The damaging results of mandated return to office(entrepreneur.com)
entrepreneur.com
The damaging results of mandated return to office
https://www.entrepreneur.com/growing-a-business/the-damaging-results-of-the-mandated-return-to-office-is/454043
345 comments
True. Maybe it is even the other way around. A farmer lives on his farm. He works there, he raises his family there, grows his food there, lives there, has his friends around there. For my perspective it is more back to the roots than progressive. If you can work from the place were you live then this is more natural than commuting into the office block every day. Technology here gave us a opportunity to live a more natural live. It tastes so good because it is a very natural human desire. Technology fixed that for us. So why would we give that up?
I think it's both. A farmer could do that, because they tend to own their farm. A worker usually has no ownership in the business. They're more like farmhands ...
If we go back in time it wasn't the case always.
A common form of agricultural contract in many countries, up to the WWII and in some countries even after was a form of rent where the owner provided the farm, and the tenant worked on it and they divided the crop (or whatever the farm produced), in English it is called sharecropping:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharecropping
A common form of agricultural contract in many countries, up to the WWII and in some countries even after was a form of rent where the owner provided the farm, and the tenant worked on it and they divided the crop (or whatever the farm produced), in English it is called sharecropping:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharecropping
So the owner did nothing and got have the crop? Ahh parasitic rent-seeking, the true foundation of civilization.
Which is very interesting to consider how it relates to capitalism today, and how in essence you are paying some amount of rent to your employer, in the form of the profits of the work - the leftover after salaries are paid and expenses covered.
I am not getting it.
In sharecropping (with a lot of nuances depending on the specific countries and even different regions in a same country) the landowner and the tenant were some sort of partners, both had all the interest in having a better/larger crop (or raise more cattle, etc.).
In a normal capitalistic employer/employee relationship, the employees have no particular interest in the final outcome, they are only scared of being fired if they don't meet some (often arbitrarily set) "productivity goals".
In sharecropping (with a lot of nuances depending on the specific countries and even different regions in a same country) the landowner and the tenant were some sort of partners, both had all the interest in having a better/larger crop (or raise more cattle, etc.).
In a normal capitalistic employer/employee relationship, the employees have no particular interest in the final outcome, they are only scared of being fired if they don't meet some (often arbitrarily set) "productivity goals".
I'd argue they trade receiving the full fruit of their labor for increased safety/stability. I know I do at least. The owner of a business still needs to make payroll even when the business is doing well with legal consequences iiuc if they don't. If you are a sole proprietor your billable rate goes up but now you are marketing, IT, accounts receivable, janitor, etc. etc.
Additionally different company's have different ways of incentivizing employee "ownership". Everything from RSUs, Employee stock purchase plans, a Christmas bonus for a good year, etc.
Additionally different company's have different ways of incentivizing employee "ownership". Everything from RSUs, Employee stock purchase plans, a Christmas bonus for a good year, etc.
Still this is a different kind of contract.
A bonus (or other forms of incentives) are additional to the base salary.
Until you are fired (or if the company does not pay your wage anymore) your salary/wage is fixed, and you get it no matter how the company is going.
In sharecropping the year you (as a tenant) got a bad crop, you wouldn't have anything to eat, and would have basic survival problems.
A bonus (or other forms of incentives) are additional to the base salary.
Until you are fired (or if the company does not pay your wage anymore) your salary/wage is fixed, and you get it no matter how the company is going.
In sharecropping the year you (as a tenant) got a bad crop, you wouldn't have anything to eat, and would have basic survival problems.
I'd assume unless it was REALLY bad you'd get food but no money (due to no extra crops for sale) but a fair point. Some professions like sales are very much feast or famine but agree most employees are insulated to a degree from company performance.
This is a consequence of the industrial revolution and the invention of factories, which is relatively short in the span of humanities existence. Before that laborers would almost certainly work where they lived or very close nearby.
For me, the suggestion of going back to work in an office 5 days a week is as ludicrous as the suggestion we go back to a 6 day workweek.
To each their own. I find that WFH makes me incredibly unproductive, I'm glad I'm able to return to to the office. I think there are a lot of factors that affect this (e.g. I have a family with small children at home, and my commute is <15 minutes by bike).
I think that's a small but significant part of the issue for businesses.
There are some workers who are more productive at WFH, some who are equally productive in either setting (but prefer WFH for personal reasons), and some who are less productive at WFH. Ideally everybody should just do what they're best at. If you're productive at home, work from home. If you're most productive at work, go into the office. Everybody's happy.
So where's the problem? It's that among the group that is most productive at the office, some of them still prefer to work at home where they fall prey to distractions and their output suffers. And rather than just coach those people appropriately, management finds it easier to just try and make everyone come in.
Which points to an even larger problem. That some managers are struggling with how to do their jobs in the WFH environment. And rather than acknowledge that they are the source of their own troubles, it's easier to pretend that the business is unmanageable remotely and everybody needs to come in.
There are some workers who are more productive at WFH, some who are equally productive in either setting (but prefer WFH for personal reasons), and some who are less productive at WFH. Ideally everybody should just do what they're best at. If you're productive at home, work from home. If you're most productive at work, go into the office. Everybody's happy.
So where's the problem? It's that among the group that is most productive at the office, some of them still prefer to work at home where they fall prey to distractions and their output suffers. And rather than just coach those people appropriately, management finds it easier to just try and make everyone come in.
Which points to an even larger problem. That some managers are struggling with how to do their jobs in the WFH environment. And rather than acknowledge that they are the source of their own troubles, it's easier to pretend that the business is unmanageable remotely and everybody needs to come in.
> To each their own.
That's exactly my point! I find it ridiculous that CEO's think they somehow have to create the same policy for everyone, as if giving people a choice was somehow a taboo. We've come a long way realizing self-organizing teams work better than micromanaged ones etc., I wonder how long it will take PHBs to understand that giving people a choice is not just good for them but it's overly beneficial to the whole company.
That's exactly my point! I find it ridiculous that CEO's think they somehow have to create the same policy for everyone, as if giving people a choice was somehow a taboo. We've come a long way realizing self-organizing teams work better than micromanaged ones etc., I wonder how long it will take PHBs to understand that giving people a choice is not just good for them but it's overly beneficial to the whole company.
I agree, but there are very real costs to having teams (at different levels) doing different things. A team with 8 people in-office and 2 people WFH is pretty crappy. The in-office people end up feeling put-upon to have to go out of the way to include the WFH people in things, and the WFH people inevitably end up feeling left out of a lot of things, because they are. At the very lowest level, it works best to have a single team all working the same way. At some level up the hierarchy it becomes more ok to have a mix; if five teams are collaborating, it doesn't matter so much whether two of them are in-office and the other three are WFH focused.
> A team with 8 people in-office and 2 people WFH is pretty crappy.
It doesn't have to be crappy; I spent several years as one of the remote participants in a team like that, and it was one of the high points of my career. We made heavy use of instant messaging, and we met up in person for a week every quarter. People kept in touch well enough.
It doesn't have to be crappy; I spent several years as one of the remote participants in a team like that, and it was one of the high points of my career. We made heavy use of instant messaging, and we met up in person for a week every quarter. People kept in touch well enough.
While I agree, it all depends on the methods of communication. In a more or less standard scenario, with a daily sync with video and then async like Slack, it doesn't matter that much who's in the office. I tend to message my colleagues on Slack even if they are sitting next to me, for the same reason that public channels are recommended over private ones - nobody is excluded and it's easy to find information that would otherwise be lost.
> with a daily sync with video and then async like Slack, it doesn't matter that much who's in the office
Unfortunately I think this is kind of a cope the remote people on the team use to feel ok about it (I've been that person quite a bit). But the people having coffee and lunch together more regularly just do form closer bonds and that matters. I don't think it matters as much as a lot of executives want everyone to believe it does, and I think remote work has giant benefits that aren't obviously or always or even usually overcome by "face time", but it's not not a real thing.
Unfortunately I think this is kind of a cope the remote people on the team use to feel ok about it (I've been that person quite a bit). But the people having coffee and lunch together more regularly just do form closer bonds and that matters. I don't think it matters as much as a lot of executives want everyone to believe it does, and I think remote work has giant benefits that aren't obviously or always or even usually overcome by "face time", but it's not not a real thing.
I personally believe some sort of bonding period is great for remote people. I've worked in a kind of "worst of both worlds" setup where I went to an office 8-5 but I worked with a completely remote team (the office was basically a place for me to put on a headset and ignore everyone else).
But we met on a planned company trip (with the excuse of a Vegas trade show, we went and met one week early) and that helped immensely with bonding and team building.
If I manage a remote team, I'll push for a similar team bonding exercise whenever possible.
But we met on a planned company trip (with the excuse of a Vegas trade show, we went and met one week early) and that helped immensely with bonding and team building.
If I manage a remote team, I'll push for a similar team bonding exercise whenever possible.
Yep, this sort of bonding is very important IMO. But it's also a giant trade-off. I can bond with people I work locally with at lunch, I have to leave my children for a few days to bond with people I work remotely with. It's a much heavier burden. I think it is often worth it! The town I live in doesn't have offices for every interesting company in the world, so I have to compromise on who I can work for if I'm not willing to work remote, which I currently feel is an even heavier burden. But if my perfect job also had a local office, I would be very pleased!
That’s totally legitimate, and working from “the office” is a potential solution. An alternate is to work from “an office”. That doesn’t need to be the right solution for you specifically, but I hope it becomes part of the evoked set in general.
If you or some subset of your workforce has a suboptimal home situation, look at arranging individual coworking spaces. Everyone can shorten their commute by picking whichever space is conveniently located. You also sidestep the challenges of having some team members collocates while others are remote.
If you or some subset of your workforce has a suboptimal home situation, look at arranging individual coworking spaces. Everyone can shorten their commute by picking whichever space is conveniently located. You also sidestep the challenges of having some team members collocates while others are remote.
Really done with this take. Show some solidarity for your peers. So you like working from the office -- good for you! Do that! But also stand up for your colleagues who don't want that. When your colleagues have fewer choices, when things like this are imposed on them, well, your preferences are not far behind from being managed themselves.
Where did the person you’re replying to imply they didn’t have solidarity or wanted office work imposed on everyone?
The parent poster simply said “Once you’ve tasted the fruits of WFH and you like the taste, you’ll never go back.”
And the reply was essentially “to each their own but my WFH experience was different “ and you’re ready to jump down their throat with accusations of lack of solidarity.
The parent poster simply said “Once you’ve tasted the fruits of WFH and you like the taste, you’ll never go back.”
And the reply was essentially “to each their own but my WFH experience was different “ and you’re ready to jump down their throat with accusations of lack of solidarity.
It's just such a pointless distraction. Don't make it about you? It reminds me of men who hear that women get paid less and start complaining about their own salary.
"Hey, we have this problem." "To each their own but it doesn't affect me!"
Why waste your breath to say this?
"Hey, we have this problem." "To each their own but it doesn't affect me!"
Why waste your breath to say this?
You’re adding a lot of baggage to the poster here that they never implied. It’s pretty important to have a pulse on what’s important to employees.
Employers taking the posters point into consideration may mean that they’re a remote first company, but they also provide coworking passes for people that appreciate not working from home.
In the same way that pre-covid management monoculture was “WFH could never work”, the monoculture now risks being dominated by people who have dedicated home offices who seemingly can’t empathise with people who appreciate commuting somewhere, feigning outrage at anyone who could dare suggest that there are multiple perspectives.
Employers taking the posters point into consideration may mean that they’re a remote first company, but they also provide coworking passes for people that appreciate not working from home.
In the same way that pre-covid management monoculture was “WFH could never work”, the monoculture now risks being dominated by people who have dedicated home offices who seemingly can’t empathise with people who appreciate commuting somewhere, feigning outrage at anyone who could dare suggest that there are multiple perspectives.
They didn't say that? They directly replied to the claim that once you tried WFH you would never go back. Sounds like they were directly affected by it, and had a different experience.
Everyone is entitled to their personal preferences. You're attacking this guy for having a different preference than you, and you're filling in the blanks to make them seem hostile when they only expressed their personal preference. I dislike your rhetoric here as much as those of the forced return to the office crowd and for the exact same reason.
e: rewording
e: rewording
Well said! I'm a manager that strongly prefers to work from the office but fought hard for my team to WFH if they preferred to do so. So now about 20% of my team comes into the office (by choice) while the others WFH. Was lucky to have a boss that supported this and allowed me to craft our role definitions to support this with the global HR but was filling to fight as long as I could for this..
But thats not the issue.
The issue is that companies are forcing people into offices. Nobody forces anyone into WFH (as a trend).
It a mute point, that people like different work environments or that different tasks might require different environments.
The issue is that companies are forcing people into offices. Nobody forces anyone into WFH (as a trend).
It a mute point, that people like different work environments or that different tasks might require different environments.
I also have small children and I prefer WFH simply because I can be a proper dad and not "that person that is there on weekends".
I prefer my small kid make a ruckus and than 50 phones ringing and shit talking and crap going on in the super open office place.
Glad my company saw the tide of times and switched to full WFH with office just a meeting space.
I prefer my small kid make a ruckus and than 50 phones ringing and shit talking and crap going on in the super open office place.
Glad my company saw the tide of times and switched to full WFH with office just a meeting space.
Same - I had to rent a place outside for the mornings, when my kid is at home. Its great to know I won't be interrupted, I focus much better. Still miss some coworkers though. (Coworking spaces open much later than I like etc)
Yes, I'm in a similar situation- small kid at home, easy walking commute to a nice office with friendly coworkers, a gym, and free lunch
I’m hard core work from home but that actually sounds awesome now that we have a toddler.
Hey man you do the crime you gotta do the time hehehe
Don't want to be bothered by coworkers then work from home.
Don't want to be bothered by a baby then go back to the office.
Don't want to be bothered by a baby then go back to the office.
This is such a nonsense argument. Your choice to return to the office is not somehow tied to other people being forced to be in the office.
> To each their own.
They were giving another perspective, not forcing anyone to do anything.
They were giving another perspective, not forcing anyone to do anything.
They edited their comment after the fact to add this part, it was not there originally.
I have no idea whether that's true, but it is not necessary for the comment to say "to each their own" for the commenter to have just been expressing a personal preference. They weren't making an "argument".
Since it seems I wasn't clear, the parent comment we're currently discussing has been considerably modified compared to what it was at first. You're free to disagree, but in my opinion the original tone of their comment very much did make an argument. But I do suppose you could label every comment as just a personal preference, because that's what they are at the end of the day.
> Once you’ve tasted the fruits of WFH and you like the taste, you’ll never go back.
Let me guess, you are in a low cost of living area (at least relative to your income) and have a big house?
I live in NYC. Residential floor space is very expensive here. My wife and I on two tech salaries can afford a fairly large place by the standards of our area, but it's definitely not large enough for 2 adults to comfortably work from home with a toddler also running around.
For us, the optimal solution is hybrid with a schedule where on any given day one of us is wfh and one in the office.
When both of us were forced to work from home full time, we managed, but it was suboptimal and a drag on productivity. The "fruits of WFH" turned out somewhat bitter.
Let me guess, you are in a low cost of living area (at least relative to your income) and have a big house?
I live in NYC. Residential floor space is very expensive here. My wife and I on two tech salaries can afford a fairly large place by the standards of our area, but it's definitely not large enough for 2 adults to comfortably work from home with a toddler also running around.
For us, the optimal solution is hybrid with a schedule where on any given day one of us is wfh and one in the office.
When both of us were forced to work from home full time, we managed, but it was suboptimal and a drag on productivity. The "fruits of WFH" turned out somewhat bitter.
Or you could keep your jobs and move to a lower cost of living area making us of more space?
Irrespective of lack of space, NYC is the only place in the US where I have enjoyed living.
Yeah people always miss this: Job availability is not the only reason people don't all move to rural Kentucky. People like living in expensive cities! That's why so many people live there!
Not that they'd do this, but if the company offered what it was paying for office space for you as a stipend for your home office, would that change your mind? Some quick Google math suggests an average of $80/sqft/year for NYC office space and suggests 100 sqft per-person for an open-office worker which comes out to $600-700 a month. Again, cursory Google search, but it looks like that's right about the price increase to go from a 2BR to a 3BR and have a home office.
Hence the "and you like the taste" qualification. I don't think OP is talking about you.
And one of the consequences of widespread remote work—as we're already seeing—is more people deciding they don't want to continue to live in a cramped, expensive city apartment.
This doesn't mean everyone will—there are certainly other benefits to living in a city besides proximity to workplace. But it is likely that, given time (and probably some common-sense changes to housing policies), this will result in less pressure for apartments, meaning that people who do remain in cities will be likely to be able to afford more space.
This doesn't mean everyone will—there are certainly other benefits to living in a city besides proximity to workplace. But it is likely that, given time (and probably some common-sense changes to housing policies), this will result in less pressure for apartments, meaning that people who do remain in cities will be likely to be able to afford more space.
> And one of the consequences of widespread remote work—as we're already seeing—is more people deciding they don't want to continue to live in a cramped, expensive city apartment.
Are we seeing that?
Certainly lots of people have left SF, but the pandemic / WFH did not reverse the general trend toward urbanism. The geographic flexibility has been in people picking different cities, not in people choosing to move to rural areas en masse.
Are we seeing that?
Certainly lots of people have left SF, but the pandemic / WFH did not reverse the general trend toward urbanism. The geographic flexibility has been in people picking different cities, not in people choosing to move to rural areas en masse.
Working from anywhere with a toddler running around seems unproductive
> you are in a low cost of living area (at least relative to your income) and have a big house?
Orthogonal to WFH conversation, are there even low COL areas left in the US that aren't complete and total sh*tholes?
In my state, houses that were selling for $150-200k pre-Covid in low COL areas are now going for 350-400k, and that's not even anywhere near urban centers, it's about 50-70 miles out in more rural areas.
Orthogonal to WFH conversation, are there even low COL areas left in the US that aren't complete and total sh*tholes?
In my state, houses that were selling for $150-200k pre-Covid in low COL areas are now going for 350-400k, and that's not even anywhere near urban centers, it's about 50-70 miles out in more rural areas.
That's why I don't understand the insistence on RTO. It's clear from all discussions that people have different views on the topics. So why don't give people a choice? Those who want to work in the office should be free to do so, as should be the rest of us who sees no reasons to go back. In this scenario everybody is happy and more productive.
Many people who want to work from the office are mostly interested in doing so because they want to be around their coworkers. If their coworkers are remote, they won't get what they want. Similarly, remote people might not be happy at a company that allows remote work but primarily has an in-person culture.
Letting everyone do what they want is not a path towards everyone being happy. I think a better approach is for companies (or at least teams) to land somewhere on the spectrum from full in-person to full remote, and then employees can work at the place that fits them best.
Letting everyone do what they want is not a path towards everyone being happy. I think a better approach is for companies (or at least teams) to land somewhere on the spectrum from full in-person to full remote, and then employees can work at the place that fits them best.
I understand that point of view but I don't agree with it. I work remotely because my coworkers are in different countries. But some of them come to local offices because they like it. This is a great setup for everybody and noone is complaining.
I know anecdata doesn't count but I observed the same in various companies: yes, those who prefer to work from the office miss their colleagues, but are surrounded by like-minded people and that works better for everyone.
I know anecdata doesn't count but I observed the same in various companies: yes, those who prefer to work from the office miss their colleagues, but are surrounded by like-minded people and that works better for everyone.
As long as the company is large enough for there to be a critical mass of people in a bunch of locales, I think this works great. I work for a company with < 100 people spread across like 10 time zones, and I wish it made sense for us to have some office space in my city where I could work with people sometimes, but it doesn't because there are only three of us and we don't work on the same things.
I'm all for WFH and dislike going to the office often. But it's the same argument as the parent, from the company's perspective. Once local executives taste the fruits of in-person "watch the cattle" control, which was the entirety of their careers, it's hard for them to go back to "forced worker freedom".
I'd love to glimpse into the minds of the corporate exec class and understand why they are so uniformly aligned on RTO and against WFH. Is it really as simple and primal as wanting to watch the cattle or "behold my empire" or do they really believe it's better for business?
I guess I'll never know since, 1. corporate execs don't post to HN comments section and 2. even if they did they would probably not admit to a narcissistic need to bask in the buzz of an office full of their minions.
I guess I'll never know since, 1. corporate execs don't post to HN comments section and 2. even if they did they would probably not admit to a narcissistic need to bask in the buzz of an office full of their minions.
Yeah but the choice is clear. Most tech workers prefer remote work or at least freedom of choice.
From my perspective, it feels like this post is putting the cart before the horse.
In stead of thinking: I'd like to go back to the office because our home is too small, why don't you think: I'd like to work from home so that I can afford a bigger house for less cost?
In stead of thinking: I'd like to go back to the office because our home is too small, why don't you think: I'd like to work from home so that I can afford a bigger house for less cost?
Because not everyone wants a big home or to live in the places where big homes are inexpensive.
on the flip side of this I live in a house in NYC (the outer boroughs and yes the outer boroughs are a part of the city) and have the corner of my bedroom into a full WFH station.
I am missing the kid component though.
I am missing the kid component though.
Yes. And a big reason why working in the office was a thing is pretty much legacy from the dawn of industry... and of course the fundamental power imbalance from having to sell your time to someone.
> and you like the taste
Orthogonal to the productivity argument, have there been any studies trying to find the motivation for people preferring/hating WFH?
My guess is you tend to prefer it if you have a social circle that's not your co workers and hate it if you don't.
Orthogonal to the productivity argument, have there been any studies trying to find the motivation for people preferring/hating WFH?
My guess is you tend to prefer it if you have a social circle that's not your co workers and hate it if you don't.
I prefer going to the office, not because of the social aspect, but because I strongly prefer separating my work from my personal life
I really enjoyed back when working from the office was optional and I was the only one showing up!
I really enjoyed back when working from the office was optional and I was the only one showing up!
I'm lucky in that I converted a rather fancy woodshed into an office/lab with lots of Ethernet ports so my work can stay in there. When I was I the house it wasn't as good since I could still hear the slack and email noises from the lounge etc.
This helps A LOT. I am also extremely lucky enough to have a separate structure on my property that acts as my WFH office. It's got a window, a closing door, two desks, enough room for plenty of monitors, gigabit ethernet, and is totally separate from the chaos of a home with kids. That 10 second walk from home to office is sufficient to get me from "home mode" to "work mode".
> I could still hear the slack and email noises from the lounge
Holy Ahura Mazda! You have intrusive notifications enabled? That's not a good idea even when working in the office...
Holy Ahura Mazda! You have intrusive notifications enabled? That's not a good idea even when working in the office...
For me, it’s a combination of flexibility, avoiding a daily commute, and having my own private, focus-enhancing office as opposed to the interruption fest that is modern offices.
Well... what would be interesting isn't how people justify WFH to themselves but some provable correlations.
I could list my reasons too but I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be it for real. We're good at making up reasons for ourselves.
I could list my reasons too but I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be it for real. We're good at making up reasons for ourselves.
We will most likely see that jobs that cannot be done by working from home will see an increase in salary and WFH jobs will see a decrease.
I'm thinking about jobs like nurses, electricians, factory workers, teachers etc.
I'm thinking about jobs like nurses, electricians, factory workers, teachers etc.
Depends on the region. The big advantage of WFH is the global job market. I live pretty rural in Germany and salaries are quite a bit lower than in the city. And they are far lower than remote US-jobs. So I easily eclipse all my friends and neighbors with my salary, it's pretty much impossible for them to catch up. They would need to straight-up double or triple their salary, which is unlikely when salary has been pretty stagnant the past decades.
I can see WFH jobs decreasing your salary if you lived in a big city with high wages before, but for anyone else the advantages of global competition pay a massive premium right now. Maybe that changes at some point, but looking at the massive shortage of software experts my country is facing right now, this point is still decades away.
I can see WFH jobs decreasing your salary if you lived in a big city with high wages before, but for anyone else the advantages of global competition pay a massive premium right now. Maybe that changes at some point, but looking at the massive shortage of software experts my country is facing right now, this point is still decades away.
Idk, I'm firmly in the "hybrid works best" camp. Face-to-face collaboration has no alternative, sorry. In jobs where you have to actually engineer instead of build CRUD web-app #2,000,001, it's very hard to be effective without in-person communication. Most people are not great at the async types of comms that are necessary for that to scale to remote work.
> In jobs where you have to actually engineer instead of build CRUD web-app #2,000,001, it's very hard to be effective without in-person communication.
Trivializing the work of others isn't making your point any stronger. There's plenty of complexity in delivering software via the web that benefits from in person collaboration.
Trivializing the work of others isn't making your point any stronger. There's plenty of complexity in delivering software via the web that benefits from in person collaboration.
hybrid works for some, but often means abandoning patterns that are required to make 100% remote work.
It's also a huge PITA since it requires people to live near their office -- can't move to rural Kentucky, still stuck in the burbs -- while simultaneously requiring them to maintain a at-home office AND work office.
Honestly if it's not 100% in person then make it 100% remote and learn to structure it that way. Otherwise it's the worst of both worlds.
It's also a huge PITA since it requires people to live near their office -- can't move to rural Kentucky, still stuck in the burbs -- while simultaneously requiring them to maintain a at-home office AND work office.
Honestly if it's not 100% in person then make it 100% remote and learn to structure it that way. Otherwise it's the worst of both worlds.
I disagree, hybrid is flexible. If you're doing work that benefits from in-person interaction, coordinate a time to be together in the office. If you're doing work that you'd rather be remote for, do that.
I do think the geographical agnosticism of 100% remote is an enormous advantage, but there is no correspondingly enormous advantage of 100% in-office. If you've already taken the hit to give up the advantages of 100% remote, you can at least keep the advantages of flexibility by going hybrid.
I do think the geographical agnosticism of 100% remote is an enormous advantage, but there is no correspondingly enormous advantage of 100% in-office. If you've already taken the hit to give up the advantages of 100% remote, you can at least keep the advantages of flexibility by going hybrid.
I've been working solely remotely by choice for a little over a year now, and except for a couple weird months during a lurching back-to-office push in early 2022, I've been working remotely for nearly 3.5 years now. I've begun to really miss having an office to go to. I've increasingly been getting out of the house every day, but it's expensive to go to coffee shops, and I don't really like the feel of "coworking" offices where everyone is cloistered away working on something different.
It seems to me that the hybrid model of two or three days in office and two or three days at home is quickly gaining mindshare, and I've frankly become envious of that.
It seems to me that the hybrid model of two or three days in office and two or three days at home is quickly gaining mindshare, and I've frankly become envious of that.
Not so sure. My sample size is tiny but when interviewing people today it's not uncommon for candidates to request/hope for at least some office time during the week.
I think people are beginning to miss the social aspect of being physically close to their colleagues.
I think people are beginning to miss the social aspect of being physically close to their colleagues.
[deleted]
Not universally true. I strongly prefer work from office.
I hate commuting but prefer the office so that’s a paradox I struggle with.
I’ve been thinking terrible commutes are a symptom of how we’ve built society. If everyone lived within 20 minutes by public transit or bike or walk from the office would there still be as much pushback?
Would there still be as much pushback? Yes.
Open office environments are terrible for productivity, stress, health, etc. — the science is pretty well settled here.
Open office environments are terrible for productivity, stress, health, etc. — the science is pretty well settled here.
I live 20 minutes' walk from my workplace.
I've been working from home almost exclusively since lockdowns started, and it's hugely beneficial to me, while adding minimal burden to the actual work. Being in my own space, with my cats nearby, my own kitchen just a few steps away, and my family doing their own work in other rooms...
And this is as compared to my own spacious office, with a decent minifridge and a back room I can sit in if I need to be more clearly "unavailable".
Thinking back to my previous job, where I worked in a cube farm, I just shudder inside. There is no way in hell I'm ever going back to that soul-destroying atmosphere, and by far the most reliable way to ensure that is to only take full-remote jobs from now on.
I've been working from home almost exclusively since lockdowns started, and it's hugely beneficial to me, while adding minimal burden to the actual work. Being in my own space, with my cats nearby, my own kitchen just a few steps away, and my family doing their own work in other rooms...
And this is as compared to my own spacious office, with a decent minifridge and a back room I can sit in if I need to be more clearly "unavailable".
Thinking back to my previous job, where I worked in a cube farm, I just shudder inside. There is no way in hell I'm ever going back to that soul-destroying atmosphere, and by far the most reliable way to ensure that is to only take full-remote jobs from now on.
Per the root post of the thread:
> _and you like the taste_
If you don’t, that’s fine, and your preferences need not be imposed on your peers.
> _and you like the taste_
If you don’t, that’s fine, and your preferences need not be imposed on your peers.
I upgraded from a decent smartphone back to an old Nokia dummy phone with a black-and-white display, and have been using that for 3-4 years now. To each their own.
Black and white TV had higher fidelity in pixel terms to colour TV.
Just sayin'
I know what you mean, but once you've had true greyscale, nothing really comes close.
There's a reason people watch uncoloured movies.
Just sayin'
I know what you mean, but once you've had true greyscale, nothing really comes close.
There's a reason people watch uncoloured movies.
Needing to eat and have a roof over your head is a fairly strong reason.
The number of people who need to work already vastly outnumbers the number of WFH positions.
The number of people who need to work already vastly outnumbers the number of WFH positions.
> Needing to eat and have a roof over your head is a fairly strong reason.
Producing food and shelter are quite well suited to being done at home. Once upon a time that was the norm.
> The number of people who need to work already vastly outnumbers the number of WFH positions.
There is no limit on WFH positions. It is technically possible for everyone to find one. However, you will often be entering uncharted territory to explore them. Commuting to a restaurant to flip burgers, or whatever, is much more well understood and thus carries far less risk. Indeed, the worker will prefer low risk opportunities in the vast majority of cases.
Producing food and shelter are quite well suited to being done at home. Once upon a time that was the norm.
> The number of people who need to work already vastly outnumbers the number of WFH positions.
There is no limit on WFH positions. It is technically possible for everyone to find one. However, you will often be entering uncharted territory to explore them. Commuting to a restaurant to flip burgers, or whatever, is much more well understood and thus carries far less risk. Indeed, the worker will prefer low risk opportunities in the vast majority of cases.
Exactly, that's what the big "bad" companies use to force us to do things we don't want, our need for food, housing and a normal life.
We're discussing about the majority of people and not for the HN "elite" that have the privilege/luxury of earning hundreds of thousands, thus affording to be picky with their next work positions.
I'm working fully remote the last few years and I'm troubled on what is going to happen when the hybrid or RTO call arrives. I'm not in a position to be very picky and for sure I'll try to find another remote job, but as you correctly state: num of people seeking WFH > num of WFH positions
We're discussing about the majority of people and not for the HN "elite" that have the privilege/luxury of earning hundreds of thousands, thus affording to be picky with their next work positions.
I'm working fully remote the last few years and I'm troubled on what is going to happen when the hybrid or RTO call arrives. I'm not in a position to be very picky and for sure I'll try to find another remote job, but as you correctly state: num of people seeking WFH > num of WFH positions
I work in an office for a company that's headquartered in another state, so even when in the office it's often been a "remote work" experience for me. What we have today is a natural and logical progression from all the improvements meant to make it easier for people to work together, regardless of location.
You have to remember at one time people actually left their desks to go to a conference room and meet. The first iteration of bringing in remote workers to that was often speakerphone systems maybe with multiple microphones if you were lucky. You'd literally have twenty people in a room all talking to each other. It was nearly impossible to keep up if multiple conversations broke out and often it was work to be heard. There was no view of the whiteboard and people had to remember to share any materials and be explicit as they advanced through it.
Cisco's telepresence system that tried to create an experience mirroring sitting across from each other at a table was a huge step up, but still it was a large hardware investment and the rooms were a scarce resource.
Fast forward to today and everyone has the "Tandberg" equivalent of a single person telepresence device that was limited to senior management. In fact everyone has a better experience at their desktop with universal access to web-hosted whiteboard and collaborative tools, and (assuming broadband network speeds are home) all those things work equally well at home or in the office.
So the progression of making it easier and easier for remote offices to collaborate has reached its logical conclusion. At least where I work it was pitched as a way to cut travel costs. And if I'm being cynical it's worked in that the senior staff are still free to travel while small departments now share travel budget that was previously available on a per-person basis. My personal corporate card has a credit line that's nearly what my boss' travel budget is for fourteen people.
So with no need to travel and no local staff or coworkers, it's frankly better to work from home: same zoom calls, same excalidraw, same figma, confluence, teams, etc. And no scheduling a desk for the day. No loud coworkers yelling on their headset when they get excited. I can have my preferred mouse and un-office-friendly mechanical keyboard. I can wear a lapel microphone and use my also un-office-friendly speakers instead of being forced to wear a headset or earbuds. I can have a wide screen monitor and a better camera. In short: productivity-wise my experience is the same or better, but comfort-wise it is materially better in every way. When every other coworker is already in another state, for me and a lot of people like me there's literally no downside.
And there's zero sympathy for corporations that worked so hard to make it easy to work from any other office only to discover it's just as easy to work from home.
You have to remember at one time people actually left their desks to go to a conference room and meet. The first iteration of bringing in remote workers to that was often speakerphone systems maybe with multiple microphones if you were lucky. You'd literally have twenty people in a room all talking to each other. It was nearly impossible to keep up if multiple conversations broke out and often it was work to be heard. There was no view of the whiteboard and people had to remember to share any materials and be explicit as they advanced through it.
Cisco's telepresence system that tried to create an experience mirroring sitting across from each other at a table was a huge step up, but still it was a large hardware investment and the rooms were a scarce resource.
Fast forward to today and everyone has the "Tandberg" equivalent of a single person telepresence device that was limited to senior management. In fact everyone has a better experience at their desktop with universal access to web-hosted whiteboard and collaborative tools, and (assuming broadband network speeds are home) all those things work equally well at home or in the office.
So the progression of making it easier and easier for remote offices to collaborate has reached its logical conclusion. At least where I work it was pitched as a way to cut travel costs. And if I'm being cynical it's worked in that the senior staff are still free to travel while small departments now share travel budget that was previously available on a per-person basis. My personal corporate card has a credit line that's nearly what my boss' travel budget is for fourteen people.
So with no need to travel and no local staff or coworkers, it's frankly better to work from home: same zoom calls, same excalidraw, same figma, confluence, teams, etc. And no scheduling a desk for the day. No loud coworkers yelling on their headset when they get excited. I can have my preferred mouse and un-office-friendly mechanical keyboard. I can wear a lapel microphone and use my also un-office-friendly speakers instead of being forced to wear a headset or earbuds. I can have a wide screen monitor and a better camera. In short: productivity-wise my experience is the same or better, but comfort-wise it is materially better in every way. When every other coworker is already in another state, for me and a lot of people like me there's literally no downside.
And there's zero sympathy for corporations that worked so hard to make it easy to work from any other office only to discover it's just as easy to work from home.
I deeply miss going to a conference room to meet with my colleagues.
I wish we stopped with the "companies should do this/should do that". Existing big companies are too comfortable and lazy for the remote work revolution.
Remote work is a radical change in culture and work organization. It will take new companies with new workflows and organizational ideas to make it work well. We're not there yet. Managers don't understand yet how to do it, they need to read a lot of documentation (Gitlab's is a good start) to start grasping it.
But it will happen and the companies/startups that crack remote work will be at great advantage. Employee satisfaction is just a small part. There are other, bigger advantages: access to a bigger talent pool, talent retention, saving money, etc
And then, after that comes a revolution in cities. Walkable, safe and cheap places with good internet have a lot to gain (e.g. Portugal, Thailand). Unsafe or expensive cities have a lot to loose (e.g. San Francisco).
Remote work is a radical change in culture and work organization. It will take new companies with new workflows and organizational ideas to make it work well. We're not there yet. Managers don't understand yet how to do it, they need to read a lot of documentation (Gitlab's is a good start) to start grasping it.
But it will happen and the companies/startups that crack remote work will be at great advantage. Employee satisfaction is just a small part. There are other, bigger advantages: access to a bigger talent pool, talent retention, saving money, etc
And then, after that comes a revolution in cities. Walkable, safe and cheap places with good internet have a lot to gain (e.g. Portugal, Thailand). Unsafe or expensive cities have a lot to loose (e.g. San Francisco).
…what?
Sorry to harsh the vibe, but that second paragraph reads like something out of 2014 when people were first reading REMOTE. At this point remote work is nothing new, and while many large companies don’t like it, many large companies are going along with it (and developing the culture, documentation, etc.) because it works well as a way to attract talent. And some startup founders are trying to go “full Musk” and call workers’ bluffs and cement their control, so I don’t think there’s a clean dichotomy here.
As for walkable cities, I agree that they would be awesome, but they do not just naturally flow from a remote work culture. And having lived in Thailand for two years I hard disagree about it being a walkable place with good internet (it is cheap, which is nice, but you don’t get what you don’t pay for).
Sorry to harsh the vibe, but that second paragraph reads like something out of 2014 when people were first reading REMOTE. At this point remote work is nothing new, and while many large companies don’t like it, many large companies are going along with it (and developing the culture, documentation, etc.) because it works well as a way to attract talent. And some startup founders are trying to go “full Musk” and call workers’ bluffs and cement their control, so I don’t think there’s a clean dichotomy here.
As for walkable cities, I agree that they would be awesome, but they do not just naturally flow from a remote work culture. And having lived in Thailand for two years I hard disagree about it being a walkable place with good internet (it is cheap, which is nice, but you don’t get what you don’t pay for).
> At this point remote work is nothing new[...]
I couldn't agree more. In fact, historically, the norm has been for the work to come to where people lived with their families, rather than for people to leave their family homes to "go to work". This was at a time when the prevalent type of work was farming and craftsmanship in relation to goods that were easily transported. A craftsman's workshop was usually in the same building as their family home in towns and cities, and rural areas operated a "putting out system" [1] where travelling tradespeople brought supplies and collected finished wares.
With industrialization, the factory became a thing, and it somehow got into our heads that factories are the success model that everything else should be modeled after. Offices that don't do factory work started looking like factories. Schools started looking like factories. Public administration started looking like factories. Everything became a factory. ...this trend is hostile to human nature and relatively recent when looking at it on historical timescales.
Recent advances in telecommunications have made what little advantage there was to factory-like offices obsolete, and it's time to "return to normal". And by that I mean remote work, because remote work is "historical normal".
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putting-out_system
I couldn't agree more. In fact, historically, the norm has been for the work to come to where people lived with their families, rather than for people to leave their family homes to "go to work". This was at a time when the prevalent type of work was farming and craftsmanship in relation to goods that were easily transported. A craftsman's workshop was usually in the same building as their family home in towns and cities, and rural areas operated a "putting out system" [1] where travelling tradespeople brought supplies and collected finished wares.
With industrialization, the factory became a thing, and it somehow got into our heads that factories are the success model that everything else should be modeled after. Offices that don't do factory work started looking like factories. Schools started looking like factories. Public administration started looking like factories. Everything became a factory. ...this trend is hostile to human nature and relatively recent when looking at it on historical timescales.
Recent advances in telecommunications have made what little advantage there was to factory-like offices obsolete, and it's time to "return to normal". And by that I mean remote work, because remote work is "historical normal".
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putting-out_system
Agreed. People have all sorts of reasons to work remote, and it is not always because of walkability:
- proximity to family and community support
- quality of schools for kids
- some people want to live out in the boonies, with a hobby farm or a real homestead
- shared cultural or political values
- some folks want to be nomadic, couch surfing or living out of a souped up van or rv
- some folks want to be able to stay with extended family for longer
- some folks want to cowork locally
- I know one guy who lives in a low cost of living area and reinvest the arbitrage back into his local community while still living comfortably
In my family’s case, I have been regularly going to the local indoor play gym so that my toddler can wear himself out. It’s too hot to play outside.
Also, flexibility != remote
There are remote work places which installs invasive software to monitor “butt-in-seat”, and you don’t really get flex time.
- proximity to family and community support
- quality of schools for kids
- some people want to live out in the boonies, with a hobby farm or a real homestead
- shared cultural or political values
- some folks want to be nomadic, couch surfing or living out of a souped up van or rv
- some folks want to be able to stay with extended family for longer
- some folks want to cowork locally
- I know one guy who lives in a low cost of living area and reinvest the arbitrage back into his local community while still living comfortably
In my family’s case, I have been regularly going to the local indoor play gym so that my toddler can wear himself out. It’s too hot to play outside.
Also, flexibility != remote
There are remote work places which installs invasive software to monitor “butt-in-seat”, and you don’t really get flex time.
You've been lucky and haven't experienced a regular company that is not remote ready. I'm sure most tech companies are in a much better position then the ones where the only communication software is Skype. It's a serious uphill to convert such a company to a remote one.
You have to work it even within tech companies.
I have been working remote for years before the pandemic made it mainstream. In one of the companies I worked for, I was not the first remote worker. The first person in the company pioneered the tech, practices, and culture to make it work as a hybrid. After I came in, bit by bit, the engineering team went remote. So when the pandemic hit, the company had already had a mode of work that more or less helped out the rest of the company.
These things were not free. The pioneer had to really put himself out there to implement the remote best practices. By the time I got there, most of that was in place.
I have been working remote for years before the pandemic made it mainstream. In one of the companies I worked for, I was not the first remote worker. The first person in the company pioneered the tech, practices, and culture to make it work as a hybrid. After I came in, bit by bit, the engineering team went remote. So when the pandemic hit, the company had already had a mode of work that more or less helped out the rest of the company.
These things were not free. The pioneer had to really put himself out there to implement the remote best practices. By the time I got there, most of that was in place.
I'd be grateful to read a little more detail about what those best practices are, if you have a chance?
I think I have only read a couple articles about it, but I don’t have them.
Just off the top of my head, unorganized:
- manage outcomes instead of time spent
- Explicit presence: as a remote worker, you have to be explicit and deliberate about making your presence known. Status emojis, socialization, and “thinking out loud” threads
- Use [async] tags in messages whenever you can to help manage urgency of reply. Same with statuses
- Daily standups become even more important in order to promote social bonding, including brief chit-chat right before everyone shows up. Video if you can. It is about the only time the team bonds together
- Use the zoom chat for backchannel, so that you can still get something out without interrupting the speaker
- Having said that: Slack history records everything. Do not use Zoom chat as meeting notes. Put that into Slack, and then into Confluence/Notion/OneNote.
- Shared documents to work out a plan over Zoom helps keeps things focused
- You will be exercise writing a lot more. Leverage that. Be more thoughtful about replies. You can always link to conversations in tickets and documents
- Make use of do not disturb and periods when not to recieve notifications
- Keep your calendar up to date. Make sure to block out maker time (focus time), lunch, async times, and when you are running errands. That way, people can quickly schedule a time with you if needed
- Slack huddles in open channels can simulate drop-in calls. If you like pairing, you can start a huddle with yourself and work there. Rename the huddle to make it clear that you are open to drop ins, add a summary in the huddle thread to make the work visible
- hybrid meetings suck. People in person have to make more of an effort to make people who are remote in known. Conference rooms should be setup to put zoom folks on the wall, and zoom folks should put their video up. (It works better as all in person or all zoom meeting)
- team, dept, and maybe company should periodically bring everyone together onsite to do the things you cannot do remote
Just off the top of my head, unorganized:
- manage outcomes instead of time spent
- Explicit presence: as a remote worker, you have to be explicit and deliberate about making your presence known. Status emojis, socialization, and “thinking out loud” threads
- Use [async] tags in messages whenever you can to help manage urgency of reply. Same with statuses
- Daily standups become even more important in order to promote social bonding, including brief chit-chat right before everyone shows up. Video if you can. It is about the only time the team bonds together
- Use the zoom chat for backchannel, so that you can still get something out without interrupting the speaker
- Having said that: Slack history records everything. Do not use Zoom chat as meeting notes. Put that into Slack, and then into Confluence/Notion/OneNote.
- Shared documents to work out a plan over Zoom helps keeps things focused
- You will be exercise writing a lot more. Leverage that. Be more thoughtful about replies. You can always link to conversations in tickets and documents
- Make use of do not disturb and periods when not to recieve notifications
- Keep your calendar up to date. Make sure to block out maker time (focus time), lunch, async times, and when you are running errands. That way, people can quickly schedule a time with you if needed
- Slack huddles in open channels can simulate drop-in calls. If you like pairing, you can start a huddle with yourself and work there. Rename the huddle to make it clear that you are open to drop ins, add a summary in the huddle thread to make the work visible
- hybrid meetings suck. People in person have to make more of an effort to make people who are remote in known. Conference rooms should be setup to put zoom folks on the wall, and zoom folks should put their video up. (It works better as all in person or all zoom meeting)
- team, dept, and maybe company should periodically bring everyone together onsite to do the things you cannot do remote
Maybe I should write a small, well-organized ebook about this for sale. I’ve been looking for small side project
Most IT and engineering (and probably other "IP based") companies are "remote ready" for the right person. It's not some vast change or investment they have to make, really. You use the laptop they give you and connect from a different place, and continue to go about your job more or less the same way as does everybody who works with you, since most places are perfectly used to remote meetings and have been for decades. If they want you they'll make the accommodation. That goes for prominent companies that have been implementing strict back to office policies.
There's no "not ready", it entirely a choice by management.
There's no "not ready", it entirely a choice by management.
Having the tech to allow a few employees to work remotely is one thing. Having an organisational and operational structure to allow everyone to work remotely is another thing entirely. You have to transform a lot of things like:
* On-boarding - new employees are no longer able to suss out the company by chatting to people they bump into. They need well-defined ways to meet other teams and to learn how to communicate and collaborate within the company.
* Socialising - there needs to be a regular opportunity (not mandatory) to meet up in person, even if there's no office.
* Communication - this is a biggie. The company can't just install Teams/Slack/Skype everywhere and expect collaboration to continue as before. Instant messaging apps are terrible for building asynchronous communication habits, since they incentivise quickfire messages. The company needs to publish guidelines on how to give status updates and ask for support, and potentially make communication skills be part of employee evaluation (if not already).
* Evaluation - remote work gives senior management a bad feeling because they don't feel like they know what's going on in the company. The root cause of this is that they're not actually evaluating employee output, but rather something else (e.g. how the employee contributes to meetings or responds to in-person questions). This kind of works in the office since those things correlate somewhat with employee quality. But remote work forces managers to think about how to objectively measure employee productivity solely on their work output... and some of them either resent the extra effort or just aren't imaginative enough.
None of this is to say that remote work isnt worth it. It absolutely is. But let's not pretend that it's a small jump from what most companies currently do.
* On-boarding - new employees are no longer able to suss out the company by chatting to people they bump into. They need well-defined ways to meet other teams and to learn how to communicate and collaborate within the company.
* Socialising - there needs to be a regular opportunity (not mandatory) to meet up in person, even if there's no office.
* Communication - this is a biggie. The company can't just install Teams/Slack/Skype everywhere and expect collaboration to continue as before. Instant messaging apps are terrible for building asynchronous communication habits, since they incentivise quickfire messages. The company needs to publish guidelines on how to give status updates and ask for support, and potentially make communication skills be part of employee evaluation (if not already).
* Evaluation - remote work gives senior management a bad feeling because they don't feel like they know what's going on in the company. The root cause of this is that they're not actually evaluating employee output, but rather something else (e.g. how the employee contributes to meetings or responds to in-person questions). This kind of works in the office since those things correlate somewhat with employee quality. But remote work forces managers to think about how to objectively measure employee productivity solely on their work output... and some of them either resent the extra effort or just aren't imaginative enough.
None of this is to say that remote work isnt worth it. It absolutely is. But let's not pretend that it's a small jump from what most companies currently do.
To add to that about Slack — speaking is a distinct skill from writing, engaging in different part of the brain. The skills you use for speaking in person does not automatically translates to writing, let alone the various social nuances that comes with text based communication.
The skills you might have picked up to be someone effective while in person doesn’t mean you will be effective working through Slack. Zoom is not a perfect substitute — much of the non-verbal communication that happens in person is no longer there; plus, if you’re not using the Zoom chat as the backchannel, you miss out on effective use of Zoom.
The skills you might have picked up to be someone effective while in person doesn’t mean you will be effective working through Slack. Zoom is not a perfect substitute — much of the non-verbal communication that happens in person is no longer there; plus, if you’re not using the Zoom chat as the backchannel, you miss out on effective use of Zoom.
True. Anticipating context is one example of a skill that verbal communicators sometimes lack. For someone to understand your statement/question, it needs to be framed in the language they use everyday, and not to lack any crucial information.
In a verbal conversation, you can whittle down to this by asking questions and rephrasing the other person. In remote situations you need to spend time thinking about what information to include and how to phrase it, before even touching the keyboard.
I still get messages along the lines of "Hi, I'm trying to do X but it's not working! Can you look into it?". With a bit of forethought this can become "Hi. I'm trying to do X because client C wants to be able to do Y. I've tried action A but I'm getting issue I. I looked into the logs and found L, so then I also tried action A2 but ran into issue I2. Here is a screenshot of what I mean. I am on environment E and using configuration C. Do you have any suggestions for how I could proceed?"
In a verbal conversation, you can whittle down to this by asking questions and rephrasing the other person. In remote situations you need to spend time thinking about what information to include and how to phrase it, before even touching the keyboard.
I still get messages along the lines of "Hi, I'm trying to do X but it's not working! Can you look into it?". With a bit of forethought this can become "Hi. I'm trying to do X because client C wants to be able to do Y. I've tried action A but I'm getting issue I. I looked into the logs and found L, so then I also tried action A2 but ran into issue I2. Here is a screenshot of what I mean. I am on environment E and using configuration C. Do you have any suggestions for how I could proceed?"
> Having an organisational and operational structure to allow everyone to work remotely is another thing entirely.
It really isn't. Not for a lot of companies. Smaller, older, single-site operations maybe. Almost anything with more than one location is already intimately familiar with distributed communication, typically don't replicate HR everywhere so have all electronic onboarding anyway (aside from sending a laptop or whatever).
> None of this is to say that remote work isnt worth it. It absolutely is. But let's not pretend that it's a small jump from what most companies currently do.
Not sure what you mean by "worth it". It has some pros and cons, I work remote and that's great for me, I don't pretend to know all the details about financials and productivity impact across a significant organization. But for many it actually isn't as big a jump as they try to claim, let's not pretend that it is. Covid was a concrete demonstration of exactly that where I am, even very conservative companies and government orgs went to large fraction of employees remote in very short order.
It really isn't. Not for a lot of companies. Smaller, older, single-site operations maybe. Almost anything with more than one location is already intimately familiar with distributed communication, typically don't replicate HR everywhere so have all electronic onboarding anyway (aside from sending a laptop or whatever).
> None of this is to say that remote work isnt worth it. It absolutely is. But let's not pretend that it's a small jump from what most companies currently do.
Not sure what you mean by "worth it". It has some pros and cons, I work remote and that's great for me, I don't pretend to know all the details about financials and productivity impact across a significant organization. But for many it actually isn't as big a jump as they try to claim, let's not pretend that it is. Covid was a concrete demonstration of exactly that where I am, even very conservative companies and government orgs went to large fraction of employees remote in very short order.
> Smaller, older, single-site operations maybe
This accounts for around half of US employees and most US businesses. In the UK and other countries, it's even more.
> all electronic onboarding anyway
That's not true, you'll almost always be having in-person chats throughout your on-boarding if you're in the office. And anyway, the tech really isn't the issue here. As a new recruit in the office, you're usually sitting near your mentor/line manager. Every now and then they'll verbally check in with you, or you can tell them you're stuck on something and they'll tell you what to do or who to go to. As other colleagues approach your team area, your manager introduces you to them and explains what they do.
In a remote environment, all of this suddenly takes a lot more conscious pro-active effort. Check-ins have to be rigorously scheduled. New hires need to feel safe enough to approach anyone they need to, and to be told in writing who to approach and how. They need to be introduced to everyone explicitly via call or messaging. They need to be protected from falling "out of sight, out of mind", and encouraged to build personal connections with colleagues.
This accounts for around half of US employees and most US businesses. In the UK and other countries, it's even more.
> all electronic onboarding anyway
That's not true, you'll almost always be having in-person chats throughout your on-boarding if you're in the office. And anyway, the tech really isn't the issue here. As a new recruit in the office, you're usually sitting near your mentor/line manager. Every now and then they'll verbally check in with you, or you can tell them you're stuck on something and they'll tell you what to do or who to go to. As other colleagues approach your team area, your manager introduces you to them and explains what they do.
In a remote environment, all of this suddenly takes a lot more conscious pro-active effort. Check-ins have to be rigorously scheduled. New hires need to feel safe enough to approach anyone they need to, and to be told in writing who to approach and how. They need to be introduced to everyone explicitly via call or messaging. They need to be protected from falling "out of sight, out of mind", and encouraged to build personal connections with colleagues.
> This accounts for around half of US employees and most US businesses. In the UK and other countries, it's even more.
Right. Far from the "few and far between" narrative here, isn't it?
> That's not true,
I'm talking about HR onboarding. Signatures, payroll, boilerplate regulatory compliance training etc.
> you'll almost always be having in-person chats throughout your on-boarding if you're in the office.
Nope, not if HR is located elsewhere. It's phone, email, electronic meetings.
> And anyway, the tech really isn't the issue here. As a new recruit in the office, you're usually sitting near your mentor/line manager. Every now and then they'll verbally check in with you, or you can tell them you're stuck on something and they'll tell you what to do or who to go to. As other colleagues approach your team area, your manager introduces you to them and explains what they do.
"If you're in the office you'll be in the office".
All of this stuff is trivial to do online. I don't pretend it has exactly the same results, and one possibly valid concern is monitoring and hepling newer and less proven employees. It doesn't mean that just because there are certain pros and cons that the whole idea falls in a heap at the first hurdle though, so those kinds of anecdotes do not address what I wrote.
> In a remote environment, all of this suddenly takes a lot more conscious pro-active effort. Check-ins have to be rigorously scheduled. New hires need to feel safe enough to approach anyone they need to, and to be told in writing who to approach and how. They need to be introduced to everyone explicitly via call or messaging. They need to be protected from falling "out of sight, out of mind", and encouraged to build personal connections with colleagues.
None of this is rocket science, and all of the tools to do it trivially exist in any software suite any company uses even ones that aren't remote. Email, calendar, chat. Or a physical pen and notepad if you must. Checking in on people isn't some incredible and complicated new skill managers have to learn, that's what they do.
Right. Far from the "few and far between" narrative here, isn't it?
> That's not true,
I'm talking about HR onboarding. Signatures, payroll, boilerplate regulatory compliance training etc.
> you'll almost always be having in-person chats throughout your on-boarding if you're in the office.
Nope, not if HR is located elsewhere. It's phone, email, electronic meetings.
> And anyway, the tech really isn't the issue here. As a new recruit in the office, you're usually sitting near your mentor/line manager. Every now and then they'll verbally check in with you, or you can tell them you're stuck on something and they'll tell you what to do or who to go to. As other colleagues approach your team area, your manager introduces you to them and explains what they do.
"If you're in the office you'll be in the office".
All of this stuff is trivial to do online. I don't pretend it has exactly the same results, and one possibly valid concern is monitoring and hepling newer and less proven employees. It doesn't mean that just because there are certain pros and cons that the whole idea falls in a heap at the first hurdle though, so those kinds of anecdotes do not address what I wrote.
> In a remote environment, all of this suddenly takes a lot more conscious pro-active effort. Check-ins have to be rigorously scheduled. New hires need to feel safe enough to approach anyone they need to, and to be told in writing who to approach and how. They need to be introduced to everyone explicitly via call or messaging. They need to be protected from falling "out of sight, out of mind", and encouraged to build personal connections with colleagues.
None of this is rocket science, and all of the tools to do it trivially exist in any software suite any company uses even ones that aren't remote. Email, calendar, chat. Or a physical pen and notepad if you must. Checking in on people isn't some incredible and complicated new skill managers have to learn, that's what they do.
When most people use “on-boarding”, they don’t mean just the legal/HR/benefits paperwork, but rather the effective integration into the fabric of the company. The original post to which you replied even specified that as including “learn how to communicate and collaborate within the company”: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36503709
And there's nothing that's particularly prohibitive about doing that remotely. You can't just call a bunch of dot points like "on boarding" refuting what I wrote. Sure it's what you might read in your CEO's email or whatever, but that doesn't make it true.
The point you seem to be making - that remote working is a cinch as long as all the managers already know what they need to do and how to do it - is both correct and missing the point.
Studies in the UK demonstrate that feeling isolated and making connections with colleagues in a remote environment is a major concern for younger employees: https://universumglobal.com/blog/the-leadership-gap-young-wo...
This is an organisational issue which isn't solved just by making tools like email and calendar available.
Studies in the UK demonstrate that feeling isolated and making connections with colleagues in a remote environment is a major concern for younger employees: https://universumglobal.com/blog/the-leadership-gap-young-wo...
This is an organisational issue which isn't solved just by making tools like email and calendar available.
That's not the point I'm making and I have to say it's pretty outlandish if it seems that way to you.
The point I'm making is that it's not because an organization is "not ready" that remote work is not permitted. Implying there is some set of steps or purchases they need to make and then they are ready. It's because the people who can make the decision don't want to.
I thought that I repeatedly made it clear that I made no value judgement on the remote work and didn't claim that is a bad decision to make.
The point I'm making is that it's not because an organization is "not ready" that remote work is not permitted. Implying there is some set of steps or purchases they need to make and then they are ready. It's because the people who can make the decision don't want to.
I thought that I repeatedly made it clear that I made no value judgement on the remote work and didn't claim that is a bad decision to make.
I'm not talking about IT or engineering. Anyway, it's not as easy as you say and I have the result right in front of me. The company has not mandated return to office but is still struggling a lot with this so what exactly is the choice by management here? They clearly want it to be a remote company.
Another example is my SO who works for a now-flex remote government agency where they are not authorized to use any of the normal software. It's even worse there. Their remote culture is highly dysfunctional and she goes into the office 5 days a week even though she doesn't need to.
Another example is my SO who works for a now-flex remote government agency where they are not authorized to use any of the normal software. It's even worse there. Their remote culture is highly dysfunctional and she goes into the office 5 days a week even though she doesn't need to.
> I'm not talking about IT or engineering.
What are you talking about then?
> Anyway, it's not as easy as you say and I have the result right in front of me. The company has not mandated return to office but is still struggling a lot with this so what exactly is the choice by management here?
I don't know what you're talking about. What result? What company? Can you give some more detail or did I miss a post?
I have many concrete examples right in front of me, which is the number of companies and government agencies that went to remote extremely rapidly during covid shutdowns.
> Another example is my SO who works for a now-flex remote government agency where they are not authorized to use any of the normal software.
Like I said, that's just a simple choice. Most probably by some self-important bureaucrat who wants to sabotage the remote work scheme. All they would have to do is use normal software like many other places permit, and that would be most of the battle.
What are you talking about then?
> Anyway, it's not as easy as you say and I have the result right in front of me. The company has not mandated return to office but is still struggling a lot with this so what exactly is the choice by management here?
I don't know what you're talking about. What result? What company? Can you give some more detail or did I miss a post?
I have many concrete examples right in front of me, which is the number of companies and government agencies that went to remote extremely rapidly during covid shutdowns.
> Another example is my SO who works for a now-flex remote government agency where they are not authorized to use any of the normal software.
Like I said, that's just a simple choice. Most probably by some self-important bureaucrat who wants to sabotage the remote work scheme. All they would have to do is use normal software like many other places permit, and that would be most of the battle.
Remote work and collaboration requires a very different skillset in order to be effective. So if a company clearly wants to do that (both leadership and staff trying to make things work), it is probably time to bring in a consultant — maybe someone with an anthropology or sociology background that can look at how everyone interacts together with the technology, and can suggest gradual changes there.
An example: in some companies, the receptionist knows who has entered and exited the building, and can sometimes become the defacto person that can help people find each other. Someone whose effectiveness depends upon this informal role of the receptionist will find that they can’t work like this anymore when the company goes remote.
An example: in some companies, the receptionist knows who has entered and exited the building, and can sometimes become the defacto person that can help people find each other. Someone whose effectiveness depends upon this informal role of the receptionist will find that they can’t work like this anymore when the company goes remote.
They’re talking about the company culture not being ready for remote and it’s completely correct.
Most companies attempt to have office culture and working style while working remotely, which absolutely sucks.
There are not a lot of companies (And employees) who have figured out how to do remote well.
Most companies attempt to have office culture and working style while working remotely, which absolutely sucks.
There are not a lot of companies (And employees) who have figured out how to do remote well.
"Most engineering" is a broad brush, some engineering still uses tools other than software at least occasionally.
Lots does. I work for a company that among other things makes leading edge ASICs. The tools and probes and things required to test and handle wafers and the chips that come back from packaging can't be sent to peoples' houses. Some people have to work various manual steps in that process at times. It's surprisingly hands-on, especially in early stages of characterization and yield and performance tuning.
The vast, vast majority of person-hours required to go from drawing board to bits of silicon running in customer's computer can be done entirely without physical presence though.
I know mechanical and structural engineers and it's much the same for them.
The vast, vast majority of person-hours required to go from drawing board to bits of silicon running in customer's computer can be done entirely without physical presence though.
I know mechanical and structural engineers and it's much the same for them.
> At this point remote work is nothing new
I disagree. As long as i still see traffic in cities, it means remote work is still a tiny minority
I disagree. As long as i still see traffic in cities, it means remote work is still a tiny minority
Somebody has to serve you at restaurant, stack shelves at store and about gazillion other jobs that are done physically at location, or they are not done at all. Such claims are so desperately out of touch with reality its a bit sad. There will always be traffic in the cities.
Or do you want police or ambulances or surgeons to also work remotely?
Or do you want police or ambulances or surgeons to also work remotely?
Your tone sounds like you're criticizing the parent comment but the content of your reply is pretty strongly supporting/backing up the parent comments assertion so I'm having a hard time figuring out if you're trying to disagree or agree lol
At what times is traffic peaking? What are people doing then?
It is relatively uncommon, but nothing new.
Except almost all white-collar offices (in the US at least) went remote during the first 2-3 years of COVID. Most did so successfully. Yet, many now want to return to traditional office work with little evidence that’s a better way to work.
> Most did so successfully.
There’s a lot of nuance being glossed over here and I don’t think this is clear cut.
Successfully for who? All stakeholders? Every department? Customers and suppliers too?
Does this success translate to a non-pandemic environment with lower expectations by everyone given the circumstances?
There’s a lot of nuance being glossed over here and I don’t think this is clear cut.
Successfully for who? All stakeholders? Every department? Customers and suppliers too?
Does this success translate to a non-pandemic environment with lower expectations by everyone given the circumstances?
Wife works for a retail bank. Front-line employees didn't go remote - they need to be in retail bank locations serving customers. Back-office employees were 98% in-office prior to COVID. In several weeks, the company pivoted to remote work, including procurement of laptops (most non-managers had desktops). During the 2.5-3 years of COVID-induced WFH, their engagement numbers and measured productivity went up.
I've heard similar stories from friends and family in similar workplaces.
While I realize that's all anecdotal, I haven't heard any stories countering this narrative.
All that said, I like being in the office a few days/week for all the reasons mentioned. But, my team is all remote (hired that way, mostly pre-COVID), so even when I'm at the office, I'm only chatting with peers on other teams, not the people I'm doing project work with.
I've heard similar stories from friends and family in similar workplaces.
While I realize that's all anecdotal, I haven't heard any stories countering this narrative.
All that said, I like being in the office a few days/week for all the reasons mentioned. But, my team is all remote (hired that way, mostly pre-COVID), so even when I'm at the office, I'm only chatting with peers on other teams, not the people I'm doing project work with.
My company went permanent full remote. We are much less productive, velocity per engineer is about half what it was. I'll freely admit it's because the company is poorly managed, but in my experience tons of companies have leadership that isn't able to quickly pivot in the way needed for WFH to be successful. It requires a lot of effort to get remote engineers to communicate well and at least here it basically just doesn't happen anymore.
I've done a lot of remote work over the decades. It starts out well, because you know your coworkers well. But, over time, those relationships fade, and people come and go at work. You lose the connection with them, and they with you.
It's hardly all roses.
It's hardly all roses.
>You lose the connection with them, and they with you.
I work in an organization with 10s of thousands of workers across the United States. I will never, in the best circumstances, see more than a handful of them in person, other than in-person team meetings, which have themselves become increasingly rare as the team is more geographically diverse than ever and travel budgets are slashed due to ready electronic collaboration tools. So ... what connection? I mean, I don't really care about having a personal connection with these folks anyway. I like them and enjoy having a positive professional relationship with them, but they're my coworkers and we have amazing tools to build those relationships. If some of them become friends, that's fine, but it's not anywhere close to a prerequisite for me to be successful and fulfilled at work.
My entire career I've worked successfully with people I never met who live on the other side of the planet. The whole discussion about the necessity of in-person collaboration over the last 3 years has struck me as one of the weirdest things I've ever seen. I haven't had a conference call in 3 years. I cannot emphasize how revolutionary and positive that change is. I see my coworkers' faces more now than I ever did in the past thanks to Zoom and Teams. It's nothing short of miraculous how much better things are now.
In return for giving up a pointless commute to use a different Internet connection and for spending less time pandering to bosses who want to promote buddies who look like them instead of competent leaders, I can spend more time with people and things I actually care about and more time doing work I love. Every single bit of this new arrangement is roses.
I work in an organization with 10s of thousands of workers across the United States. I will never, in the best circumstances, see more than a handful of them in person, other than in-person team meetings, which have themselves become increasingly rare as the team is more geographically diverse than ever and travel budgets are slashed due to ready electronic collaboration tools. So ... what connection? I mean, I don't really care about having a personal connection with these folks anyway. I like them and enjoy having a positive professional relationship with them, but they're my coworkers and we have amazing tools to build those relationships. If some of them become friends, that's fine, but it's not anywhere close to a prerequisite for me to be successful and fulfilled at work.
My entire career I've worked successfully with people I never met who live on the other side of the planet. The whole discussion about the necessity of in-person collaboration over the last 3 years has struck me as one of the weirdest things I've ever seen. I haven't had a conference call in 3 years. I cannot emphasize how revolutionary and positive that change is. I see my coworkers' faces more now than I ever did in the past thanks to Zoom and Teams. It's nothing short of miraculous how much better things are now.
In return for giving up a pointless commute to use a different Internet connection and for spending less time pandering to bosses who want to promote buddies who look like them instead of competent leaders, I can spend more time with people and things I actually care about and more time doing work I love. Every single bit of this new arrangement is roses.
This is what is meant by the "big corps haven't cracked it".
More progressive corps embraced online socializing earlier, and honestly that's all I need. To be sure something is lost socially by not being in person, but the workplace is not social-drinks club, or if it is that's where your productivity went.
You still build connections with people you only meet online, older folk might have more trouble with that, which makes sense why they might struggle to manage if they heavily depend on "making friends" to do their job.
Training and onboarding can be issues, but barring a straight up lack of talent generally focused efforts are probably better than just assuming the new employee will "make connections" and learn via osmosis.
More progressive corps embraced online socializing earlier, and honestly that's all I need. To be sure something is lost socially by not being in person, but the workplace is not social-drinks club, or if it is that's where your productivity went.
You still build connections with people you only meet online, older folk might have more trouble with that, which makes sense why they might struggle to manage if they heavily depend on "making friends" to do their job.
Training and onboarding can be issues, but barring a straight up lack of talent generally focused efforts are probably better than just assuming the new employee will "make connections" and learn via osmosis.
This. Keeping a connection takes some effort
And yes this might mean going to the office once in a while or to a company event etc
Not an unsurmountable problem but it's not negligible neither (as much as it is slowly growing)
And yes this might mean going to the office once in a while or to a company event etc
Not an unsurmountable problem but it's not negligible neither (as much as it is slowly growing)
It’s all roses. I see my coworkers in person once a year at the Christmas party. Other than that I’ve only every worked with them online since I started working here 2.5 years ago. It’s all roses.
Classic HN, any pitch for a shade of grey gets met with either "no it's white!", followed by "what? everyone knows it's always black!".
People are complex and different. If something is white for one person, and black for another, when you put them next to each other you get... black and white.
Reducing people's different experiences to a homogeneous grey mush is overly reductive.
Reducing people's different experiences to a homogeneous grey mush is overly reductive.
I've been in my current project for over two years now, never met the team in person, but we have a good connection - chiefly because we insert some chit-chat into the meetings.
[deleted]
You have a source for any of that?
Speaking personally, everyone I’ve spoken to on the matter (myself included) have zero desire to return to a traditional office.
Speaking personally, everyone I’ve spoken to on the matter (myself included) have zero desire to return to a traditional office.
I guess I’m one who likes the office. Not every day. But frequently. And I think I could build a culture with in-office time that would out-compete a remote-only competitor, domestic only or offshore hybrid.
What part of this culture would make it more competitive than any remote-only equivalent? And how would you build it?
> What part of this culture would make it more competitive than any remote-only equivalent?
Hiring, the same way RO outfits can access unique talent, and information transfer, particularly to newer team members. Also, in industries where over-documentation is an unnecessary liability.
Hiring, the same way RO outfits can access unique talent, and information transfer, particularly to newer team members. Also, in industries where over-documentation is an unnecessary liability.
I'm a software engineer, and I think the fully remote-work culture can often be less personally fulfilling.
I enjoy going to an office, having a change of scenery, interacting with people (both close friends and casual acquaintances), brainstorming ideas with a small group around a whiteboard, getting lunch with colleagues, etc, etc...
Sure, the "writing code" part of the job is easier when there are fewer distractions. And a crowded open office can be an annoying source of distractions.
And I definitely enjoy having lunch more often with my family, or hanging out with the dogs, or sitting out on my deck under the trees while I read my morning email.
But working in an office was nice too, and I miss it.
I enjoy going to an office, having a change of scenery, interacting with people (both close friends and casual acquaintances), brainstorming ideas with a small group around a whiteboard, getting lunch with colleagues, etc, etc...
Sure, the "writing code" part of the job is easier when there are fewer distractions. And a crowded open office can be an annoying source of distractions.
And I definitely enjoy having lunch more often with my family, or hanging out with the dogs, or sitting out on my deck under the trees while I read my morning email.
But working in an office was nice too, and I miss it.
Heh, you ask for a source and then just provide a personal anecdote?
How many people do you know? When WFH was mandated, I hated it. When the mandate was finally kicked, I loved going back to the office, and have spent almost every workday at the office, despite having the possibility to do 40% WFH if I wanted. No, I don't want that, thank you. Not a coder, working as admin. I like people, that is why I work in an office. And personal experience is definitely that working together with people who are currently at home usually slows down processes quite a bit. Besides, sometimes, WFH-people are just not reachable, because reasons... Daughter has sneezed the first time, or wife has decided she needs to go for her yoga class and coworker suddenly needs to care for a 4-year-old... And, god forbid, if you ever say anything when these blatantly shameless things happen, you are the bad guy.
> Not a coder, working as admin
The working environment which is conducive to a successful developer vs a successful admin are, most likely (in my experience), two completely different environments.
The working environment which is conducive to a successful developer vs a successful admin are, most likely (in my experience), two completely different environments.
"Besides, sometimes, WFH-people are just not reachable, because reasons... Daughter has sneezed the first time, or wife has decided she needs to go for her yoga class and coworker suddenly needs to care for a 4-year-old... And, god forbid, if you ever say anything when these blatantly shameless things happen, you are the bad guy."
This is obviously hyperbole for... living a life?
This is obviously hyperbole for... living a life?
Are you referring to individual employees or the companies? Clearly many companies are mandating RTO despite remote/self-determined hybrid supported by a strong majority of employee sentiment (and often performance data)
A source for companies rolling out return-to-office plans? It's all over the news. Not sure what you're asking.
[deleted]
I like going to the office, i know many people who prefer it.
> with little evidence that’s a better way to work.
You are assuming that decision makers are dumb. I disagree with that. My null hypothesis is that they are smart, competent people and are doing the best decision according to data they are seeing.
You are assuming that decision makers are dumb. I disagree with that. My null hypothesis is that they are smart, competent people and are doing the best decision according to data they are seeing.
> My null hypothesis is that they are smart, competent people and are doing the best decision according to data they are seeing.
Speaking as a senior manager at a smallish software company (300 people), absolutely, decision makers are in my experience smart and competent.
But what they don't do is necessarily make decisions based on data.
I don't believe for a second that most RTO debates are based on meaningful measurement. As with a lot of corporate decisions, I suspect it's a lot of HIPPOs, fingers in the air, and herding behavior.
Speaking as a senior manager at a smallish software company (300 people), absolutely, decision makers are in my experience smart and competent.
But what they don't do is necessarily make decisions based on data.
I don't believe for a second that most RTO debates are based on meaningful measurement. As with a lot of corporate decisions, I suspect it's a lot of HIPPOs, fingers in the air, and herding behavior.
When I joined my current employer the biggest drawback was that unlike my previous job they did not allow remote work. Managers were against it because they were paranoid about people slacking off.
The pandemic hit, we transitioned to remote work, I was happy. Everyone quickly adapted and learned how to efficiently work from home. About two years later, two things happened:
1. Surveys and postmortems showed that remote work lead to increased employee satisfaction and productivity at our company.
2. Company leadership started talking about a mandated return to office.
People of course challenged this decision, pointing to the data, and no real explanation was given. Those who wanted to returned to office, but the mandated return was indefinitely postponed and eventually silently dropped as the manager primarily pushing for a return left the company.
The pandemic hit, we transitioned to remote work, I was happy. Everyone quickly adapted and learned how to efficiently work from home. About two years later, two things happened:
1. Surveys and postmortems showed that remote work lead to increased employee satisfaction and productivity at our company.
2. Company leadership started talking about a mandated return to office.
People of course challenged this decision, pointing to the data, and no real explanation was given. Those who wanted to returned to office, but the mandated return was indefinitely postponed and eventually silently dropped as the manager primarily pushing for a return left the company.
> You are assuming that decision makers are dumb
That's only a single aspect, whilst it's also a very wide aspect.
They may not be dumb, they may be "politically smart" and their KPIs are easiest to meet when their subordinates are in the office.
They may not be dumb, but they feel less powerful (and therefore that their position as decision maker is more vulnerable) when their workforce is outside of whipping distance.
They may not be dumb, but their idea of "normal" is not what covid hath wrought, and therefore a return to the office is a return to "normal", and thus a heaving sigh of relief can be had that we're now past that extended weirdness.
They may not be dumb, but they may not be able to understand that people are motivated differently from themselves and from each other. "I work better in the office, therefore y'all do too". (admittedly there's a bit of dumbness in that one, however that's far from saying it's unrealistic or rare).
> according to data they are seeing
Anecdotal warning: Outside of the "best of the best" kinda places, my experience is that most decision makers work on 'feel' and not data - whether data is available or not.
That's only a single aspect, whilst it's also a very wide aspect.
They may not be dumb, they may be "politically smart" and their KPIs are easiest to meet when their subordinates are in the office.
They may not be dumb, but they feel less powerful (and therefore that their position as decision maker is more vulnerable) when their workforce is outside of whipping distance.
They may not be dumb, but their idea of "normal" is not what covid hath wrought, and therefore a return to the office is a return to "normal", and thus a heaving sigh of relief can be had that we're now past that extended weirdness.
They may not be dumb, but they may not be able to understand that people are motivated differently from themselves and from each other. "I work better in the office, therefore y'all do too". (admittedly there's a bit of dumbness in that one, however that's far from saying it's unrealistic or rare).
> according to data they are seeing
Anecdotal warning: Outside of the "best of the best" kinda places, my experience is that most decision makers work on 'feel' and not data - whether data is available or not.
The "best of the best" places are also managed by feel and not data. There's even some kind of rationalization for that: at a sufficiently high management level, they have to make a decision every 30 seconds on average. That's mostly gut-driven by necessity...
Thing is, that normally works out, but large shifts like the "new normal" during the pandemic can take a while for the gut to pick up, and so the default is to get back to the known-good state...
Thing is, that normally works out, but large shifts like the "new normal" during the pandemic can take a while for the gut to pick up, and so the default is to get back to the known-good state...
KPIs adapt to circumstances but the thing about power is correct. I seen many power plays and the size of the "army" of the managers and how much they could assert control were important parts of them. If employees are dispersed they can't help the "generals" too much.
You are assuming that they see high attrition of their best talent as something bad. Sometimes they don't seem to care if the numbers in Excel look good.
> My null hypothesis is that they are smart, competent people and are doing the best decision according to data they are seeing.
I agree. They are seeing the data that their skills of busy-bodies bouncing between meetings and impromptu conversations at other employees desks don't translate well to remote work and they understand that their nice 3mil$ house in the valley will cost much less in couple of years if everyone embraces full remote, so they are doing their best to preserve the status quo.
I agree. They are seeing the data that their skills of busy-bodies bouncing between meetings and impromptu conversations at other employees desks don't translate well to remote work and they understand that their nice 3mil$ house in the valley will cost much less in couple of years if everyone embraces full remote, so they are doing their best to preserve the status quo.
Let's flip this around: do you (or decision makers) have any evidence that remote work is worse? Without that data, and barring ulterior motives (such as attrition without severance), reversing the status quo and enforcing return to office is, by definition, not a sound data-driven decision.
> My null hypothesis is that they are smart, competent people and are doing the best decision according to data they are seeing.
That's precisely the problem. The decision makers suffer from extreme confirmation bias and Dunning-Kruger effect. So what happens is they run surveys, polls etc which are loaded and indicate that employees would 'love' to return to the office. They mandate RTO and are then surprised when people leave en masse because the data they've collected is wrong.
That's precisely the problem. The decision makers suffer from extreme confirmation bias and Dunning-Kruger effect. So what happens is they run surveys, polls etc which are loaded and indicate that employees would 'love' to return to the office. They mandate RTO and are then surprised when people leave en masse because the data they've collected is wrong.
They might be making the "best decision", but best decision for whom? Their own career, social standing and property investment portfolio? Or the best decision for the company and employee well-being and productivity?
Decision makers are politicians, their job is to take the most politically efficient decision according to data. Deciding if it was the best decision to take or not is the job of historians.
I don't think most did so successfully. A lot of companies did it without any sort of software or procedures to support remote working and never managed to implement it during the time. They still rely on Skype.
Tech companies are not representative.
Tech companies are not representative.
When I started working remotely we had icq and a private irc server :)
Virtually the entire VFX industry has shifted to remote. Let that sync in.
The most hardware/GPU intensive industry of creatives dealing with ungodly complex technical pipelines, terabytes of 32bit EXR frames of rendered data, Houdini fluid simulations, compositing, color grading, the whole works... is almost entirely distributed now.
They've done it. Everyone can do it. And are doing it.
The most hardware/GPU intensive industry of creatives dealing with ungodly complex technical pipelines, terabytes of 32bit EXR frames of rendered data, Houdini fluid simulations, compositing, color grading, the whole works... is almost entirely distributed now.
They've done it. Everyone can do it. And are doing it.
I'm curious (and not really familiar with modern VFX workflows).
Do they work with a mostly thin client approach now? I'm assuming it's impractical for them to regularly transmit terabytes of data back and forth over residential connections.
Do they work with a mostly thin client approach now? I'm assuming it's impractical for them to regularly transmit terabytes of data back and forth over residential connections.
I think it depends on what they're doing. If they're doing animation (which includes moving elements in live-action footage) and mostly checking the quality of motion, they might get away with proxy renders. But anyone doing critical color or compositing I would think need to do local renders on a calibrated system, and then commit the work to a remote render farm for consistency and accessibility by other team members.
My wife works from home in a related industry, and she is quite frequently transmitting work files (up to 100s of GiB) over our residential connection. We have multi-gigabit symmetric FTTH though.
Source: Worked at a ~2k employee multinational when covid hit, it got bought by a bigger corp and got turned into an ~11k employee company later on.
Large companies were already multinational, people from India didn't fly to San Fransisco or Berlin for a meeting, they did it remotely. Some bigwigs and specific consultants did it, but the regular people just used Slack and maybe Zoom to communicate over time zones.
COVID just forced everyone to up their game with this, all meeting rooms got big displays, 4k cameras and Zoom integration after RTO was an option.
People going home got allowances to buy better gear for their home office (Mine was already good, so I upgraded my home theater setup). I had multiple work friends who moved hundreds of kilometers away from the city where our office was.
Even now most people are still 99-100% remote. They only come to the office when there are company-wide parties or team events.
Now I work for a smaller startup-ish company and we're mostly remote, it's recommended to drop by the office once a week, but it's not enforced. Some are there every day, some only come for the parties.
I personally know multiple highly experienced people (20+ years in the field) who 100% refuse any offers that aren't fully remote.
Large companies were already multinational, people from India didn't fly to San Fransisco or Berlin for a meeting, they did it remotely. Some bigwigs and specific consultants did it, but the regular people just used Slack and maybe Zoom to communicate over time zones.
COVID just forced everyone to up their game with this, all meeting rooms got big displays, 4k cameras and Zoom integration after RTO was an option.
People going home got allowances to buy better gear for their home office (Mine was already good, so I upgraded my home theater setup). I had multiple work friends who moved hundreds of kilometers away from the city where our office was.
Even now most people are still 99-100% remote. They only come to the office when there are company-wide parties or team events.
Now I work for a smaller startup-ish company and we're mostly remote, it's recommended to drop by the office once a week, but it's not enforced. Some are there every day, some only come for the parties.
I personally know multiple highly experienced people (20+ years in the field) who 100% refuse any offers that aren't fully remote.
>And then, after that comes a revolution in cities. Walkable, safe and cheap places with good internet have a lot to gain (e.g. Portugal, Thailand). Unsafe or expensive cities have a lot to loose (e.g. San Francisco).
This is somewhat wishful thinking: most companies cannot have employees that live outside their country. These workers instead need to become consultants, and contract to the client companies. Employing someone overseas is not easy at all, and most companies just aren't set up to do it. There is a new industry of companies that specialize in "employing" digital nomads, and then contracting their services to their employers back in the other country, but of course this adds extra cost to the client. For US-based remote jobs, they usually plainly say "US residents only" to avoid these hassles.
This is somewhat wishful thinking: most companies cannot have employees that live outside their country. These workers instead need to become consultants, and contract to the client companies. Employing someone overseas is not easy at all, and most companies just aren't set up to do it. There is a new industry of companies that specialize in "employing" digital nomads, and then contracting their services to their employers back in the other country, but of course this adds extra cost to the client. For US-based remote jobs, they usually plainly say "US residents only" to avoid these hassles.
>Walkable, safe and cheap places with good internet have a lot to gain (e.g. Portugal, Thailand). Unsafe or expensive cities have a lot to loose (e.g. San Francisco).
Won't this be a large obstacle for remote work? More expensive places are going to hold on to people tooth and nail. There are plenty of ways to do this, eg explicit regulation or tax complications.
When Bulgarian truck drivers started outcompeting French truck drivers the EU pushed through new regulations that required the drivers and the trucks (!!) to visit their home country at least every 2 months.[0]
>The most controversial measure is an obligation for trucks to return to their country of establishment at least every eight weeks
I think political entities will fight a lot with dirty tricks like this to keep the tax revenue and employment in their jurisdiction.
[0] https://www.politico.eu/article/trucker-rules-europe-logisti...
Won't this be a large obstacle for remote work? More expensive places are going to hold on to people tooth and nail. There are plenty of ways to do this, eg explicit regulation or tax complications.
When Bulgarian truck drivers started outcompeting French truck drivers the EU pushed through new regulations that required the drivers and the trucks (!!) to visit their home country at least every 2 months.[0]
>The most controversial measure is an obligation for trucks to return to their country of establishment at least every eight weeks
I think political entities will fight a lot with dirty tricks like this to keep the tax revenue and employment in their jurisdiction.
[0] https://www.politico.eu/article/trucker-rules-europe-logisti...
Similar thing is happening here in Philippines. The government basically gave tax breaks to companies who will utilize their office spaces in city centers. To no one's surprise, most of the local companies are now forcing return-to-office. The government justification is: people spend more when they regularly go the the office thus, stimulating the economy.
There's a lot of unconfirmed scuttlebutt that companies in major American metro areas have similar motivations...
I can say with the utmost confidence that spending more time and money downtown is the last thing that my 3 hour round trip commute motivates me to do
I can say with the utmost confidence that spending more time and money downtown is the last thing that my 3 hour round trip commute motivates me to do
I doubt it motivates you to travel home for lunch!
It sounds like you'd be very unlikely to enter downtown for any other reason. Also, may I suggest you move your home or employment? 3 hours is a lot of commuting and that is bad for you.
It sounds like you'd be very unlikely to enter downtown for any other reason. Also, may I suggest you move your home or employment? 3 hours is a lot of commuting and that is bad for you.
There will be countries like Bulgaria, and there will be countries which will welcome it with open arms (and anything in between). I am here in Thailand as an expat, with my own business, working remotely for European clients. I am taxed at the Thai rate, and have a work permit, because there is no large Thai talent pool competing for the same business and opportunities I am. So far I am not seeing any dirty tricks, there are other countries competing for this exact type of expat too. "Dirty tricks" would drive them away to other countries.
> There will be countries like Bulgaria, and there will be countries which will welcome it with open arms
Bulgaria (and Romania, per linked article) were on the receiving end of said dirty tricks. The problem is Western EU trucking companies did not want the much cheaper to operate Eastern EU truckers eating their lunch. The "dirty tricks" did not come from Bulgaria/Romania in this case.
Bulgaria (and Romania, per linked article) were on the receiving end of said dirty tricks. The problem is Western EU trucking companies did not want the much cheaper to operate Eastern EU truckers eating their lunch. The "dirty tricks" did not come from Bulgaria/Romania in this case.
Shouldn't the workers in the rich countries be terrified of remote work? You essentially open up against competition from much cheaper places and you might end up moving there to be able to match the margins.
It's not that I'm against it - IMHO freedom of movement should be absolute and people should be getting the based jobs on merits and not on nationality, it's just that all this visa stuff that makes people drown in boats, stay in detention centres, leave the EU to keep the Poles out of the job market etc. exist primarily to protect local working markets. IMHO a people doing the same job in SF and Bangalore must be compensated the same but the fact that they aren't is exactly why it's much better to live in USA. That's also why you have H-2B visa quota.
I'm still puzzled about this, don't you think that this could have the same effect on your industry as the manufacturing moving to China? Especially for coders, don't you think that people in poor countries can code just fine? Technology is not only making the distance a non issue - recent developments are also removing the language barriers.
The money that even the junior US tech workers are making is at life changing level for most of the world. This will be tapped.
It's not that I'm against it - IMHO freedom of movement should be absolute and people should be getting the based jobs on merits and not on nationality, it's just that all this visa stuff that makes people drown in boats, stay in detention centres, leave the EU to keep the Poles out of the job market etc. exist primarily to protect local working markets. IMHO a people doing the same job in SF and Bangalore must be compensated the same but the fact that they aren't is exactly why it's much better to live in USA. That's also why you have H-2B visa quota.
I'm still puzzled about this, don't you think that this could have the same effect on your industry as the manufacturing moving to China? Especially for coders, don't you think that people in poor countries can code just fine? Technology is not only making the distance a non issue - recent developments are also removing the language barriers.
The money that even the junior US tech workers are making is at life changing level for most of the world. This will be tapped.
Time zones still matter though. I have been in same-time-zone remote teams and different-time-zone ones. The dynamic is very different.
Things that take minutes or hours when everyone is on roughly the same schedule, could easily drag on to a multiple day delay in a remote team that crosses many timezones.
As for fully outsourced teams... They always could have done that even before remote work. Other factors seem to affect why that doesn't work.
Things that take minutes or hours when everyone is on roughly the same schedule, could easily drag on to a multiple day delay in a remote team that crosses many timezones.
As for fully outsourced teams... They always could have done that even before remote work. Other factors seem to affect why that doesn't work.
We've all been there:
https://www.nohello.com
Them: Hello, <name>
8-16 hours pass
Me: Hello, did you need something?
8-16 hours pass
Them: How are you?
8- 16 hours pass
https://www.nohello.com
Exactly. When you do async comms and have a question, skip the chit chat and just send the question and an appropriate infodump.
As a matter of fact, even when you chit chat do it in self contained units. You don't know how much time passes till your co workers read your joke in #general.
As a matter of fact, even when you chit chat do it in self contained units. You don't know how much time passes till your co workers read your joke in #general.
Right, the time zone differences are a hard one. In some places people work in the hours of the client when doing remote work but it's still hard and taxing.
> Shouldn't the workers in the rich countries be terrified of remote work? You essentially open up against competition from much cheaper places and you might end up moving there to be able to match the margins.
Offshoring hasn’t been an amazing success story so far, what you save in cost you spend in fixing low quality, bridging cultural gaps, and herding workers with no skin in the game who can’t afford to gaf because they’re paid so little in comparison.
Companies will always offshore but I think it’s the jobs at the crappier companies that are offshored and these aren’t the places we typically want to work at anyway.
I’m talking about large body shops whose value proposition is “we’re cheaper and we work harder”, not about individuals around the world who are hired by 100% remote companies. The latter are typically pretty good.
Offshoring hasn’t been an amazing success story so far, what you save in cost you spend in fixing low quality, bridging cultural gaps, and herding workers with no skin in the game who can’t afford to gaf because they’re paid so little in comparison.
Companies will always offshore but I think it’s the jobs at the crappier companies that are offshored and these aren’t the places we typically want to work at anyway.
I’m talking about large body shops whose value proposition is “we’re cheaper and we work harder”, not about individuals around the world who are hired by 100% remote companies. The latter are typically pretty good.
I agree, it wasn't a mainstream success so far but there are teams who cracked it. There are some companies who are proudly WFH-only and global.
The sweatshop model surely doesn't lead to quality but there are other models where companies open a local branch where they actually can have the company culture and yield just as good results.
I wouldn't trust too much on the "secret sauce that makes us special" theory, the secret might have been the culture which forms when working from the office.
The sweatshop model surely doesn't lead to quality but there are other models where companies open a local branch where they actually can have the company culture and yield just as good results.
I wouldn't trust too much on the "secret sauce that makes us special" theory, the secret might have been the culture which forms when working from the office.
In my opinion, it’s more about the local culture.
People in different countries/continents work differently, have different expectations around how much initiative non-managers should take, etc.
I’m not saying one is worse than the other. What I’m saying is that trying to mix these levels and hoping to exploit cheap labor to offshore doesn’t work well in my experience and what’s saved on paper is paid tenfold in customer attrition, employee turnover, high severity outages, that kind of thing.
For example, having had experience with Indian sweatshops, the people working there were paid a pitance compared to us, had to use their own equipment, no paid sick days, forced to commute several hours to work and back… imagine how interested they were in the work, being treated like subhumans by their employer. And whenever we’d talk about technical problems, they’d always say yes even if it turned out they had no clue what needed to be done or how to do it. I believe it was a factor of the tyrannical management there, but also a cultural thing. Same with asking for feedback, we had a culture (country, not corporate) where it’s common to ask for and receive honest feedback. The offshored staff could never wrap their heads around it. Or being asked to do something unclear/stupid: onshore would bring it up/challenge it/ask for clarifications, offshore would just go ahead and do… something, anything. Then we’d have to spend time redoing it and rethinking it losing weeks of work. But it was cheap, look how much were saving!!
I hope this doesn’t come as racist. I do t mean that the Indian offshores were worse people than onshore employees! What I mean is that there was a huge values gap between the two, very different ways of working, different expectations, different power dynamics and that they absolutely didn’t mesh together well at all.
We were appalled at the conditions offshore had to work under. One of the workers had cancer and couldn’t really afford the treatment because apparently health insurance isn’t really a thing in India and had to come work sick because they couldn’t afford the treatment otherwise… it was a disgrace and we tried to pressure management to face the human cost of their penny pinching.
It’s not impossible to have offshore and onshore working together and save money but I’ve never seen it done well so I’m very doubtful it can work.
And I think that’s our moat: we work differently, have different values, and different levels of initiative that local comapnies benefit from more than the marginal amount saved on exploiting offshore labor (in the context of sweatshops)
People in different countries/continents work differently, have different expectations around how much initiative non-managers should take, etc.
I’m not saying one is worse than the other. What I’m saying is that trying to mix these levels and hoping to exploit cheap labor to offshore doesn’t work well in my experience and what’s saved on paper is paid tenfold in customer attrition, employee turnover, high severity outages, that kind of thing.
For example, having had experience with Indian sweatshops, the people working there were paid a pitance compared to us, had to use their own equipment, no paid sick days, forced to commute several hours to work and back… imagine how interested they were in the work, being treated like subhumans by their employer. And whenever we’d talk about technical problems, they’d always say yes even if it turned out they had no clue what needed to be done or how to do it. I believe it was a factor of the tyrannical management there, but also a cultural thing. Same with asking for feedback, we had a culture (country, not corporate) where it’s common to ask for and receive honest feedback. The offshored staff could never wrap their heads around it. Or being asked to do something unclear/stupid: onshore would bring it up/challenge it/ask for clarifications, offshore would just go ahead and do… something, anything. Then we’d have to spend time redoing it and rethinking it losing weeks of work. But it was cheap, look how much were saving!!
I hope this doesn’t come as racist. I do t mean that the Indian offshores were worse people than onshore employees! What I mean is that there was a huge values gap between the two, very different ways of working, different expectations, different power dynamics and that they absolutely didn’t mesh together well at all.
We were appalled at the conditions offshore had to work under. One of the workers had cancer and couldn’t really afford the treatment because apparently health insurance isn’t really a thing in India and had to come work sick because they couldn’t afford the treatment otherwise… it was a disgrace and we tried to pressure management to face the human cost of their penny pinching.
It’s not impossible to have offshore and onshore working together and save money but I’ve never seen it done well so I’m very doubtful it can work.
And I think that’s our moat: we work differently, have different values, and different levels of initiative that local comapnies benefit from more than the marginal amount saved on exploiting offshore labor (in the context of sweatshops)
Completely agree on the culture, it's not that people in one place are inferior to the other - it's just that that's the way how work is done in their country and they keep doing it as long as they are in that environment. When the same people physically move to another country, they end up absorbing the local culture and adopt and behave like the rest of the team.
That said, with all the communications in place today I think the culture is becoming global with newer generations having less and less difference between countries.
That said, with all the communications in place today I think the culture is becoming global with newer generations having less and less difference between countries.
Read Wealth of Nations for an explanation of why this might not be the disaster for the wealthy countries as most mercantlists think it will.
Basically what's likely to happen in the long term is that shipping high skill jobs oversees will increase the world market size to a point where it's not going to actually leed to poverty in the rich regions.
Even the much hated exit of manufacturing jobs to Asia did not leed to an quantifiable decline in living standards in America as a whole and exiting the EU is not leading to an rise in working class wages across Britain.
With sensible management increasing industrial activity in the poorer regions can actually happen without a whole lot of negative side effect for the wealthy regions, but that require an kind of rational, fact based policy making that the current western political culture cannot produce as emotional irationalism seems to be an far better way to get elected then calm rationalism.
Basically what's likely to happen in the long term is that shipping high skill jobs oversees will increase the world market size to a point where it's not going to actually leed to poverty in the rich regions.
Even the much hated exit of manufacturing jobs to Asia did not leed to an quantifiable decline in living standards in America as a whole and exiting the EU is not leading to an rise in working class wages across Britain.
With sensible management increasing industrial activity in the poorer regions can actually happen without a whole lot of negative side effect for the wealthy regions, but that require an kind of rational, fact based policy making that the current western political culture cannot produce as emotional irationalism seems to be an far better way to get elected then calm rationalism.
Somewhat, but I suspect that it’s not as bad as it may seem.
The pandemic made it clear that there are naturally forming windows of better collaboration around longitudinal time zones. Outside of +/- 2 time zones becomes fairly difficult on a regular basis. West coast to East coast is difficult.
For Americans, there may be some interesting competition coming out Mexico and perhaps a few of the more advanced countries of South America like Brazil and Argentina.
For Europeans I would expect the same from Africa, from countries like South Africa, Morocco, Kenya, etc.
But once you are outside of +/- 2 time zones you either need one side to shift schedules or have zone local orgs.
At that point it’s less about remote work and more about outsourcing. We already know what outsourcing looks like, and it’s very different from remote work.
Bottom line, I do expect to see increased competition for remote jobs, but for the good roles that matter the competition is not truly global.
The pandemic made it clear that there are naturally forming windows of better collaboration around longitudinal time zones. Outside of +/- 2 time zones becomes fairly difficult on a regular basis. West coast to East coast is difficult.
For Americans, there may be some interesting competition coming out Mexico and perhaps a few of the more advanced countries of South America like Brazil and Argentina.
For Europeans I would expect the same from Africa, from countries like South Africa, Morocco, Kenya, etc.
But once you are outside of +/- 2 time zones you either need one side to shift schedules or have zone local orgs.
At that point it’s less about remote work and more about outsourcing. We already know what outsourcing looks like, and it’s very different from remote work.
Bottom line, I do expect to see increased competition for remote jobs, but for the good roles that matter the competition is not truly global.
A mitigating factor is that a lot of engineers are from low cost areas, and yearn to return. India, China, exurbs from across the US.
> Walkable, safe and cheap places with good internet have a lot to gain (e.g. Portugal, Thailand)
Why do the people living in those cities feel so strongly that this isn't the case[1]? How does the city administration deal with skyrocketing rents?
[1] https://www.euronews.com/travel/2023/05/12/proto-gentrifies-...
Why do the people living in those cities feel so strongly that this isn't the case[1]? How does the city administration deal with skyrocketing rents?
[1] https://www.euronews.com/travel/2023/05/12/proto-gentrifies-...
The solution is a local inflation:
You have to raise everyone's wages, prices, etc until there's an equilibrium (finally too expensive for digital nomads? no more rising rent prices). But it's not something that can be done easily/overnight.
This is how these places would have "a lot to gain". If it's just rent prices going up, the nomads & the local landlords are the only one benefiting and everyone else is upset.
You have to raise everyone's wages, prices, etc until there's an equilibrium (finally too expensive for digital nomads? no more rising rent prices). But it's not something that can be done easily/overnight.
This is how these places would have "a lot to gain". If it's just rent prices going up, the nomads & the local landlords are the only one benefiting and everyone else is upset.
[deleted]
> Walkable, safe and cheap places with good internet have a lot to gain
Unfortunately, they will have a lot to lose by not being cheap anymore. At least for the locals. See Lisbon or Boise, for example.
Unfortunately, they will have a lot to lose by not being cheap anymore. At least for the locals. See Lisbon or Boise, for example.
The combination of a bigger remote talent pool and enhanced productivity with AI tools is going to make it pretty rough for mediocre programmers in the medium term, I think.
What do you mean by “crack” remote? It’s been “cracked” and has been pretty run of the mill for years now. You have a point about big companies with overhead being slow to turn but there are already very well established ways for remote companies to work.
The change is already done. The radical change would be changing back.
"Unispace finds that nearly half (42%) of companies that mandated office returns witnessed a higher level of employee attrition than they had anticipated."
My guess is that you're also more likely to lose your best performers - since they will have higher confidence in being able to find a remote-friendly job somewhere else.
My guess is that you're also more likely to lose your best performers - since they will have higher confidence in being able to find a remote-friendly job somewhere else.
There's a belief among folks who already favor RTO that the highest performers will also dislike permanent WFH, it seems to me. And given how notoriously difficult it is to reliably measure developer quality, that may be a belief they can harbor long past when you'd expect evidence to have mounted against it.
Your parent does not really say that though. Assuming that WFH/RTO preference is distributed equally across highest and lowest performers his statement will be true. As lowest performers will be stickier (regardless of preference) and highest performers won't be so you may lose 50% of your highest performers but a lower amount of lowest WFH-loving performers. Effectively averaging down the skill level of your company.
It's not really a WFH/RTO thing so much as a benefits thing. The same would be true for another variable like free lunches.
It's not really a WFH/RTO thing so much as a benefits thing. The same would be true for another variable like free lunches.
Is there a study that breaks down whether high performers are more or less likely to want a return to office?
I don't even think there's a study that indicates developer productivity can be reliably measured.
A study like that would be nearly impossible to measure.
What we do know is anecdotal evidence of very influential and high performers at various FAANG type companies that have ended up leaving due to forced RTO.
What we do know is anecdotal evidence of very influential and high performers at various FAANG type companies that have ended up leaving due to forced RTO.
Everyone has anecdotes that support their opinion.
Anecdotally, I work at a large company that fully supports 0% to 100% remote work, and I work with a wide mix. Some people, and some roles, just do better in the office. Others don’t. I’d be very suspicious of forming beliefs based on anecdotes, especially if they coincidentally align to your expectations.
Anecdotally, I work at a large company that fully supports 0% to 100% remote work, and I work with a wide mix. Some people, and some roles, just do better in the office. Others don’t. I’d be very suspicious of forming beliefs based on anecdotes, especially if they coincidentally align to your expectations.
I do agree some roles. e.g. sales, have to be done in office. If you want to snooze someone over dinner a remote call is a poor shadow of an option.
Less certain about roles that are generally technical. The strongest claim for in-office work, collaboration, is mostly a well solved problem for at least software, possible simple administration that just relies on some collaborative spreadsheets. Sitting everyone in a stuffy boardroom all staring at the same boring spreadsheet is likely to cause stress and mental fatigue, not increased collaboration. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7889069/ This is a well known effect.
Even large "interactive" meetings in remote settings can be counter productive - of course not all meetings are bad and one key to being an excellent manager is picking the right people for the right meetings, but the idea that your "top performers" objectively speaking will be the ones experiencing the most stress is seriously suspect.
What is more likely is some combination of workers who either "do well" in high stress environments, usually implying they are healthy and have some effective stress management techniques and as such are recognized as top performers compared to those unable to effectively manage their stress, or those in mainly technical areas have not yet experienced (somehow) the benefits of less stressful remote-work environments. E.g. parents or partners in cramped personal quarters being more distracted compared to e.g. a private office space.
Finally, for those workers that have an active job component where they must e.g. be on site for customer testing or perhaps they are a technical liason, some hybrid approach may work better - in office for resources which are cost prohibitive to simulate or when their role requires them to interact in an another capacity e.g. as a technician, security guard, or triage such as a front desk.
There is also the case where "top performers" are leeching off their colleagues e.g. where they can "get more done" because they can interrogate and corral others but where others are mostly experiencing productivity hits as a result of the constant interruption.
Less certain about roles that are generally technical. The strongest claim for in-office work, collaboration, is mostly a well solved problem for at least software, possible simple administration that just relies on some collaborative spreadsheets. Sitting everyone in a stuffy boardroom all staring at the same boring spreadsheet is likely to cause stress and mental fatigue, not increased collaboration. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7889069/ This is a well known effect.
Even large "interactive" meetings in remote settings can be counter productive - of course not all meetings are bad and one key to being an excellent manager is picking the right people for the right meetings, but the idea that your "top performers" objectively speaking will be the ones experiencing the most stress is seriously suspect.
What is more likely is some combination of workers who either "do well" in high stress environments, usually implying they are healthy and have some effective stress management techniques and as such are recognized as top performers compared to those unable to effectively manage their stress, or those in mainly technical areas have not yet experienced (somehow) the benefits of less stressful remote-work environments. E.g. parents or partners in cramped personal quarters being more distracted compared to e.g. a private office space.
Finally, for those workers that have an active job component where they must e.g. be on site for customer testing or perhaps they are a technical liason, some hybrid approach may work better - in office for resources which are cost prohibitive to simulate or when their role requires them to interact in an another capacity e.g. as a technician, security guard, or triage such as a front desk.
There is also the case where "top performers" are leeching off their colleagues e.g. where they can "get more done" because they can interrogate and corral others but where others are mostly experiencing productivity hits as a result of the constant interruption.
Your company is doing the best possible option then, so of course you’re going to see that as positive.
Forcing in office work for everyone means all the people who work better remotely now…simply don’t.
Forcing in office work for everyone means all the people who work better remotely now…simply don’t.
[deleted]
There's a number of kind of obvious reasons for that belief.
Firstly the people who are mandating RTO want to think of themselves as high performers. They want RTO so "high performers want RTO" is obvious to them.
Secondly a lot of non-doing managers want to be able to justify their existance. To do that they need people in the office to distract by walking around and having conversations etc. They can't do this when people are just WFH doing deep work.
Thirdly, if they know a manager wants RTO, then people who want to suck up to that manager will say they want RTO and will come in to the office to actively suck up to the manager. The manager will see these sycophants as high performers because they are spending their time fluffing the ego of the aformentioned manager.
Firstly the people who are mandating RTO want to think of themselves as high performers. They want RTO so "high performers want RTO" is obvious to them.
Secondly a lot of non-doing managers want to be able to justify their existance. To do that they need people in the office to distract by walking around and having conversations etc. They can't do this when people are just WFH doing deep work.
Thirdly, if they know a manager wants RTO, then people who want to suck up to that manager will say they want RTO and will come in to the office to actively suck up to the manager. The manager will see these sycophants as high performers because they are spending their time fluffing the ego of the aformentioned manager.
Not every job is Office space, in fact I've never experienced one in my 20 years of coding in 3 countries. You find bits and pieces if you look hard enough in some places, but that's it.
Behavior you describe would never get my any promotion anywhere I worked. Maybe I was just lucky, who knows.
Behavior you describe would never get my any promotion anywhere I worked. Maybe I was just lucky, who knows.
Just because they think they can justify it doesn't mean they're right. If the best performers are leaving, but management is stubbornly or ignorantly refusing to admit it, that only hides the problem, and the company will eventually fail.
This works nicely with the current top comment I think.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36501068
We’ll just find out in a couple years or decades by observing who is still standing.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36501068
We’ll just find out in a couple years or decades by observing who is still standing.
Bootlickers/Fluff afficianados do best in RTO. The class that usually winds up in managerial/exec roles. Small wonder.
There are actual high performers and there are people who can cosplay as high performers in the office because of their amazing people skills.
I think the RTO folks are in the latter group. If their work was measured objectively by results, they wouldn't be considered high performers.
I think the RTO folks are in the latter group. If their work was measured objectively by results, they wouldn't be considered high performers.
Don't underestimate the overconfidence of your worst performers.
I’ve noticed companies give special dispensation to their top workers to work however they like. So much for an egalitarian workplace.
Egalitarianism is not a good thing.
"Unispace finds that nearly half (42%) of companies that mandated office returns witnessed a higher level of employee attrition than they had anticipated. And almost a third (29%) of companies enforcing office returns are struggling with recruitment. Imagine that — nearly half!"
Does this mean that 58% of companies that mandated a return underestimated attrition? And 71% are doing fine with recruitment?
Does this mean that 58% of companies that mandated a return underestimated attrition? And 71% are doing fine with recruitment?
I haven't read the underlying report since it is behind a wall. Having said that, when companies make predictions, they rarely predict a specific number. It is likely that a significant amount of companies saw attrition that was within the expected range. Having said that, they certainly should also report the number that saw less then expected. There is really no way to make sense of just the number presented.
Author wrote the book on hybrid and remote teams, so definitely has a vested interest in return to office failures: "Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams."
Depends on how you measure. if you got 3 levels - high, normal, low - then the 58% could be both normal and low...
Sounds like return to office mandates correlate with less attrition and easier recruitment…
I used to just leave my work laptop back in the office locker, coz apparently we can't work from home anymore so no 'emergency/important' work after 5PM lol.
This is the kicker for me. Work can’t be done productively from home? Fine then. My laptop goes in my backpack at 5pm when I get into my car, and it stays there until I pull it out at the office at 9am tomorrow.
Unless you're being paid to be on-call, if you're WFH, you should still close the lid on your laptop at 5pm and open it at 9am.
Most people doing software are salaried, not hourly, so this doesn't really apply very cleanly.
Would you rather get paid $100k and be paid extra for oncall, or $350k and not be compensated for oncall? That's the real comparison that's being made, and why people consistently choose the FAANGs where on-call is an expectation -- the extra on call pay isn't going to make up for the big gap in total comp.
Would you rather get paid $100k and be paid extra for oncall, or $350k and not be compensated for oncall? That's the real comparison that's being made, and why people consistently choose the FAANGs where on-call is an expectation -- the extra on call pay isn't going to make up for the big gap in total comp.
I am grateful for a remote job. Sometimes being at home for too long I get stir crazy and if I plan my day well I can schedule in time for breaks and walks and feel better. If I had a 45+ minute commute each way again I'd be stir crazy in traffic. No thanks.
The hardest part for me is balancing slack and video conferences. Slack can be useful but it's hard to have more nuanced conversations and make complex decisions. Those really need conversation to make them effective.
A friend recently mentioned that they are on a forced return to office 3 days a week and they spend most of their day on calls with people in other cities and countries. If I had a job I was mildly disinterested in and was forced to commute for no reason, that would nudge me to quietly apply for other jobs. Any company claiming to be climate friendly and forcing people to commute is hypocritical (cough cough Amazon).
If someone wants to be in an office, then accommodate them. Then for everyone else shift the office space budget to the travel budget. Done.
The hardest part for me is balancing slack and video conferences. Slack can be useful but it's hard to have more nuanced conversations and make complex decisions. Those really need conversation to make them effective.
A friend recently mentioned that they are on a forced return to office 3 days a week and they spend most of their day on calls with people in other cities and countries. If I had a job I was mildly disinterested in and was forced to commute for no reason, that would nudge me to quietly apply for other jobs. Any company claiming to be climate friendly and forcing people to commute is hypocritical (cough cough Amazon).
If someone wants to be in an office, then accommodate them. Then for everyone else shift the office space budget to the travel budget. Done.
"Any company claiming to be climate friendly and forcing people to commute is hypocritical (cough cough Amazon)."
But on the other hand it's Amazon and its ilk that allow people to be at home all the time, not out running errands. Don't get me wrong: I'm no fan of Amazon. But on one hand you have a lot of self-proclaimed car-haters pretending that nobody needs a car, but then wanting to take away the street capacity that makes carlessness possible by enabling delivery.
But on the other hand it's Amazon and its ilk that allow people to be at home all the time, not out running errands. Don't get me wrong: I'm no fan of Amazon. But on one hand you have a lot of self-proclaimed car-haters pretending that nobody needs a car, but then wanting to take away the street capacity that makes carlessness possible by enabling delivery.
I've started enjoying in-person shopping more lately. It's a way to get out of my WFH bubble and feel that I can get in and out of the stores in about the same time as shopping online with Amazon.
I'd argue that Amazon is benefiting from more people working remotely and is not as much enabling people to be home more. Even without online shopping I'd still prefer remote work.
I'd argue that Amazon is benefiting from more people working remotely and is not as much enabling people to be home more. Even without online shopping I'd still prefer remote work.
I frequently prefer in-person shopping too, but inventory control gets ever worse. At this point, I'm shocked if I find anything in stock anywhere... even staple items. I do prefer to support brick-&-mortar businesses, and will pay a bit extra to do so.
"I'd argue that Amazon is benefiting from more people working remotely and is not as much enabling people to be home more"
Not sure what the point is there.
"I'd argue that Amazon is benefiting from more people working remotely and is not as much enabling people to be home more"
Not sure what the point is there.
> Not sure what the point is there.
> it's Amazon and its ilk that allow people to be at home all the time, not out running errands.
I was addressing that line
> it's Amazon and its ilk that allow people to be at home all the time, not out running errands.
I was addressing that line
Yeah but I don't understand the point you're trying to make. If people couldn't have stuff delivered, and couldn't shop during business hours, then what?
Shop during non-business hours?
I've found that I can shop during business hours fine. And if not during business hours I can shop for what I need in the evenings before stores close. It comes down to time management.
For example, yesterday I took an hour break for lunch and ran a couple errands while I was out. No big deal.
I've found that I can shop during business hours fine. And if not during business hours I can shop for what I need in the evenings before stores close. It comes down to time management.
For example, yesterday I took an hour break for lunch and ran a couple errands while I was out. No big deal.
The real first advantage in a long time that small companies and startups have over big FAANG players and similar is 100% remote. The edge on hiring is real and by putting remote-OK in your job description you get a much better swath of employees willing to get paid less to avoid the commuting nightmare and live anywhere.
Exactly. Hybrid does not work for me. I want to live wherever I feel like, not wherever your company wants to have offices.
Companies who mandate return to the office should pay employees for the additional commute time at their hourly rate. If this becomes too expensive then productivity gains from being in the office are apparently not worth it.
I once worked some place where my manager loved to tell this allegedly true story (happened before my tour) as a hilarious joke to onboard new devs on how to fill the timesheet:
There was this IC who was working on cross departmental stuff. Things like pipelines, UI component libraries, build tools, etc. He would frequently go on walks to think, either during the work day and return to the office or to go back home and work some more. At this amazing place, we had extensive timesheets to fill in (with 15 min granularity, was great). That guy used to count his walks as work time on specific projects (15–30 min walks.) The joke is that management came down hard in him because you can’t get paid to walk as you’re paid to be writing code. Thinking about code for the company isn’t a paid activity unless it happens in the office. What a sucker this guy was, asking to be paid for taking a walk harharhar!
My colleagues then added (after the manager left the room) that as a result the guy in question took much longer “walks” to think things through in an empty conference room every day instead. Nobody saw the stupidity in that and he left shortly after this new policy was enforced.
This was the single most toxic worst company I’ve ever worked at.
My point is that employers still think that butt not in seat = not working, and since I’m paying you I can make you suffer and I own you for that duration. My job sucks and I can’t work remote so why should I allow you, puny peasant, to have it better than me when you didn’t “work” or “deserve” it?
There was this IC who was working on cross departmental stuff. Things like pipelines, UI component libraries, build tools, etc. He would frequently go on walks to think, either during the work day and return to the office or to go back home and work some more. At this amazing place, we had extensive timesheets to fill in (with 15 min granularity, was great). That guy used to count his walks as work time on specific projects (15–30 min walks.) The joke is that management came down hard in him because you can’t get paid to walk as you’re paid to be writing code. Thinking about code for the company isn’t a paid activity unless it happens in the office. What a sucker this guy was, asking to be paid for taking a walk harharhar!
My colleagues then added (after the manager left the room) that as a result the guy in question took much longer “walks” to think things through in an empty conference room every day instead. Nobody saw the stupidity in that and he left shortly after this new policy was enforced.
This was the single most toxic worst company I’ve ever worked at.
My point is that employers still think that butt not in seat = not working, and since I’m paying you I can make you suffer and I own you for that duration. My job sucks and I can’t work remote so why should I allow you, puny peasant, to have it better than me when you didn’t “work” or “deserve” it?
> employers still think that butt not in seat = not working
This is a huge red flag for companies. Currently I can just go for a 15-30 minute walk with my dog if I get stuck and still count it as work time.
If I'm at the office I can go grab some snacks and go sit on the break area sofas and watch some crap on my phone - still working.
It's actually been scientifically proven that a change of environment brings more creativity and makes problem-solving easier.
---
At a company I worked years ago we had "work reatreats" where we booked a conference room from a random hotel or office for a day. Breakfast and afternoon tea was catered.
Everyone had to pick a few tasks they thought they could finish during the day, we turned off all communication devices and started working roughly on a Pomodoro system monitored by one person. No talking allowed unless we were on a break, where we all got up and left the room for a while.
Pretty much everyone was finished with all their tasks before our lunch break. We did this multiple times.
It's amazing how much work you can get done when you're in a novel environment with the knowledge that you will have zero distractions for the next 8 hours. Nobody can just pop in for a "quick question" or ping you on any communication tool.
This is a huge red flag for companies. Currently I can just go for a 15-30 minute walk with my dog if I get stuck and still count it as work time.
If I'm at the office I can go grab some snacks and go sit on the break area sofas and watch some crap on my phone - still working.
It's actually been scientifically proven that a change of environment brings more creativity and makes problem-solving easier.
---
At a company I worked years ago we had "work reatreats" where we booked a conference room from a random hotel or office for a day. Breakfast and afternoon tea was catered.
Everyone had to pick a few tasks they thought they could finish during the day, we turned off all communication devices and started working roughly on a Pomodoro system monitored by one person. No talking allowed unless we were on a break, where we all got up and left the room for a while.
Pretty much everyone was finished with all their tasks before our lunch break. We did this multiple times.
It's amazing how much work you can get done when you're in a novel environment with the knowledge that you will have zero distractions for the next 8 hours. Nobody can just pop in for a "quick question" or ping you on any communication tool.
>It's actually been scientifically proven that a change of environment brings more creativity and makes problem-solving easier.
If you need a citation for this, "Learning How to Learn" and its sequel "Mindshift", MOOCs created by an engineering professor and a neuroscientist. The former is the most popular MOOC in the world.
If you need a citation for this, "Learning How to Learn" and its sequel "Mindshift", MOOCs created by an engineering professor and a neuroscientist. The former is the most popular MOOC in the world.
> employers still think that butt not in seat = not working
I don't like coffee breaks because I just drink water and I find small-talk very tiresome. I also don't smoke. So I never take breaks except for when I'm stuck on something and I need a walk to think it through.
Multiple times, managers or people even higher have complained of both : not taking coffee breaks and taking walking breaks.
To me it's not exactly "butt not in seat = not working", it's more "not behaving like everyone else = not working".
But when you come with a solution/idea that none of the regular coffee break takers had, now they're glad that you're not like everyone else. Weird.
I don't like coffee breaks because I just drink water and I find small-talk very tiresome. I also don't smoke. So I never take breaks except for when I'm stuck on something and I need a walk to think it through.
Multiple times, managers or people even higher have complained of both : not taking coffee breaks and taking walking breaks.
To me it's not exactly "butt not in seat = not working", it's more "not behaving like everyone else = not working".
But when you come with a solution/idea that none of the regular coffee break takers had, now they're glad that you're not like everyone else. Weird.
Ha, almost thought you were describing me there. I used to go for walks to think. I was pulled up on it for not being at my desk and thus presumably not "working".
They also had 15 minute timesheets. I used to fill them in accurately. I was pulled up on that for not doing my full 8 hours a day on assigned projects. I pointed out that filling in the timesheet alone took half an hour a day, and I also talked to colleagues, made drinks and did other things that were not attributable to project work... Just like all my colleagues did who were claiming 8 hours. I was told to make the timesheet add up to 8.
They also had 15 minute timesheets. I used to fill them in accurately. I was pulled up on that for not doing my full 8 hours a day on assigned projects. I pointed out that filling in the timesheet alone took half an hour a day, and I also talked to colleagues, made drinks and did other things that were not attributable to project work... Just like all my colleagues did who were claiming 8 hours. I was told to make the timesheet add up to 8.
I agree with you 100%, they should, but companies would look at you like you're demanding an absolutely bonkers amount of money. (They'd much rather the employees come back for free! And they'll complain about the higher than expected attrition the whole way…)
I agree with you that it's not realistic, but you understand the point I'm trying to make. In the end of the day you are taking a pay cut with this. With a one way 1h commute and 8h of work it's a 20% pay cut. I'm not surprised that smart people treat it accordingly.
Logistically, how does this work? Do employees need to install trackers on their phones to catalog hours?
Not saying it wouldn’t be ideal to have that segment of the day paid for, but I’m just trying to get my head around how the tightwad money folk deal with such a nebulous target.
Not saying it wouldn’t be ideal to have that segment of the day paid for, but I’m just trying to get my head around how the tightwad money folk deal with such a nebulous target.
Leave home at the start time, such as 9am. The rest is the outside world and not up to you. Maybe one day traffic will be bad or trains will be late or whatever the commute variability is. That's the employer's risk to incur by forcing office attendance. Leave at the most reasonable time you are likely to arrive home by finish time, such as 5pm.
Someone asked that in my company. Answer was: you signed the contract in the past, before the covid, and you were coming to the office, and the commute time was included in the compensation. So there will be no increases.
I guess you could use this card when applying for new job.
But honestly, I would rather stay home and earn lesser than agree to coming to the office for additional hourly pay, covering commute time.
Careful with this kind of demand. It’s possible that companies may pay the office workers their increased rate simply by reducing pay to remote workers.
If they think that this is good allocation of their resources, why shouldn't they? (rhetorical question, it's because remote workers are not 2h of commute time per day less productive).
They will do that anyway, by offshoring fully remote jobs. There will be a minority of very high-level experts who will be able to dictate their terms, as indeed happened even before Covid, but the vast majority will not.
i don't think I'd mind that actually. I'd happily take a slight pay cut to be able to stay home
Who said anything about slight? Assume your average commute is 1 hour each way. According to most HN users, the average dev can’t do more than 3-4 hours of “intense focus” work per day. Instead of paying you for “10” hours of being in the office and commuting to, I’d pay you for 3-4 hours of “intense focused” work. That’s 50%, being generous.
what an insane standard. it's easy to find sources for an average commute [0], your assumption is more than double the total of <1h both ways. and as far as I know nobody has ever paid by hours of "intense focus," not sure how that's at all relevant to this conversation.
we're really talking about 1h of an 8h workday, so about 11-13% depending on your denominator. not trivial but something I'd happily do.
0 https://www.zippia.com/advice/average-commute-time-statistic...
we're really talking about 1h of an 8h workday, so about 11-13% depending on your denominator. not trivial but something I'd happily do.
0 https://www.zippia.com/advice/average-commute-time-statistic...
There have been a lot of, at least to me, somewhat unsubstantiated criticisms that fully remote work is difficult for new graduates. I can only provide n=1 sample data, but back when I was working for a company that was fully remote, we brought on many junior engineers who lived across the United States and didn't have any problems onboarding them by keeping a continual slack team huddle running during office hours.
In a lot of ways, it was actually better for them because they could have a multi monitor set up and be looking at one of our shared screens while taking notes on the other one instead of a bunch of people crammed up against one laptop screen in an office.
In a lot of ways, it was actually better for them because they could have a multi monitor set up and be looking at one of our shared screens while taking notes on the other one instead of a bunch of people crammed up against one laptop screen in an office.
At least in software engineering, this is a great opportunity to start understanding how to cooperate and work with a team in this field. There should be a little bit of friction involved in tapping someone on the shoulder, and if you can only code within arms reach of a senior engineer you won’t make it very long.
Sometimes I think the college mindset of “if my code doesn’t compile, the TA must have made a mistake giving it to me like this, I’ll ask him what’s wrong” persists into a first job. And there are jobs (and senior engineers) who encourage this pattern too, so it can be a while before anyone encounters a different atmosphere unfortunately.
Sometimes I think the college mindset of “if my code doesn’t compile, the TA must have made a mistake giving it to me like this, I’ll ask him what’s wrong” persists into a first job. And there are jobs (and senior engineers) who encourage this pattern too, so it can be a while before anyone encounters a different atmosphere unfortunately.
Taking accountability for your solution does not require a physical presence. This is not relevant.
Edit: I worded that a bit poorly. The point I wanted to convey was that the physical location isn't what determines accountability.
Edit: I worded that a bit poorly. The point I wanted to convey was that the physical location isn't what determines accountability.
That’s the thing - you need to consciously do things like that. Some don’t have presence of mind to do that and effectively waste everybody’s time.
I've heard this too, but my employer is 99% remote and we've made some excellent hires over the last few years. It's part of my responsibilities to do ongoing mentorship, after others do more intense onboarding, so schedule regular (~monthly) video chats, and be available to work on incidentals together. No office required.
The thing is the way it used to be done was you'd mill around the office and then when there was a free moment, you'd ask the senior guys some questions. It wasn't really structured.
What you're describing has some merit, but it also means you are being watched all day, just like if you were in the office. Not being watched is probably a major benefit of WFH.
What you're describing has some merit, but it also means you are being watched all day, just like if you were in the office. Not being watched is probably a major benefit of WFH.
Head hunters and recruiters are very cognisant of this. Jobs are not advertised anymore as "outstanding compensation", "unlimited PTOs" or "great career perspective" but by "REMOTE". And like it used to be a lie that the compensation would be outstanding, it's often a lie that the position is truly remote. Then it's explained that for this remote position, you need to come 4 days per week in the office, and has a big benefit of one day from home - but not Friday nor Monday of course. Sneaky sneaky
What's worse to me is the return to the "hybrid" office we keep getting threatened with. (My company has not actually done a RTO … yet. I don't know if we ever will.)
Now instead of a lousy 4' desk in an open office plan … I also get a desk that isn't mine? I'm supposed to … what, lug a keyboard¹ & mouse & laptop in? It seems like literally nobody has imagined what it might be like for a SWE to actually attempt to do work in the machinations that get proposed. (And in my case, luckily, never seem to materialize.)
¹between the insistence on MBPs, and my RSI, an external keyboard is a requirement, not a nicety
Now instead of a lousy 4' desk in an open office plan … I also get a desk that isn't mine? I'm supposed to … what, lug a keyboard¹ & mouse & laptop in? It seems like literally nobody has imagined what it might be like for a SWE to actually attempt to do work in the machinations that get proposed. (And in my case, luckily, never seem to materialize.)
¹between the insistence on MBPs, and my RSI, an external keyboard is a requirement, not a nicety
An external keyboard and mouse is a necessity for any non-emergency work. 100% of laptop keyboards and trackpads suck for anything other than emergencies, and many suck for emergencies as well.
This is inarguable fact.
This is inarguable fact.
I won't argue with you, but I will ask how many laptops have you tried?
Probably 10 - 15 over the course of 20-odd years.
Sizes from a 10" ASUS eeePC to a Toshiba 17" monster desktop replacement, generic brands, a 14" Lenovo Thinkpad, a 13.3" Dell XPS, Samsung (real puurty silver slimline thing I was sad to say goodbye to), current work laptop is an HP Elitebook, a 15" ASUS, a 13.3" ASUS, and at least a couple of other work ones that aren't memorable enough. Plus my kids' school chromebooks.
No macs though, I've not crossed that border yet.
I can deal with any keyboard, but for actual proper typing in an environment where one is meant to be working, gotta be an external keyboard. I've got a mechanical at home, but I'm fine with non-mechanical at work, so I don't think I'm too much of a prima donna - I won't say that's inarguable fact though ;)
Sizes from a 10" ASUS eeePC to a Toshiba 17" monster desktop replacement, generic brands, a 14" Lenovo Thinkpad, a 13.3" Dell XPS, Samsung (real puurty silver slimline thing I was sad to say goodbye to), current work laptop is an HP Elitebook, a 15" ASUS, a 13.3" ASUS, and at least a couple of other work ones that aren't memorable enough. Plus my kids' school chromebooks.
No macs though, I've not crossed that border yet.
I can deal with any keyboard, but for actual proper typing in an environment where one is meant to be working, gotta be an external keyboard. I've got a mechanical at home, but I'm fine with non-mechanical at work, so I don't think I'm too much of a prima donna - I won't say that's inarguable fact though ;)
I know the thread has drifted a bit here, but in the context of employment, I don't have the option to try different laptops. I've never worked at an employer that permitted BYOD for the laptop, and so you're stuck with what they issue, which is generally a single choice, as they don't want to put in the IT work to support more than that.
If that choice is a MBP … then you're stuck with not only an infamous keyboard, but also one that causes me (and many people I've worked with) RSI … it's that, or an external.
If that choice is a MBP … then you're stuck with not only an infamous keyboard, but also one that causes me (and many people I've worked with) RSI … it's that, or an external.
Having worked in two companies practicing hybrid office with no nominative desks but two very different ways of doing it, I can say that it can be great. Or a nightmare.
In the first one they just converted regular nominative desks to free ones. Every desk had different screens with different cable standards, no ergo stand for the screens, some had shared keyboards, each had different chairs, some had drawers, some had accessible outlets, other were hidden behind the desk... You had to come with your stuff from home. And the cleaning was done once a week.
The second one, every desk is the same. The same two screens on ergo stands. A USB-C dock with network connected to the screens. Easily accessible on the desk to plug USB devices. Same chairs at each desk. Each employee has a big personal locker to put stuff like keyboard, headset, coffee mug... Cleaning done every evening so when you arrive in the morning everything is perfectly clean.
You can see which is which.
The second is by far the best place I worked at in my 10+ years career. Depending on what is your main topic of the day, you just pick the next near the people with whom you'll work. Don't want to be bothered with your coworkers most of the day? Just go near another team. And you can also meet new people this way. You can even change desk during the day if need to change context. Just unplug your laptop.
I know people prefer having their own desk with pictures, goodies and other junk. And I thought I was one of them. Until I tried free office the right way.
In the first one they just converted regular nominative desks to free ones. Every desk had different screens with different cable standards, no ergo stand for the screens, some had shared keyboards, each had different chairs, some had drawers, some had accessible outlets, other were hidden behind the desk... You had to come with your stuff from home. And the cleaning was done once a week.
The second one, every desk is the same. The same two screens on ergo stands. A USB-C dock with network connected to the screens. Easily accessible on the desk to plug USB devices. Same chairs at each desk. Each employee has a big personal locker to put stuff like keyboard, headset, coffee mug... Cleaning done every evening so when you arrive in the morning everything is perfectly clean.
You can see which is which.
The second is by far the best place I worked at in my 10+ years career. Depending on what is your main topic of the day, you just pick the next near the people with whom you'll work. Don't want to be bothered with your coworkers most of the day? Just go near another team. And you can also meet new people this way. You can even change desk during the day if need to change context. Just unplug your laptop.
I know people prefer having their own desk with pictures, goodies and other junk. And I thought I was one of them. Until I tried free office the right way.
Get your employer to buy you an ergo keyboard. If you need a medical certificate then doctor shop until you get one.
Then again if your employer doesn't even have monitors at hotdesks then maybe it's time to look for greener pastures.
Then again if your employer doesn't even have monitors at hotdesks then maybe it's time to look for greener pastures.
> Get your employer to buy you an ergo keyboard.
… if only it were so simple! Employers are incredibly stingy¹.
But what I was trying to convey in the previous comment is that I already have an ergo keyboard. (So do many of my coworkers. It is also mine, purchased with my own money, because of the above.)
The point is not really obtaining the keyboard … it's transiting it to-and-fro the office, day-in, day-out, in these hybrid RTO plans. "Hotdesking" is inherently incapable of supporting this as the desk is no longer dedicated to a specific employee, but nobody in power making these plans appears to have thought it through.
(¹but frankly, a part of me would rather just say "give me that in cash as part of salary" and I can make a better purchase & management then than trying to deal with what amounts to being partially paid in keyboards. This extends to more than just keyboards: employees should absolutely not forget we bear costs in order to be employed for the company in the form of depreciating hardware costs)
… if only it were so simple! Employers are incredibly stingy¹.
But what I was trying to convey in the previous comment is that I already have an ergo keyboard. (So do many of my coworkers. It is also mine, purchased with my own money, because of the above.)
The point is not really obtaining the keyboard … it's transiting it to-and-fro the office, day-in, day-out, in these hybrid RTO plans. "Hotdesking" is inherently incapable of supporting this as the desk is no longer dedicated to a specific employee, but nobody in power making these plans appears to have thought it through.
(¹but frankly, a part of me would rather just say "give me that in cash as part of salary" and I can make a better purchase & management then than trying to deal with what amounts to being partially paid in keyboards. This extends to more than just keyboards: employees should absolutely not forget we bear costs in order to be employed for the company in the form of depreciating hardware costs)
I mean an ergo keyboard for the office. I'd never carry a keyboard daily.
Great, I can hear about sports and eat shitty complimentary pizza while eavesdropping on some 20 ur old intern get bullied by his superior for driving an old car/having bad facial hair.
Corporate environments bring out the worst in people. I don’t believe 70% of workers are looking to be lazy by wfh. We want to sift thru the toxic bullshit so we can actually do our FUCKING work.
Yes I’m bitter
Corporate environments bring out the worst in people. I don’t believe 70% of workers are looking to be lazy by wfh. We want to sift thru the toxic bullshit so we can actually do our FUCKING work.
Yes I’m bitter
> 20 ur old intern get bullied by his superior for driving an old car/having bad facial hair.
It seems that, for whatever reason, covid has increased the intolerance of shitty behaviour like this. Possibly because remote working meant people could choose to have less contact with toxic co-workers, and so upon return to the office it was far more obviously toxic than before covid when it may have been somewhat normalised.
This is how it should be. Penalise the fouls.
It seems that, for whatever reason, covid has increased the intolerance of shitty behaviour like this. Possibly because remote working meant people could choose to have less contact with toxic co-workers, and so upon return to the office it was far more obviously toxic than before covid when it may have been somewhat normalised.
This is how it should be. Penalise the fouls.
I’m wondering if some residential buildings will start incorporating luxury co-working office areas where remote workers can stroll into and work amongst other people who WFH in the same building. Kind of like a WeWork. A place for people to find a desk and hang out for a change of scenery, and perhaps meet some locals. It seems like this would almost be necessary for remote workers who don’t have fancy homes but just have a simple studio or 1 bedroom apartment that gets very boring after a while.
This would probably kill off whatever co-working space businesses are left out there.
This would probably kill off whatever co-working space businesses are left out there.
I have to return to office since I left my previous remote one, been remote for 3 years.
Silver lining (cope) for me is losing weight and slowing down passage of time.
Also interacting with people IRL is nice, seeing physical people. I don't get out much other than going to the bars once in a while.
But it sucks... Losing an hour a day for driving and I gotta get up earlier to get ready/drive. And I'll be working in a cubicle... Oh well got my cans for tunes.
Silver lining (cope) for me is losing weight and slowing down passage of time.
Also interacting with people IRL is nice, seeing physical people. I don't get out much other than going to the bars once in a while.
But it sucks... Losing an hour a day for driving and I gotta get up earlier to get ready/drive. And I'll be working in a cubicle... Oh well got my cans for tunes.
> slowing down passage of time
My days/months have been flying by and I thought I was just because I'm getting older. Thanks for mentioning this in the context of working from home. I feel a little better now.
Maybe I should get an office job too.
My days/months have been flying by and I thought I was just because I'm getting older. Thanks for mentioning this in the context of working from home. I feel a little better now.
Maybe I should get an office job too.
> My days/months have been flying by and I thought I was just because I'm getting older.
The theory behind this is that your brain "compresses" memories. Identical days are just stored as "and here I spent 5 days working". And if your weekends are mostly similar, then it's just "And then I spent 12 weeks doing routine shit".
For kids time seems to move slower because everything they experience is new and can't be "compressed".
As an adult you can emulate this by doing things you haven't done before, getting new experiences.
The theory behind this is that your brain "compresses" memories. Identical days are just stored as "and here I spent 5 days working". And if your weekends are mostly similar, then it's just "And then I spent 12 weeks doing routine shit".
For kids time seems to move slower because everything they experience is new and can't be "compressed".
As an adult you can emulate this by doing things you haven't done before, getting new experiences.
This is why backpacking around some crazy 3rd world countries is so intense, 2 weeks feel like few months, and 3 months felt like several lifetimes. It was so surreal when I first experienced it, after ie 2 months in India the memory of life back at home was a distant memory of a dream since every single day was an endless stream of completely new experiences and encounters.
Do yourself a favor, anytime you have vacation try to do and see something different, new, every day. Even now with small kids, when we try this our vacations feel much longer than they actually are. But prepare to be more exhausted, although I call it 'good exhaustion'.
I call it prolongation of life mentally, the best we have for now (apart from physical aspect of living healthier obviously).
Do yourself a favor, anytime you have vacation try to do and see something different, new, every day. Even now with small kids, when we try this our vacations feel much longer than they actually are. But prepare to be more exhausted, although I call it 'good exhaustion'.
I call it prolongation of life mentally, the best we have for now (apart from physical aspect of living healthier obviously).
Stasis causes memory to meld together. Even an office job will become a stasis at some point.
If you really want to undercut that effect, inject new experiences into your life as often as possible.
If you really want to undercut that effect, inject new experiences into your life as often as possible.
The mandated return to office is a bailout of commercial real estate financing.
Paid for via reduced quality of life of the contracting masses and higher environmental impact.
Paid for via reduced quality of life of the contracting masses and higher environmental impact.
It's also the tax breaks https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-02-21/another-t...
Glad to see Entrepreneur.com publishing something counter to the prevailing narrative amongst the business-news commentariat.
(Also a really nice, clean website redesign.)
(Also a really nice, clean website redesign.)
We'll get a lot more hybrid offices: some people in the office, others at home. This is far from ideal, but it's what we'll get. Managers will get to keep some of their precious oversight—err, excuse me, serendipitous collaboration—but workers with any leverage will stay home if they want. Over time, we'll hit an equilibrium that is less WFH than today, but more than in 2019.
> A late-stage SaaS startup decided to embrace this wave of change. They worked with me to introduce flexible work policies, and the result was almost immediate - they noticed a sharp decrease in employee turnover and an uptick in job applications. Their story echoes the collective message from all three reports: companies must adapt to flexible work policies or risk being swept away.
I'd love to see current hiring stats on committed work from home or flexible companies. There are more places that allow WFH than ever, but as some companies are forcing a return to the office, I bet the remaining WFH companies could exploit the fact that the majority of people don't want to do that. At least some people are willing to switch jobs over it, and so WFH companies should get an influx of talented applicants.
> A late-stage SaaS startup decided to embrace this wave of change. They worked with me to introduce flexible work policies, and the result was almost immediate - they noticed a sharp decrease in employee turnover and an uptick in job applications. Their story echoes the collective message from all three reports: companies must adapt to flexible work policies or risk being swept away.
I'd love to see current hiring stats on committed work from home or flexible companies. There are more places that allow WFH than ever, but as some companies are forcing a return to the office, I bet the remaining WFH companies could exploit the fact that the majority of people don't want to do that. At least some people are willing to switch jobs over it, and so WFH companies should get an influx of talented applicants.
> This is far from ideal, but it's what we'll get
It's not ideal, but it's also almost no different than the teleconferencing with satellite offices that we had previously anyways.
Just instead of calling other offices overseas or whatever, you're calling people at their homes or their own chosen offices.
It's not ideal, but it's also almost no different than the teleconferencing with satellite offices that we had previously anyways.
Just instead of calling other offices overseas or whatever, you're calling people at their homes or their own chosen offices.
Unless hybrid means all the employees are mandated to be in the office on the same days. And they can WFH or RTO on the remaining days. At least that's what I am seeing among my social circle.
Sure but any company above a certain size has more than one office, or overseas contractors..
If everyone is dialing in to the daily stand-up from their desks, what is the point of having everyone commute to the office to do it?
If everyone is dialing in to the daily stand-up from their desks, what is the point of having everyone commute to the office to do it?
> it's what we'll get
Only if we're not willing to fight for more.
Only if we're not willing to fight for more.
It doesn't have to be a fight. If you want to work remotely, apply for remote jobs at remote companies. There is no need to negotiate or bargain or convince anyone of anything.
> There is no need to negotiate or bargain or convince anyone of anything.
With a third of your life spent at work (at least, but hopefully less), this is no way to go through life. Everything is up for negotiation.
People who want to attempt to unionize to get the right to work remote can do so, as organizing is federally protected activity in the US and it only takes 30% of employees of a bargaining unit to petition the NLRB to hold a union vote: https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/what-we-do/conduct-elections
This is a labor rights issue, plain and simple. It makes little sense to be subjugated to management edict “because they say so” when there are labor tools available.
With a third of your life spent at work (at least, but hopefully less), this is no way to go through life. Everything is up for negotiation.
People who want to attempt to unionize to get the right to work remote can do so, as organizing is federally protected activity in the US and it only takes 30% of employees of a bargaining unit to petition the NLRB to hold a union vote: https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/what-we-do/conduct-elections
This is a labor rights issue, plain and simple. It makes little sense to be subjugated to management edict “because they say so” when there are labor tools available.
This is a matter of power and the marketplace.
I wonder what the real-world stats for different professions are as to employees preferring work from home vs at the office.
I do know many workers who do not want to work at home. The office was a break from the screaming kids and / or no AC / or have a home that is just not practical as an office / or just prefer a clean break between what is work / office and what is home.
Plus, a lot of people behave differently when they are dressed up professionally for work. Again, the distinction between home and work is valuable for some.
We have somewhere between 100 - 300 years of experience having people working at the office. We know a lot about how that works / or doesn't.
Working from home full time at scale is not yet studied to the extent we can draw real conclusions from it.
A couple of years is far too short. So it is an experiment.
Personally, I prefer to work from home, but I am not so sure I will be able to long term.
My prediction is that working from the office will become increasingly common over time with some professions going back to the office short term and other longer term.
And some companies will prefer fully remote.
I am not sure what the breakdown will be in 50 years.
I wonder what the real-world stats for different professions are as to employees preferring work from home vs at the office.
I do know many workers who do not want to work at home. The office was a break from the screaming kids and / or no AC / or have a home that is just not practical as an office / or just prefer a clean break between what is work / office and what is home.
Plus, a lot of people behave differently when they are dressed up professionally for work. Again, the distinction between home and work is valuable for some.
We have somewhere between 100 - 300 years of experience having people working at the office. We know a lot about how that works / or doesn't.
Working from home full time at scale is not yet studied to the extent we can draw real conclusions from it.
A couple of years is far too short. So it is an experiment.
Personally, I prefer to work from home, but I am not so sure I will be able to long term.
My prediction is that working from the office will become increasingly common over time with some professions going back to the office short term and other longer term.
And some companies will prefer fully remote.
I am not sure what the breakdown will be in 50 years.
Mostly I do remote work from a coworking facility. This is liberating for me in much the same way as work from home, but has none of the downsides you mention. The article keeps returning to the term "flexibility" which occurs 22 times. It seems the experiments underway are more varied and complex than a simple work from home test run that breaks sharply away from hundreds of years of experience.
Companies that expect people to work in an office will not compensate for commute time. Once employees gained the time which would have been spent on the commute to do other things including work & personal matters, it becomes difficult to justify sacrificing that time every day to improve "company culture".
I recently changed jobs and had the choice between a senior IC role at a FAANG and an engineering director position at an open-source company that is fully remote. While working in fully remote culture would be intellectually interesting, I opted for the FAANG and enjoying going back to the (incredibly cushy) office, after 3 years of WFH that I found isolating and depressing, even though I am an introvert and possibly even on the spectrum.
Perhaps I would be singing a different tune if I didn't live in London with its obscenely overpriced chicken coops of houses and had a spacious home office, but somehow I doubt it.
Perhaps I would be singing a different tune if I didn't live in London with its obscenely overpriced chicken coops of houses and had a spacious home office, but somehow I doubt it.
I can tell you that the comfort of your home is a huge factor. I would not dismiss it. I think that it accounts for a lot of the difference between European attitudes to WFH and American.
My best WFH situation was a beach house where I had a dedicated room for work, a large back garden and could take 3 walks a day down the beach between calls.
My best WFH situation was a beach house where I had a dedicated room for work, a large back garden and could take 3 walks a day down the beach between calls.
Well, I am a US expat in Europe, I lived in a house in San Francisco with a very nice home office slash man-cave, then moved to London where it's a 9'x6' (3x2m) fish bowl with eaves and no air conditioning. But it's really the isolation that got to me, most of my colleagues were remote in Tel Aviv.
It also helps that my commute is 30 minutes by bus + Tube vs 45 to 90 minutes in SF due to Muni's abysmal unreliability.
It also helps that my commute is 30 minutes by bus + Tube vs 45 to 90 minutes in SF due to Muni's abysmal unreliability.
Just moved to London some months ago... nobody told me that the housing situation was so bad to the point to even push us introverts back into the offices XD (couple days a week personally).
Yes, somehow Brits have been brainwashed by their feudal masters into thinking 80m2 is an adequate size for a 3BR apartment. British homes are some of the smallest and lowest-quality amongst Europe's richer countries, e.g. compared to France.
>Employees, having tasted the fruits of flexible work, felt averse to relinquishing these newfound freedoms.
Translation for sociopathic leaders: never let your workers taste something good. It only took a global pandemic that forced people home in order for us to experiment with something that a huge portion of the population sees as beneficial to their well-being. Where were the small scale experiments before the pandemic, and why did they never catch on?
Translation for sociopathic leaders: never let your workers taste something good. It only took a global pandemic that forced people home in order for us to experiment with something that a huge portion of the population sees as beneficial to their well-being. Where were the small scale experiments before the pandemic, and why did they never catch on?
I think there were small scale experiments. Look at Gumroad, which not only is fully remote but only pays by the hour, so you aren’t actually obligated for the full 40hs/wk if you don’t want it. Look at Gitlab that was fully remote. They don’t catch on because large institutions that functioned on an office culture by definition are only led by people who thrive in said culture. Those people re highly unlikely to go with something that they wouldn’t thrive in (like wfh) unless forced to, and they actually have the political power to ensure it so.
People could say trials are exceptions that don't generalize. Now that everybody's tried it successfully at scale for long enough to eliminate short-term effects, the excuses are discredited.
I was working at home on and off for many years before the pandemic. It wasn't that unusual. Which is why so many companies could switch over to it fairly easily when the need arose.
[deleted]
The description of the "anchoring bias" doesn't make sense. It starts with:
"The crux of the problem lies in the anchoring bias, which leads us to heavily rely on the first piece of information offered (the 'anchor') when making decisions.
When initially joining the company, the employees were primarily concerned with compensation and job security, the "anchors" in their decision-making process."
OK, but then it says:
"However, once within the fold, the pandemic caused them to shift their focus to work-life balance and flexibility... the rigid return-to-office policy made these new anchors seem less attainable"
So the "anchors" are NOT the first piece of information offered, and they can change willy-nilly. Not much of an "anchor."
"The crux of the problem lies in the anchoring bias, which leads us to heavily rely on the first piece of information offered (the 'anchor') when making decisions.
When initially joining the company, the employees were primarily concerned with compensation and job security, the "anchors" in their decision-making process."
OK, but then it says:
"However, once within the fold, the pandemic caused them to shift their focus to work-life balance and flexibility... the rigid return-to-office policy made these new anchors seem less attainable"
So the "anchors" are NOT the first piece of information offered, and they can change willy-nilly. Not much of an "anchor."
I worked for a mobile operator for 5 years starting in 2001. We had 20 months to bootstrap the company and get at least 3 million customers. There were no virtual operators back then. We had to have our network, our software, our everything. We were a big startup, about 3k people.
I think that the only way to pull that off is working all together in an office. Too many things to do, people to talk with, known and unknown unknowns to figure out, etc.
But a couple of years after launch, when the dust settled down? Working from home would start to be possible.
I'm self employed and working from home now, for almost 17 years. The only two things that would make me go back to an office are either I can't find a customer for a long time or somebody covers me with gold, really a lot of it.
I think that the only way to pull that off is working all together in an office. Too many things to do, people to talk with, known and unknown unknowns to figure out, etc.
But a couple of years after launch, when the dust settled down? Working from home would start to be possible.
I'm self employed and working from home now, for almost 17 years. The only two things that would make me go back to an office are either I can't find a customer for a long time or somebody covers me with gold, really a lot of it.
This way of looking at remote work might be well-intentioned vis-a-vis remote work, but it's still essentially remote-hostile.
Specifically, I'm referring to the type of thinking where you think of remote work as capable of handling "business as usual" but maybe less productive than on-site and less capable of handling "crunchtime".
This type of thinking is what blows up hybrid remote/onsite companies. One day, somebody thinks it's a good idea to hire Bob remotely, while Frank, who has been with the firm for a while, has to stay on-site, to limit the scope of the "remote experiment". Now you've just given Frank a reason to be jealous of Bob, and, at the first possible opportunity, Frank is going to start putting out the message "Bob is just not pulling his weight. But what do you expect? He's remote."
A manager of a failing project with remote people is going to go: Wouldn't it be a great idea, to fly everybody in for a month, just to get through crunchtime? And now you're alienating your remote workforce, because the only thing worse than an on-site job that you sign up for, is a remote job that transforms into a "living out of hotels" job that you didn't sign up for.
The inevitable outcome is that the company blows itself up, either from the bottom-up, because you've allowed a caste system to happen, and the castes are at war with each other, or from the top-down, because some high-level manager goes "well, if on-site is more productive, why not increase the productivity of the whole company by mandating everybody to be on-site?"
Specifically, I'm referring to the type of thinking where you think of remote work as capable of handling "business as usual" but maybe less productive than on-site and less capable of handling "crunchtime".
This type of thinking is what blows up hybrid remote/onsite companies. One day, somebody thinks it's a good idea to hire Bob remotely, while Frank, who has been with the firm for a while, has to stay on-site, to limit the scope of the "remote experiment". Now you've just given Frank a reason to be jealous of Bob, and, at the first possible opportunity, Frank is going to start putting out the message "Bob is just not pulling his weight. But what do you expect? He's remote."
A manager of a failing project with remote people is going to go: Wouldn't it be a great idea, to fly everybody in for a month, just to get through crunchtime? And now you're alienating your remote workforce, because the only thing worse than an on-site job that you sign up for, is a remote job that transforms into a "living out of hotels" job that you didn't sign up for.
The inevitable outcome is that the company blows itself up, either from the bottom-up, because you've allowed a caste system to happen, and the castes are at war with each other, or from the top-down, because some high-level manager goes "well, if on-site is more productive, why not increase the productivity of the whole company by mandating everybody to be on-site?"
Once the elite convert their offices to housing or cut their losses WFH will not be debated anymore.
[deleted]
I think a good solution is industries should standardize on pay differential between working at the office full time, vs hybrid, vs full time work from home.
Here is just an example: Looking at the same exact job. Office workers would make 20% more than the WFH employees and Hybrid workers would make 10% more than WFH employees.
Now employees have incentives to pursue jobs on both ends of the spectrum. Maybe the employee values the freedom of working from home, not having to endure the cost of commuting or living in a major metro area.
You could argue about the percentages, but basically a pay differential could be the thing that settles the WFH struggle.
Here is just an example: Looking at the same exact job. Office workers would make 20% more than the WFH employees and Hybrid workers would make 10% more than WFH employees.
Now employees have incentives to pursue jobs on both ends of the spectrum. Maybe the employee values the freedom of working from home, not having to endure the cost of commuting or living in a major metro area.
You could argue about the percentages, but basically a pay differential could be the thing that settles the WFH struggle.
Why is the cost of my labor different if I'm in the office or not. I produce the same work, I should be compensated the same
I think the parent is trying to say that if employers value workers in their corporate offices more than workers at home, then they should pay more to get that higher value.
Compensation is determined by how much it takes to get someone to do the work, not the work itself. Generally speaking, it takes more money to convince someone to come into an office. If an employer finds value in having people in an office, they have to pony up, else nobody will show up.
> Why is the cost of my labor different if I'm in the office or not.
The Law of Supply & Demand.
The Law of Supply & Demand.
Supply & Demand is a two way street...Perhaps the employers will adequately compensate for commute time.
Remote-first jobs are still in the minority (low labor demand), and a lot of devs across the time zone are eager to take them (high labor supply), so we should expect to see lower offers.
They apparently value people being in the office. Let them put their money where their mouth is. This is a textbook capitalist approach to the problem.
I would be interested in seeing differences across countries and culture with working from home.
The protestant work ethic in the USA essentially makes a worker feel guilty not working hard, or to feel good by working lots. In other places, doing as little as possible "manana" is viewed as a more humane way of life. Some places are more communal even to the level of prioritising the mother company they work for. Maybe ex Communist countries have differences too.
Anyhow I imagine it will be skewed as techies may be culturally more American and generally the west is more techy.
The protestant work ethic in the USA essentially makes a worker feel guilty not working hard, or to feel good by working lots. In other places, doing as little as possible "manana" is viewed as a more humane way of life. Some places are more communal even to the level of prioritising the mother company they work for. Maybe ex Communist countries have differences too.
Anyhow I imagine it will be skewed as techies may be culturally more American and generally the west is more techy.
Is linking to google search results from own site a search-engine-side SEO tactic to pretend that users are looking for this specific site?
The company enforced a <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=entrepreneur.com+return+to+the+office+policy&oq=entrepreneur.com+return+to+the+office+policy&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i512l3.2851j1j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8" rel="nofollow noopener">return to the office policy</a>, causing waves of unrest.I'm going through this. Was hired at 1/month in-office, and now they're saying 4x/month. My feel about this is that this is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, the solution doesn't work, and I'm having to pay for it.
We had an all-hands meeting recently. The message was essentially, "We have heard your feedback that most of you don't like this, but WE like it, so it's staying."
We had an all-hands meeting recently. The message was essentially, "We have heard your feedback that most of you don't like this, but WE like it, so it's staying."
should have not showed up when asked 1/month.
...and they say the slippery slope is a fallacy
...and they say the slippery slope is a fallacy
We need the flexibility to choose, there's no one size fits all here. Workplaces also need to cater for different needs and be appealing enough to make it worth going there. I've analyzed the results of a study on this last week: https://leadership.garden/back-to-the-office/
We need flexibility - there's no one size fits all here. Workplaces also need to cater for different needs and be appealing enough to make it worth going there. I've analyzed the results of a study on this last week: https://leadership.garden/back-to-the-office/
Everyone is still compiling data from different vantage points. I don’t think anyone knows what it means yet.
2008 implosion? Nothing? A new evolution? Unemployment armageddon? Something totally new we don’t have a model for yet?
Some people thinking history repeating itself as usual and nothing new? Then those people should tell us what’s next if they claim to know everything. After all, it’s a repeat, so they should know already.
2008 implosion? Nothing? A new evolution? Unemployment armageddon? Something totally new we don’t have a model for yet?
Some people thinking history repeating itself as usual and nothing new? Then those people should tell us what’s next if they claim to know everything. After all, it’s a repeat, so they should know already.
Companies that claim that work from home doesn't work better not be doing mass foreign outsourcing. US employees can easily tolerate 3 hour timezone spread and be available for instant meetings throughout the day, as well as frequent in person offsites. Plus at this point Michigan is not going to be much more expensive than Bangalore.
Bring it on! These Dino companies need to go.
I cherish the days I go to the office, the two hours commute each way. But that's because I do it about once or twice a month. And the rest of the week I need it to recover from all the strong emotions.
Going to the office everyday would, for me, feel like drinking every day. Probably not very good in the long run.
Going to the office everyday would, for me, feel like drinking every day. Probably not very good in the long run.
[deleted]
For now the data may show difficulties, but at some point, people need a job, and if only onsite is offered, will 'talents' keep being picky? Not so sure someone laid off once or twice in 2023 will be. Remote as we've known it during the pandemic is not going to stay, and all those that have made a move to a city for a better (personal) life will be stuck in the mid term, if they are not lucky on their next job search what will they do? I know this isn't popular opinion, but if some level of hybrid will probably remain on the long run (e.g., WFH once/twice a week doesn't hurt productivity and provide a great improvement for QoL) I don't see remote being the new way of working we have enjoyed in 2020-22. This is gone.
edit: typo
edit: typo
What sucks in the USA is that Trump canceled all the tax deductions home workers could take, just in time for COVID to make home work the norm for millions of people. And those deductions haven't been restored.
So now we foot the bill for all the electricity and space required to do our work.
People also ignore these costs when arguing for "densification." Now that we spend even more time at home, people who want to make that home a little nicer and more spacious are vilified. OMG, you want a patch of yard? ELITIST. Never mind that everyone's dinky patch of yard could come out of the tracts of dying, boarded-up malls and empty office parks and defunct commercial/industrial zones... and the parking lots that surround them.
So now we foot the bill for all the electricity and space required to do our work.
People also ignore these costs when arguing for "densification." Now that we spend even more time at home, people who want to make that home a little nicer and more spacious are vilified. OMG, you want a patch of yard? ELITIST. Never mind that everyone's dinky patch of yard could come out of the tracts of dying, boarded-up malls and empty office parks and defunct commercial/industrial zones... and the parking lots that surround them.
Sorry but, who isn't struggling with hiring?
It’s been super easy for me to recruit people from my network. Yesterday texted an old friend and he straight up said “sign me up”. Just placed another friend who was extremely competent at our previous job but he got swept up in layoffs. Big layoffs at my old jobs that are in industries that saw huge booms because of the pandemic, whereas I’m in a nice stable industry at a very large company that has a decade+ worth of huge contracts lined up.
They made the home office return to work, but for our sizable satellite office they’re literally building a new 4-story building so the devs can come back in 2025 or so.
Business is booming if you’re in the right industry, and for tech workers it’s not that hard to switch it up.
They made the home office return to work, but for our sizable satellite office they’re literally building a new 4-story building so the devs can come back in 2025 or so.
Business is booming if you’re in the right industry, and for tech workers it’s not that hard to switch it up.
God, this clickbait crap again. Full title: <<We're Now Finding Out The Damaging Results of The Mandated Return to Office — And It's Worse Than We Thought.>>
Nothing new in the article, and nothing new in the discussion.
Nothing new in the article, and nothing new in the discussion.
-- Written by an author of a book selling remote/hybrid work. I'm sure his take is absolutely objective.
I think the reason companies insist on return to office is that many employees took advantage of remote work to start a second job on the side. Some people even do more than 2 jobs at once. Getting people back to the office, full time, or at least 1-2 days a week, is going to force employees to choose one job and stick with it.
Sounds like a really wild assertion. If I were to guess, the number of employees doing this would be well under 1%. If you have evidence to the contrary, please share it.
I worked from home since covid drama and I don't have issues coming to work from time to time, we have to come at least once a week but generally that day my productivity is almost zero since we talk, eat, drink etc. and if I don7t want to come even that one day, nobody would say a thing. International company with over 5k employers. I wanted to change job last year and they told me I need to come to office art least first 6 months... I declined job offer since it's just pain in the ass to get to office. One hour travel to work, one hour travel from work and that's on a good day traffic. I need to buy expensive shitty food on job and pay for train tickets. So yeah I will never accept to come to office 5 day in a row. I might be spoiled but that's how it is.
I think companies should be inclusive, and bring people to the office. Because people who don't like working from home will feel excluded when they're lonely in the office.
I’m definitely feel excluded while WFH from the race and contention for the meeting rooms for taking a conf call with my colleges in other offices…
It’s like going from a black and white TV to a color one, from a dummy phone to a smartphone, from dialup internet to fiber to the home. You never go the other way round, unless there is a very strong reason and personal decision.
People like to improve their lives in whatever way is best for them and will strongly object to a “downgrade” imposed by others, unless it’s something they’ve decided on their own and on purpose.