just the latest in a line of people proclaiming the death of the public sphere. Staring with Ray Oldenburg's Third Place https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place and more recently Putnam's Bowling Alone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_Alone
While I do think there is something to be said for face to face interactions, valorizing work is just making work your life instead of the thing that makes life possible.
While I do think there is something to be said for face to face interactions, valorizing work is just making work your life instead of the thing that makes life possible.
Yes, if taking away the part of your day where you go and sit at a long desk table with headphones on in any way feels like "reducing your life," there's a bigger problem.
We could definitely use a major civic revival and more backyard barbecues. We could do without sitting in conference rooms.
We could definitely use a major civic revival and more backyard barbecues. We could do without sitting in conference rooms.
What compels him to spout this hypocrisy? Is this some corporate psy-op that has captured him? How does Gladwell stand to benefit by saying this, rather than saying "WFH is great" which appears to be his true opinion?
He makes a lot of money on the corporate lecture circuit. It is probably a lot easier to get invited to talk for $$$$$ if you say shit that the decision-makers want to hear.
Hmm. I want to work at work (I don't have an in-home office so I really appreciate the separation), but if Malcolm Gladwell wants me to go in... maybe I can partition the livingroom somehow...
Office jobs, particularly for engineers also used to involve the requirement of showing up in a suit and a tie. Unnecessarily on-site work, I predict will go the way of the suit and tie.
I’m sick of people explaining why people are wrong for preferring what they prefer.
Yeah, it's very childish.
Malcolm Gladwell: that guy who writes about his own thoughts and re-words them as if they are factual and apply to everyone.
> “feel part of something,”
I feel part of many things. I feel part of my family. I feel like a pet owner. I feel part of a social group. I don't need to feel part of my work. And employees were not more engaged prior to the pandemic. People quit just as often.
> but if you’re just sitting in your pajamas in your bedroom, is that the work life you want to live?
Yes! I am tapping away on a keyboard to made data flow. That's my job. Better to do it in pjs in a comfy bed than a shitty office chair.
I feel part of many things. I feel part of my family. I feel like a pet owner. I feel part of a social group. I don't need to feel part of my work. And employees were not more engaged prior to the pandemic. People quit just as often.
> but if you’re just sitting in your pajamas in your bedroom, is that the work life you want to live?
Yes! I am tapping away on a keyboard to made data flow. That's my job. Better to do it in pjs in a comfy bed than a shitty office chair.
> And employees were not more engaged prior to the pandemic. People quit just as often.
Is that actually true about the quitting? But regardless, I don't think that really captures engagement all that well.
You can be barely engaged in a job that doesn't require a lot from you and do it for years and years. And OTOH, I think engagement can sometimes cause people to quit more easily. If you want your work to be a meaningful and important part of your life, you want more from your job, and might leave readily if you're not getting all that you want. Compared to: if your job is mostly just a paycheck for you, you're not really looking to get much out of it other than that paycheck, and so are happy to keep working at the job even if it's not giving you other things, as long as nothing gets too actively bad.
Is that actually true about the quitting? But regardless, I don't think that really captures engagement all that well.
You can be barely engaged in a job that doesn't require a lot from you and do it for years and years. And OTOH, I think engagement can sometimes cause people to quit more easily. If you want your work to be a meaningful and important part of your life, you want more from your job, and might leave readily if you're not getting all that you want. Compared to: if your job is mostly just a paycheck for you, you're not really looking to get much out of it other than that paycheck, and so are happy to keep working at the job even if it's not giving you other things, as long as nothing gets too actively bad.
> People quit just as often.
People are quitting a little more often.
They are doing that because offering your employees a 3%-5% raise in a year where inflation is 9.1% is cutting their pay.
Employers would like to pretend that isn't true so they're looking for any other explanation. Work-from-home, low birth rate (retroactively to 1997?), social media, entitlement...
220V, 221V, whatever it takes.
People are quitting a little more often.
They are doing that because offering your employees a 3%-5% raise in a year where inflation is 9.1% is cutting their pay.
Employers would like to pretend that isn't true so they're looking for any other explanation. Work-from-home, low birth rate (retroactively to 1997?), social media, entitlement...
220V, 221V, whatever it takes.
> 220V, 221V, whatever it takes.
Thanks, the Mr. Mom reference made me smile.
Thanks, the Mr. Mom reference made me smile.
What kind of team is Malcolm Gladwell part of? A solitary writer is one thing, a team of 40 people where some are fresh grads who need hands on mentoring and some need quick emotional feedback on their ideas is another. Malcolm is not automatically a hypocrite by suggesting most people work in different circumstances from himself.
> Malcolm is not automatically a hypocrite by suggesting most people work in different circumstances from himself.
Perhaps not, but he also doesn't speak from a position of authority or experience, then, and maybe shouldn't act as such. If asked, saying something like "I can't really say one way or another, I've been writing on my own for years, not as part of a team" would have been better than what he chose to say instead.
Perhaps not, but he also doesn't speak from a position of authority or experience, then, and maybe shouldn't act as such. If asked, saying something like "I can't really say one way or another, I've been writing on my own for years, not as part of a team" would have been better than what he chose to say instead.
[deleted]
Gladwell is (in my opinion) like Peterson and Kurzeweil: somebody it is probably better to ignore, for your own mental health.
If you like him, fine. If not, also fine. But no matter what, please don't take him seriously as a source of guidance for what is true, and beautiful in the world.
If you like him, fine. If not, also fine. But no matter what, please don't take him seriously as a source of guidance for what is true, and beautiful in the world.
Malcolm Gladwell also thinks smoking cigarettes isn't bad for you, possibility even good for you!
> “I know it’s a hassle to come into the office, but if you’re just sitting in your pajamas in your bedroom, is that the work life you want to live?” he questioned. “Don’t you want to feel part of something?”
1. It is also a hassle being in the office. I can focus much better at home. Unless the office wants to give everyone their own little sound-proof and well naturally lit room. No one does that though. It would cost at least 2% of the developers salary.
2. I can feel anything I want. I can feel part of something from a distance. We have great tools to communicate. I appreciate that if you start at a company it would be nice to physically meet up, and it is probably good to get together occasionally. But every day in the office is not necessary.
1. It is also a hassle being in the office. I can focus much better at home. Unless the office wants to give everyone their own little sound-proof and well naturally lit room. No one does that though. It would cost at least 2% of the developers salary.
2. I can feel anything I want. I can feel part of something from a distance. We have great tools to communicate. I appreciate that if you start at a company it would be nice to physically meet up, and it is probably good to get together occasionally. But every day in the office is not necessary.
I have worked from home for 18 years now. Don’t ever see myself in an office other than for visits and specific meetings ever again. We still do in person events and I have many long standing friendships and relationships with prior colleagues. Though I did travel to my clients officers for a few years in there, it is different and would not support Gladwell’s argument anyhow because it was always different offices and people.
For a lot of people, I would say most people, working from home has short term benefits and is long-term career-limiting.
People who are deep into their careers with built-out networks and contacts have no problem with the transition. But for others, it will play out over the next 5 years when they find that they are falling behind. The pendulum will swing the other way and having an office will be seen as a beneficial perk and career booster.
People who are deep into their careers with built-out networks and contacts have no problem with the transition. But for others, it will play out over the next 5 years when they find that they are falling behind. The pendulum will swing the other way and having an office will be seen as a beneficial perk and career booster.
I don't care if people wanna WFH. Not for me but more power to them. However, I know several people with 2 full time jobs now. I believe this "drop in turnover" is largely because if you don't like your job you can just stop working and keep collecting a paycheck and nobody will know about it.
Does anyone even care what Gladwell says these days? He's been exposed as a hack several times already.
For every industry: Hot job market = High relative bargaining power among employees = more flexibility in working conditions (a perk like any other).
Once the job market turns and jobs are scarce relative to workers, most people will be back in the office or starve.
Once the job market turns and jobs are scarce relative to workers, most people will be back in the office or starve.
He isn't wrong, insofar as when you start WFH, the pretense that work is anything other than an involuntary trade of time (in too large a quantity) for money (in to small an amount) people do because they have no other choice drops away.
> “I know it’s a hassle to come into the office, but if you’re just sitting in your pajamas in your bedroom, is that the work life you want to live?” he questioned. “Don’t you want to feel part of something?”
Doing a braindead typical corporate job from home, in one's pajamas, is an alienating experience. The issue is that, above a certain level of intelligence and awareness, having to go in and do that job on-site is even more alienating.
I don't "feel part of something" in corporate work. I haven't since my 20s, when a series of life circumstances forced me to figure reality out very quick.
At the same time, the few jobs that are intrinsically rewarding and useful do not become less rewarding and useful .
To keep hoi polloi motivated, and to keep them overestimating their tiny actual chance (less than 1%, in many circumstances, because it's typically something one is born into) of being invited into the executive circle so they actually do the work (which they are just smart enough to do, but hopefully not smart enough to see the pointlessness of), the office is pretty much necessary. Otherwise, it becomes just too clear, even to people of sub-mediocre apperception, that "work" isn't really about Starbucks at 11:00 and town halls at 4:00, but that it is merely the trade of an intensely valuable and personal commodity--one's time--for the artificially scarce one called "money" (existing largely, in bulk, to measure the asymmetric state services called "property rights") that (a) is owned in the greatest amounts by the literal worst people in the world, but (b) is absolutely necessary if one wishes access to the means of survival.
> “I know it’s a hassle to come into the office, but if you’re just sitting in your pajamas in your bedroom, is that the work life you want to live?” he questioned. “Don’t you want to feel part of something?”
Doing a braindead typical corporate job from home, in one's pajamas, is an alienating experience. The issue is that, above a certain level of intelligence and awareness, having to go in and do that job on-site is even more alienating.
I don't "feel part of something" in corporate work. I haven't since my 20s, when a series of life circumstances forced me to figure reality out very quick.
At the same time, the few jobs that are intrinsically rewarding and useful do not become less rewarding and useful .
To keep hoi polloi motivated, and to keep them overestimating their tiny actual chance (less than 1%, in many circumstances, because it's typically something one is born into) of being invited into the executive circle so they actually do the work (which they are just smart enough to do, but hopefully not smart enough to see the pointlessness of), the office is pretty much necessary. Otherwise, it becomes just too clear, even to people of sub-mediocre apperception, that "work" isn't really about Starbucks at 11:00 and town halls at 4:00, but that it is merely the trade of an intensely valuable and personal commodity--one's time--for the artificially scarce one called "money" (existing largely, in bulk, to measure the asymmetric state services called "property rights") that (a) is owned in the greatest amounts by the literal worst people in the world, but (b) is absolutely necessary if one wishes access to the means of survival.
[deleted]
It’s not surprising for a parasite to oppose parasitism, for obvious reasons. The real punchline is that tech wfh isn’t particularly parasitical, compared to whatever you want to call what Gladwell does.
Who cares what Malcolm Gladwell thinks? @dang is this really worthy of HN? There is nothing new here. Just the same old WFH discussion that we have had so many times on HN.
Why not just skip the article and definitely not comment on it? Hypocrisy displayed by a any major figure should be called out for accountability reasons at the least.
While it is true that this discussion has been hashed out many times, it is curious to see how the sentiment has shifted even more in favor of work from home, especially given that many of the commenters have now actually worked from home due to the pandemic. Frankly, the comments are now much more insightful and informative than they were say a year or two ago.
While it is true that this discussion has been hashed out many times, it is curious to see how the sentiment has shifted even more in favor of work from home, especially given that many of the commenters have now actually worked from home due to the pandemic. Frankly, the comments are now much more insightful and informative than they were say a year or two ago.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Honestly, working from home is kinda shitty, because you lose all the 'watercooler talk', all the informal meets with coworkers, lunches etc., and other opportunities to share ideas and get feedback, that you usually don't have over zoom/teams/...
On the other hand, you can do this even if you work from the office once per week or even once per two weeks, so this might be the solution.
On the other hand, you can do this even if you work from the office once per week or even once per two weeks, so this might be the solution.
FWIW Gladwell's comments really resonate with me. I do think it's okay if you decide you don't want anything out of your job besides a paycheck, and are happy to find meaning, belonging, etc. in other parts of your life. But for my own life, I want more of those things from my job.
I think you can work remotely or privately and still get quite many things more from your work than a paycheck? Even including meaning, belonging, etc?
While there may be many things that you got from a shared workspace, there are only a few of them that aren’t also available remotely.
You probably don’t need to be caricaturing other people’s experience to justify your own. I imagine you’d still be fine to do you without making it suggest anything in particular about the rest of us.
While there may be many things that you got from a shared workspace, there are only a few of them that aren’t also available remotely.
You probably don’t need to be caricaturing other people’s experience to justify your own. I imagine you’d still be fine to do you without making it suggest anything in particular about the rest of us.
I only have a couple of years of data for remote/semi-remote work, but personally I’ve found physical presence is an important factor in how connected I feel to others. And how connected I feel to others definitely has a strong effect on how much meaning I find in what I’m working on (I have more than a few years of data for that.)
> You probably don’t need to be caricaturing other people’s experience to justify your own.
I don’t follow — whose experiences am I caricaturing? I meant his comments resonate with my own experience of working remotely.
> You probably don’t need to be caricaturing other people’s experience to justify your own.
I don’t follow — whose experiences am I caricaturing? I meant his comments resonate with my own experience of working remotely.
I think that's fine as long as you're not holding me hostage.
I don't think anyone's holding anyone hostage, but it is true that these kinds of things require a relatively consistent corporate culture, because it's fundamentally about how you're relating to the other people you're working with. Showing up to an empty office doesn't really do anything, the point is that the office is where the other people you're working with also are.
I don't think all companies need to operate in one particular way, but getting the sense of belonging and meaning out of work some people want I think does generally require the team/org/company they're at to have that culture.
I don't think all companies need to operate in one particular way, but getting the sense of belonging and meaning out of work some people want I think does generally require the team/org/company they're at to have that culture.
Working from a corporate office is entirely someone holding me hostage. I hate it like I hate death.
It's my sincere hope that Malcolm continues his slide into irrelevancy.
It's my sincere hope that Malcolm continues his slide into irrelevancy.
“Hostage” doesn’t seem like the right model there, any more than being forced to work at all for a living counts as being held hostage.
Well, sure, there are philosophical problems with having to work at all for a living -- but work is required by nature. If one sits and does nothing, one starves to death.
There's nothing in the natural order that says I must starve if I don't report to a particular building every day and sit at a particular desk when the tools for me to perform the same labor at a place of my own choosing exist. Forcing me to do so in order to maintain an employment contract is coercion, plain and simple, and the sooner society destroys that norm the better.
There's nothing in the natural order that says I must starve if I don't report to a particular building every day and sit at a particular desk when the tools for me to perform the same labor at a place of my own choosing exist. Forcing me to do so in order to maintain an employment contract is coercion, plain and simple, and the sooner society destroys that norm the better.
that is what the parent of your post was referring to. You want office fine? You want it nonempty? You want ME there too, by force? now you're holding me hostage
While there might be some benefits of an office just as a separate physical space for doing work, I think the vast majority of benefit people are referring to when talking about “the office” is being physically with the people they’re working with.
“Force” doesn’t seem like the right model here, any more than any other aspect of requiring to work for a living counts as force. (Which you might think it does, but singling out just office/remote as the part that’s by force doesn’t seem like it makes sense.)
“Force” doesn’t seem like the right model here, any more than any other aspect of requiring to work for a living counts as force. (Which you might think it does, but singling out just office/remote as the part that’s by force doesn’t seem like it makes sense.)
As the venerable Bob Dylan sang, “The times they are a changin’”. The genie is out of the bottle and the benefits of the wfh genie are undeniably advantageous to many people.
The vast majority of people seek meaning and belonging within their personal lives through religion, philosophy, family, and deep friendships. Of all these factors, deep friendships are typically available through the workplace, but I’ve found most work friendships to be shallow and dominated by the shared connection to the workplace. Why spend 20-40 hours per month commuting for that? Imagine all the deep friendships that could be cultivated with that much time every month?
The vast majority of people seek meaning and belonging within their personal lives through religion, philosophy, family, and deep friendships. Of all these factors, deep friendships are typically available through the workplace, but I’ve found most work friendships to be shallow and dominated by the shared connection to the workplace. Why spend 20-40 hours per month commuting for that? Imagine all the deep friendships that could be cultivated with that much time every month?
You REALLY may want to look into this before it is too late. This is what happens when your work is your identity: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/03/on-average-...
Get some hobbies, maybe a pet?
Get some hobbies, maybe a pet?
> This is what happens when your work is your identity
Sorry, is that just your commentary, or is there something in that article linking work as identity to loneliness?
I agree that using work, or any other one thing as your sole source of identity isn’t healthy. I don’t see how that’s incompatible with finding meaning and belonging from work, any more than it’d be incompatible with finding meaning and belonging in anything else.
> Get some hobbies, maybe a pet?
I have a pet. I have some hobbies, though generally I find that I and others doing the hobby don’t have enough time to devote to it to really develop deep connection from it. Part of its also maybe just the things I’m interested (or not interested) in. I’d like to have more hobbies though, and generally more extra-work life activities. But that doesn’t replace my desire for work to also be meaningful.
Sorry, is that just your commentary, or is there something in that article linking work as identity to loneliness?
I agree that using work, or any other one thing as your sole source of identity isn’t healthy. I don’t see how that’s incompatible with finding meaning and belonging from work, any more than it’d be incompatible with finding meaning and belonging in anything else.
> Get some hobbies, maybe a pet?
I have a pet. I have some hobbies, though generally I find that I and others doing the hobby don’t have enough time to devote to it to really develop deep connection from it. Part of its also maybe just the things I’m interested (or not interested) in. I’d like to have more hobbies though, and generally more extra-work life activities. But that doesn’t replace my desire for work to also be meaningful.
Malcom Gladwell's opinions on this matter can be safely discarded.
Malcom Gladwell is a fraud amongst frauds. His credentials are espousing wise-sounding bullshit that appeals to a wide market audience in order to make them feel smarter. Like Jared Diamond, It's Joe Rogan / Jordan Peterson for a different audience.
The trick with Joe Rogan is not to take anything he says seriously, but many of the guests he has on have interesting perspectives that are often worth listening to.
There were some pearls from some of the most unexpected sources(Rollins, Bourdain, Honnold, etc) in the earlier years. However, more than a few were not worth listening to, too(Gladwell, Peterson, Lazar, Walker, etc).
Luckily, since, Covid, Trump & Spotify, I don't wade through the mire to find any jewels, I simply just don't listen anymore.
Luckily, since, Covid, Trump & Spotify, I don't wade through the mire to find any jewels, I simply just don't listen anymore.
It is interesting that you mention Jared Diamond. I like his books but I know so little about the subject matter they could be completely wrong. They are pretty unusual and make a lot of broad claims, so I can see how this could be possible.
Is there a book / blog / article that talks about Jared Diamond being inaccurate?
Help me learn! Site a source I can read.
Is there a book / blog / article that talks about Jared Diamond being inaccurate?
Help me learn! Site a source I can read.
Not really definitive, but a better summary than I can write.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAnthropology/comments/1rzm07/wha...
> They are pretty unusual and make a lot of broad claims
That's only the start.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAnthropology/comments/1rzm07/wha...
> They are pretty unusual and make a lot of broad claims
That's only the start.
I actually saw him working at a café this week!
Bill Gates wants you to reduce emissions as he flies in his private jet
The Pfizer CEO wanted you to get vaccinated while he waited until he was forced to
These people aren't telling you what they do, they're telling you what they think will be necessary for the future. Office work is a lot more productive, it better integrates employees into the company culture, and companies that implement WFH often struggle as a result of it
The Pfizer CEO wanted you to get vaccinated while he waited until he was forced to
These people aren't telling you what they do, they're telling you what they think will be necessary for the future. Office work is a lot more productive, it better integrates employees into the company culture, and companies that implement WFH often struggle as a result of it
Follow the money. He is clearly pandering to his audience. The influential business types, the CEOs, the executives. He is just giving them what they want, even though it makes him hypocritical. He is not really going to change the mind of the Elon Musks, the Tim Cooks, etc. they are already aligned. His first five books were hits, but it seems his later books were not as good, so he needs to emphasize the influencer angle. I think his primary gig is speaking arrangements now. Got to keep that gravy train flowing.
I would say his audience is not just the influential business types, but the types of business influencers who don't have time to read those nerdy book things, so they buy the audio cliffnotes version of such books from Skymall and just listen to the book summaries on the plane.
Do CEOs on the level of Tim Cook pay any attention to Malcom Gladwell? I don’t know anyone remotely at that level who takes his work seriously.
Corporate hit piece
As a person who has successfully worked from home for six years alternating between management and software engineering, this brand of nonsense and hypocrisy really bugs me. I take pride in my hard work, empower my team and yes, I feel “a part of something” while doing my job remotely. Some people desire an office environment. That’s great! Don’t impose that preference on those of us whose effectiveness does not require it. There’s no hard data that conclusively proves one way is better than the other. If Gladwell cares so much about my showing up to an office, I invite him to pick my kids up from preschool when there’s a COVID closure and open the door when my oldest gets home from school.
And there's a ton of hard data showing that the executive-favored open office plans massively distract tech workers and hinder productivity, yet a decade later they keep on building them.
[deleted]
Yeah, I don’t know. I’ve been a part of companies where CEOs used this guy’s anecdotal bullshit to push/justify their own agendas. Some even met him and boasted about it like it’s a badge of honor.
Not interested and hard pass.
Not interested and hard pass.
> “…but if you’re just sitting in your pajamas in your bedroom, is that the work life you want to live?” he questioned. “Don’t you want to feel part of something?”
Wow Malcolm, good job using your imagination! Here’s some paper and crayons, can you draw a picture of it?
Wow Malcolm, good job using your imagination! Here’s some paper and crayons, can you draw a picture of it?
I don’t mind going to the office because no one is telling me to go to the office. I choose when and whether to go. And it’s also my own office that I’m paying for, and if I want to take a nap because I’m tired and need to rejuvenate for another round of coding, then I lock the door and sleep.
I mainly got the space because my family is home for the summer, and in the first days of having it I reflected that a lot of the joy I get from it is also freedom-related, in the sense of being free from family responsibilities for the day.