Regarding #4, how much do you think this is really happening? I've seen this argument all over reddit and HN, meanwhile we are about 9 months since my company decided to make Tue, Wed, and Thur...
Regarding #4, how much do you think this is really happening?
I've seen this argument all over reddit and HN, meanwhile we are about 9 months since my company decided to make Tue, Wed, and Thur mandatory from the office days and people were upset. I honestly thought we were gonna lose half of our workforce.
Outside of the one person who retired back in March, no one, not a single person has quit so far in my department of a little under 400 people. I've talked to other people within my company and the story is the same.
My wife's company also made it mandatory to be in the office T, W, and Th back in May, so a little more than a month ago and the story is the same. No one is quitting.
I know this is anecdotal evidence so my point may be completely invalid.
Just call me chicken little (I've been predicting an upcoming recession since roughly 2017), but I wager its because the bad times are just beginning, and a lot of people know it. The economy...
No one is quitting.
Just call me chicken little (I've been predicting an upcoming recession since roughly 2017), but I wager its because the bad times are just beginning, and a lot of people know it.
The economy hasn't been in a truly healthy place since the mid 90s, before the dot-com bubble. After that bubble popped, the mortgage debt bubble began, with it came the illusion of stable prosperity. When that popped, rates bottomed out to prevent full blown collapse of the banking system. We never really raised the rates back up, which suggests that the fed was worried that doing so would pull the hair trigger of a fragile economy.
So then COVID happens, feds inject a stimulus of massive proportions. But the deathknell was people whom had even a modicum of savings were now able to multiply that stimulus money in the form of cheap debt, namely mortgages, causing a manic housing market.
Rates are spiking now in a way that haven't in my concious lifetime (80s kid). They've never been hiked this severely in a time of visible economic instability. Even leading up to 2008 seemed to be 'OK' at the time.
This is all armchair economist ancedote, but I forsee the market collectively dropping at least another 20% inside of 5 years. If not the stock market, certainly the purchasing power of the average person, which is the only economy that really matters.
This is a good point. The economy hasn't been good in a long time, but this inflation has really cramped a lot of people in ways I haven't seen in my lifetime.
This is a good point. The economy hasn't been good in a long time, but this inflation has really cramped a lot of people in ways I haven't seen in my lifetime.
I can’t speak for your employer, but with mine there were more than a few meetings where they didn’t explicitly say “we’re going back in to cull the herd” but it was such an overt overtone that in...
I can’t speak for your employer, but with mine there were more than a few meetings where they didn’t explicitly say “we’re going back in to cull the herd” but it was such an overt overtone that in verbal conversations with HR & recruiting they unofficially confirmed it.
If you’re publicly traded, having layoffs looks bad and makes your stock go down in value.
If you can make work mildly miserable enough that poor performers drop out, you get the benefits without the dip in valuation. The fine line comes in not pissing off your top performers so they leave.
That's not a universal. For many tech companies, the public perception was that they were bloated, employee wise. I mean, forget shareholders, random people on the internet thought that. When they...
If you’re publicly traded, having layoffs looks bad and makes your stock go down in value.
That's not a universal. For many tech companies, the public perception was that they were bloated, employee wise. I mean, forget shareholders, random people on the internet thought that. When they had their layoffs, their stock popped afterwards, because it was seen as cutting costs without necessarily cutting revenue.
I think it would be interesting to see, but I haven't seen any hard data on the subject. Everything i have come across is a survey of "what people would do" not the actions performed. It may be...
I think it would be interesting to see, but I haven't seen any hard data on the subject. Everything i have come across is a survey of "what people would do" not the actions performed. It may be too new of a modality at this point to confirm.
To respond to your anecdote with my own, last year the company I was working for mandated 3 days per week and my entire department resigned within the month. For reference though, this was a department of principle and lead engineers so the difficulty in finding new jobs was pretty low. I wonder which one of these scenarios has been more common with the RTO push.
The ability to take yout ball and leave makes all the difference. If you have the ability to generate other income, you have the power. Staying through work making crazy demand becomes a choice:...
The ability to take yout ball and leave makes all the difference. If you have the ability to generate other income, you have the power. Staying through work making crazy demand becomes a choice: "is this crappy enough that I don't want to deal with it?" rather than: "is this so bad that i need to figure out if there is someplace else just as stable that pays the same but isnt this bad?" totally different decisions.
Oh I absolutely agree that the decision is much easier when alternatives are aplenty. I was just surprised that a big department like that had no such folks that decided to walk. It was more...
Oh I absolutely agree that the decision is much easier when alternatives are aplenty. I was just surprised that a big department like that had no such folks that decided to walk. It was more wondering aloud if there is a lot of talk and no action like the first anecdote, or the full mic drop like what I had experienced.
The data coming out of this over the next couple years should be terribly interesting I expect.
Do you think people have adjusted their efforts down a bit to compensate for the extra hassle of coming in? I'd be looking for another job for sure, but there are lots of reasons remote just works...
Do you think people have adjusted their efforts down a bit to compensate for the extra hassle of coming in? I'd be looking for another job for sure, but there are lots of reasons remote just works better for me personally beyond the inconvenience of a commute and such. Still, I'm surprised no one left at all. I wonder if they want to but are fearful with the economy
While I have no evidence to back this up, I think the combination of layoffs virtually every other company making some sort of WFO mandatory makes it very challenging to leave. Would I love a 100%...
While I have no evidence to back this up, I think the combination of
layoffs
virtually every other company making some sort of WFO mandatory
makes it very challenging to leave. Would I love a 100% remote job? Definitely! What are the chances I'll find one when everyone who used to offer remote jobs has changed their minds and they've reduced their workforce in the last year or so? The chances are very small.
Of course it depends on industry, but I don't think the chance of finding remote is small. In many industries recruiters are having a terrible time filling any position with an onsite requirement,...
Of course it depends on industry, but I don't think the chance of finding remote is small. In many industries recruiters are having a terrible time filling any position with an onsite requirement, even for a day or so.
You may need to shop around for a while, but I'm confident people in most industries can find fully remote positions. What's more important is that if people who want fully remote don't leave jobs demanding onsite work and find fully remote jobs, the signal on demand will be that people are ok with being on site and increase the leverage employers have. If anyone is thinking they want fully remote, it's important to make that known (en masse) by not settling for onsite requirements if at all possible.
As a former middle manager, it was #4: avoid the appearance of layoffs because bad PR. I preferred WFH and fought to defend it for my teams. But, then, I'm no longer a middle manager because I was...
As a former middle manager, it was #4: avoid the appearance of layoffs because bad PR.
I preferred WFH and fought to defend it for my teams. But, then, I'm no longer a middle manager because I was poor at toeing the company line.
I'm a big believer that we change and grow or stagnate. Most companies hire me because I like to buck the norm and encourage creativity. When push comes to shove, they don't like me because I buck the norm and encourage creativity😉. Most companies want compliance before all else.
On #2, this is exactly why the "business district" is a terrible idea. They're abandoned at night. Take some of that empty commercial real estate, replace it with housing, and you'll see these...
On #2, this is exactly why the "business district" is a terrible idea. They're abandoned at night. Take some of that empty commercial real estate, replace it with housing, and you'll see these areas bounce back.
These reasons really are at play. Those concerns seem higher up, so maybe it's control toward the middle, and your list above toward the top. I get it. We invest so much in a thriving downtown,...
These reasons really are at play. Those concerns seem higher up, so maybe it's control toward the middle, and your list above toward the top. I get it.
We invest so much in a thriving downtown, and as soon as people can work remotely they go buy some huge house in the country where they can live like royalty, and all the lunch dives shut down and the real estate sits dormant and suddenly it's dangerous and decrepit. Seems like people would have been more open to converting it to residential space or something though. I think a lot of it is sunk cost and holding onto a fantasy though. I can't imagine a better way to get people to do less and sabotage everything than forcing RTO on people. I may be bias though. I've been fully remote for years, and mostly remote before that, and I never fit in an office anyway.
Yeah, that is what I’ve heard about converting commercial real estate in general. As MrFahrenheit said, it’s one reason why business districts are awful. We’re much better off allowing a variety...
Yeah, that is what I’ve heard about converting commercial real estate in general. As MrFahrenheit said, it’s one reason why business districts are awful. We’re much better off allowing a variety of residential and business commingle. If people worked at home, but had coffee shops and lunch dives etc in walking or biking distance, they would probably still be visiting those places.
There’s a big shift that needs to happen zoning and land use, particularly in the United States. If that means tearing down commercial, I’m here for it. I’m sure the owner class isn’t.
The company I worked for before getting downsized at the beginning of COVID was pushing (at the time) working in the office because they'd promised the city they'd have a certain number of workers...
The company I worked for before getting downsized at the beginning of COVID was pushing (at the time) working in the office because they'd promised the city they'd have a certain number of workers in the office for tax breaks. That office has since closed; I'm not sure where they were all relocated.
My current employer has been trying to get us to come into the office at least once a week or so. Yesterday they pushed that a little harder, as long as you lived reasonably close to the office. Since two of my team live halfway across the country (including my boss), I think we'll be safe staying with WFH.
Productivity gains/concerns are often cited as a reason to force a return to office, but most organizations don't seem to know what 'productivity' even is, or how to measure it. That seems...
Productivity gains/concerns are often cited as a reason to force a return to office, but most organizations don't seem to know what 'productivity' even is, or how to measure it. That seems surprising, given that it's being used as a stick to force people back into a box, but it turns out that productivity is REALLY hard to define, much less measure, and the research is all over the place.
This article provides some interesting perspectives on the role of productivity and it's role in pushing for a return to office, and contrasts it with an example of an organization, hubspot, that is trying to find ways to build the best space for everyone by reducing the footprint of the office space and finding large group days for those who WANT to be in the office, while encouraging those who don't to keep on keeping on.
I've been super frustrated to see so many organizations try to force people back into the office after everyone had a taste of working from home, and IMO it's just about control. I don't want some company owning my life, and forcing me to dress nice and parade around town so I can sit in a closed office and have zoom calls with people down the hall seems like more than a waste of time. It gets into humiliation and power trips, and I've never been great at kissing the ring.
I was thankful to see this article, which stands in contrast to so many "it's time to go back in....or else" type articles which have been popular as of late.
Productivity actually tends to increase with remote work due to fewer workplace distractions! It's creativity/innovation resulting from collaboration that perhaps happens less. That tends to be...
Productivity actually tends to increase with remote work due to fewer workplace distractions!
It's creativity/innovation resulting from collaboration that perhaps happens less. That tends to be somewhat serendipitous, except when it comes from a single individual. Sometimes groups can come up with better than what any one person can alone.
Ironic. Most businesses really aren't that interested in "innovation". They want better ways of doing what they already do. If there's a sea change to be had, most businesses want that to come from an executive. They don't like it when a middle manager or individual contributor does that.
Put another way: the reduced innovation of working from home is another strawman.
It's about control.
Trust fades as we get less in person contact. This is why, in my 16 years of remote work, I would have my teams gather in person 3-4 times a year—not to work but just to connect as humans! That investment paved the way for solid workplace relationships when working remotely! As budgets started to tighten, I couldn't do this as often, trust dwindled, and everything moved slower.
Also, when your boss doesn't get to see you in person, they trust you less. That simple.
When we don't meet people in person to develop a robust mental model of them, it's so very easy to project our worst anxieties onto them.
Your point about wanting to do whatvwe already do better, but NOT wanting to innovate and do new things (especially if it doesn't come from the right pkace!) is spot on. Crazy how much gets passed...
Your point about wanting to do whatvwe already do better, but NOT wanting to innovate and do new things (especially if it doesn't come from the right pkace!) is spot on. Crazy how much gets passed by because it isn't our same old dog food.
I see the value in having the option to meet in person if you want, but I would be annoyed and resistant if my comoany wanted to fly me to meet once a year even. Even if we were meeting in Hawaii or something (although that would certainly smooth it a little).
At the same time, I'm resistant to the idea that being remote breeds anxieties. I've made lifelong connections with suoervisors and peers who i've never met in person, but worked closely with remotely for 2 years. We have common bonds and care about each other. It was strange that I thought oje of them was tall and it turned out she was short, but that is funny, rather than some damation caused by remote work.
I think the anxiety come from people who are mistrustful anyway, and those people will suck your life force whether in person or not.
Perhaps a a more naive take on this: I actually like working at the office. I prefer meeting in person, and I think I'm more productive (percentage points) at a 'place of work'. But that's likely...
Perhaps a a more naive take on this: I actually like working at the office. I prefer meeting in person, and I think I'm more productive (percentage points) at a 'place of work'. But that's likely predicated on the fact that:
I like the city my office is located in and can afford to live nearby
I have a nice and easy public transit commute
My office has no strict policy to be in, I just coordinate with my team to be in on the same days we want to meet. If I don't want to be in, no one cares.
Take away any single one of those, and suddenly I think I'm on the wrong side of the productivity/happiness equation again, should I be forced into coming in person to work.
I am the same. As much as I enjoyed parts of the working-from-home during Covid and even though I am the stereotypical introverted developer, I am still a social being that likes to be around...
I am the same. As much as I enjoyed parts of the working-from-home during Covid and even though I am the stereotypical introverted developer, I am still a social being that likes to be around other people than just my family from time to time. I found a mix to be the best of both worlds. If I have a day with many virtual meetings lined up, being at home makes most sense. I don't have to find a meeting room or phonebooth, it is just way easier to be at home. And if we are in a phase in our development where everyone knows what they need to do and just need some focus time to code, then being at home works great. However if we are working closely together at the start of a new feature where everything is not fully known yet and we need to try things out, experiment and talk a lot - being physically together helps immensely.
I understand. Some people in this situation like to find co-working groups or play "work with me" videos on Youtube as a means of preserving the feeling of being around others. I*m in a house with...
I understand. Some people in this situation like to find co-working groups or play "work with me" videos on Youtube as a means of preserving the feeling of being around others. I*m in a house with 4 kids, so i get plenty of ambient noise, but if it was just me and a dog I'd definitely need something to supplement, especially because there are stacked days when we don't leave the house for any signigicant length of time
Yeah, for some people, in some situations, being in office is amazing. I used to work at a beautiful office area with a crazy buffet for $7 at lunch and a rivee with dolphins right there. It was...
Yeah, for some people, in some situations, being in office is amazing. I used to work at a beautiful office area with a crazy buffet for $7 at lunch and a rivee with dolphins right there. It was amazing, but it wasnt the best work environment to be sure.
Some people operate well in those spaces, but there are plenty who don't, most especially neurodivergent people who need small accomodation but often get treated poorly if they seek them out. I imagine the prevalence of sexual harrassment has dopped a good bit as well
I am pretty much in the same boat. Much like you I work in a city, and live close enough to be at the office in 30 minutes pretty much on foot. My company gave a relatively soft push to come back...
I am pretty much in the same boat. Much like you I work in a city, and live close enough to be at the office in 30 minutes pretty much on foot. My company gave a relatively soft push to come back to office, so if you are in once a month you are fine.
I don’t work out of the main headquarters on the West Coast so my office is largely run by the collective of very chill likeminded coworkers(No executives lol). It also helps that the company pays for most if not all commuting and lunch costs. I know it’s all tactics to get us back in the office, but I respect the approach. I think if any of that was to change I would strongly reconsider that job.
This bit is the key to me: "Some 71 percent of business leaders say they're under immense pressure to squeeze more productivity out of their workers, according to a new Slack survey of 18,000...
This bit is the key to me:
"Some 71 percent of business leaders say they're under immense pressure to squeeze more productivity out of their workers, according to a new Slack survey of 18,000 knowledge workers, including managers. But most are measuring what workers put in, rather than what they put out."
Every C-suite is looking for the same or increased productivity from fewer workers, because cutting costs without cutting output is what's best for the stock value now, regardless of how tenable it is.
And these managers are being given an impossible task: get more work out of fewer employees without giving the ones who remain any more pay. So their best bet is to peg their metrics to what they do, their input, because they know they can sell that to their bosses. But there are limits to what you can input when you're a remote manager.
That's it. We're playing a rigged game to further enrich the already wealthy, and we're maxed out. That's why AI is getting so much money and attention, because it promises to unlock even more productivity from even fewer workers. In the meantime, since we really can't produce more without instantly burning out, everyone up and down the management chain is going to choose the measurable metric they can move and call that success.
It's also important to peg the value of workers to time rather than accomplishment, because time is a straight trade for pay. But as soon as you recognize contribution, workers are going to start wondering why they're not getting a share of the money their work generates.
This last bit is important. When you figure out how much your work makes the company and compare that with how much you make, the difference can shift the mood.
This last bit is important. When you figure out how much your work makes the company and compare that with how much you make, the difference can shift the mood.
I used to be a consultant, and one time I accidentally found out that my company was selling my services for $140 and hour. I was not being paid anywhere near that. That was an eye-opener, I can...
I used to be a consultant, and one time I accidentally found out that my company was selling my services for $140 and hour. I was not being paid anywhere near that. That was an eye-opener, I can tell you.
Yes lawd. When you're making 90 and they charge 130 it's not so bad. There is overhead and what not, but when you make 60 and they charge 130, it's just tragic
Yes lawd. When you're making 90 and they charge 130 it's not so bad. There is overhead and what not, but when you make 60 and they charge 130, it's just tragic
Unfortunately, so many people in management positions don't understand what this means. The reality of company hierarchical organization is that there are huge numbers of managers who don't know...
What companies need is better management
Unfortunately, so many people in management positions don't understand what this means. The reality of company hierarchical organization is that there are huge numbers of managers who don't know how to manage people. They've simply been made a manager for non-merit based reasons (seniority, promotion path, etc.). And people in those positions also get very little opportunities for actual management-based learning.
And part of that is also that what "management" actually means to a company isn't necessarily what management should be. Can a manager simply keep a team working and producing the necessary output on schedule? If yes, then good and why bother to care how they go about doing it?
Agreed. All the managers I know spend everyday double booked in meetings that could be emails. I can't imagine having enough juice left to do anything after a day or two of that crap. I'm...
Agreed. All the managers I know spend everyday double booked in meetings that could be emails. I can't imagine having enough juice left to do anything after a day or two of that crap.
I'm constantly amazed at how common it is to waste time and fill the gaps with "I'm so busy" work. At least one of my coworkers that I am aware of is working 2 other jobs. How much of that is the manager being too busy to notice, or it just not being worth policing when we seem to be producing enough to meet the quota, I don't know.
Former middle manager. Nailed it. Meetings should be about fixing a disagreement or making decisions on how to proceed. If they're not for one of those purposes, they're likely a waste of time....
Former middle manager. Nailed it. Meetings should be about fixing a disagreement or making decisions on how to proceed. If they're not for one of those purposes, they're likely a waste of time.
One rubric for meetings: is there an agenda driving toward a particular goal. If not? Likely a waste of time.
Sure, some meetings are social lubricant. Those matter too. But call a spade a spade.
However, it's hard to say no to meetings. People take it personally, On some level, whether they admit it or not. They tell themselves (perhaps unconsciously) that you don't like them—so they like you less.
Speaking as a former middle manager who tried like hell to avoid meetings that could've been an email.
As someone who up until recently could’ve been easily considered a “middle manager,” it’s been more of #1 and # 4 from my viewpoint.
Regarding #4, how much do you think this is really happening?
I've seen this argument all over reddit and HN, meanwhile we are about 9 months since my company decided to make Tue, Wed, and Thur mandatory from the office days and people were upset. I honestly thought we were gonna lose half of our workforce.
Outside of the one person who retired back in March, no one, not a single person has quit so far in my department of a little under 400 people. I've talked to other people within my company and the story is the same.
My wife's company also made it mandatory to be in the office T, W, and Th back in May, so a little more than a month ago and the story is the same. No one is quitting.
I know this is anecdotal evidence so my point may be completely invalid.
Just call me chicken little (I've been predicting an upcoming recession since roughly 2017), but I wager its because the bad times are just beginning, and a lot of people know it.
The economy hasn't been in a truly healthy place since the mid 90s, before the dot-com bubble. After that bubble popped, the mortgage debt bubble began, with it came the illusion of stable prosperity. When that popped, rates bottomed out to prevent full blown collapse of the banking system. We never really raised the rates back up, which suggests that the fed was worried that doing so would pull the hair trigger of a fragile economy.
So then COVID happens, feds inject a stimulus of massive proportions. But the deathknell was people whom had even a modicum of savings were now able to multiply that stimulus money in the form of cheap debt, namely mortgages, causing a manic housing market.
Rates are spiking now in a way that haven't in my concious lifetime (80s kid). They've never been hiked this severely in a time of visible economic instability. Even leading up to 2008 seemed to be 'OK' at the time.
This is all armchair economist ancedote, but I forsee the market collectively dropping at least another 20% inside of 5 years. If not the stock market, certainly the purchasing power of the average person, which is the only economy that really matters.
This is a good point. The economy hasn't been good in a long time, but this inflation has really cramped a lot of people in ways I haven't seen in my lifetime.
I can’t speak for your employer, but with mine there were more than a few meetings where they didn’t explicitly say “we’re going back in to cull the herd” but it was such an overt overtone that in verbal conversations with HR & recruiting they unofficially confirmed it.
If you’re publicly traded, having layoffs looks bad and makes your stock go down in value.
If you can make work mildly miserable enough that poor performers drop out, you get the benefits without the dip in valuation. The fine line comes in not pissing off your top performers so they leave.
That's not a universal. For many tech companies, the public perception was that they were bloated, employee wise. I mean, forget shareholders, random people on the internet thought that. When they had their layoffs, their stock popped afterwards, because it was seen as cutting costs without necessarily cutting revenue.
Former middle manager. Concur.
I think it would be interesting to see, but I haven't seen any hard data on the subject. Everything i have come across is a survey of "what people would do" not the actions performed. It may be too new of a modality at this point to confirm.
To respond to your anecdote with my own, last year the company I was working for mandated 3 days per week and my entire department resigned within the month. For reference though, this was a department of principle and lead engineers so the difficulty in finding new jobs was pretty low. I wonder which one of these scenarios has been more common with the RTO push.
The ability to take yout ball and leave makes all the difference. If you have the ability to generate other income, you have the power. Staying through work making crazy demand becomes a choice: "is this crappy enough that I don't want to deal with it?" rather than: "is this so bad that i need to figure out if there is someplace else just as stable that pays the same but isnt this bad?" totally different decisions.
Oh I absolutely agree that the decision is much easier when alternatives are aplenty. I was just surprised that a big department like that had no such folks that decided to walk. It was more wondering aloud if there is a lot of talk and no action like the first anecdote, or the full mic drop like what I had experienced.
The data coming out of this over the next couple years should be terribly interesting I expect.
Do you think people have adjusted their efforts down a bit to compensate for the extra hassle of coming in? I'd be looking for another job for sure, but there are lots of reasons remote just works better for me personally beyond the inconvenience of a commute and such. Still, I'm surprised no one left at all. I wonder if they want to but are fearful with the economy
While I have no evidence to back this up, I think the combination of
makes it very challenging to leave. Would I love a 100% remote job? Definitely! What are the chances I'll find one when everyone who used to offer remote jobs has changed their minds and they've reduced their workforce in the last year or so? The chances are very small.
Of course it depends on industry, but I don't think the chance of finding remote is small. In many industries recruiters are having a terrible time filling any position with an onsite requirement, even for a day or so.
You may need to shop around for a while, but I'm confident people in most industries can find fully remote positions. What's more important is that if people who want fully remote don't leave jobs demanding onsite work and find fully remote jobs, the signal on demand will be that people are ok with being on site and increase the leverage employers have. If anyone is thinking they want fully remote, it's important to make that known (en masse) by not settling for onsite requirements if at all possible.
As a former middle manager, it was #4: avoid the appearance of layoffs because bad PR.
I preferred WFH and fought to defend it for my teams. But, then, I'm no longer a middle manager because I was poor at toeing the company line.
I'm a big believer that we change and grow or stagnate. Most companies hire me because I like to buck the norm and encourage creativity. When push comes to shove, they don't like me because I buck the norm and encourage creativity😉. Most companies want compliance before all else.
On #2, this is exactly why the "business district" is a terrible idea. They're abandoned at night. Take some of that empty commercial real estate, replace it with housing, and you'll see these areas bounce back.
These reasons really are at play. Those concerns seem higher up, so maybe it's control toward the middle, and your list above toward the top. I get it.
We invest so much in a thriving downtown, and as soon as people can work remotely they go buy some huge house in the country where they can live like royalty, and all the lunch dives shut down and the real estate sits dormant and suddenly it's dangerous and decrepit. Seems like people would have been more open to converting it to residential space or something though. I think a lot of it is sunk cost and holding onto a fantasy though. I can't imagine a better way to get people to do less and sabotage everything than forcing RTO on people. I may be bias though. I've been fully remote for years, and mostly remote before that, and I never fit in an office anyway.
Yeah, that is what I’ve heard about converting commercial real estate in general. As MrFahrenheit said, it’s one reason why business districts are awful. We’re much better off allowing a variety of residential and business commingle. If people worked at home, but had coffee shops and lunch dives etc in walking or biking distance, they would probably still be visiting those places.
There’s a big shift that needs to happen zoning and land use, particularly in the United States. If that means tearing down commercial, I’m here for it. I’m sure the owner class isn’t.
That is crazy sauce. I know it takes a lot to convert because of the additional plumbing and changes, etc. but that sounds bonkers
The company I worked for before getting downsized at the beginning of COVID was pushing (at the time) working in the office because they'd promised the city they'd have a certain number of workers in the office for tax breaks. That office has since closed; I'm not sure where they were all relocated.
My current employer has been trying to get us to come into the office at least once a week or so. Yesterday they pushed that a little harder, as long as you lived reasonably close to the office. Since two of my team live halfway across the country (including my boss), I think we'll be safe staying with WFH.
Productivity gains/concerns are often cited as a reason to force a return to office, but most organizations don't seem to know what 'productivity' even is, or how to measure it. That seems surprising, given that it's being used as a stick to force people back into a box, but it turns out that productivity is REALLY hard to define, much less measure, and the research is all over the place.
This article provides some interesting perspectives on the role of productivity and it's role in pushing for a return to office, and contrasts it with an example of an organization, hubspot, that is trying to find ways to build the best space for everyone by reducing the footprint of the office space and finding large group days for those who WANT to be in the office, while encouraging those who don't to keep on keeping on.
I've been super frustrated to see so many organizations try to force people back into the office after everyone had a taste of working from home, and IMO it's just about control. I don't want some company owning my life, and forcing me to dress nice and parade around town so I can sit in a closed office and have zoom calls with people down the hall seems like more than a waste of time. It gets into humiliation and power trips, and I've never been great at kissing the ring.
I was thankful to see this article, which stands in contrast to so many "it's time to go back in....or else" type articles which have been popular as of late.
Productivity actually tends to increase with remote work due to fewer workplace distractions!
It's creativity/innovation resulting from collaboration that perhaps happens less. That tends to be somewhat serendipitous, except when it comes from a single individual. Sometimes groups can come up with better than what any one person can alone.
Ironic. Most businesses really aren't that interested in "innovation". They want better ways of doing what they already do. If there's a sea change to be had, most businesses want that to come from an executive. They don't like it when a middle manager or individual contributor does that.
Put another way: the reduced innovation of working from home is another strawman.
It's about control.
Trust fades as we get less in person contact. This is why, in my 16 years of remote work, I would have my teams gather in person 3-4 times a year—not to work but just to connect as humans! That investment paved the way for solid workplace relationships when working remotely! As budgets started to tighten, I couldn't do this as often, trust dwindled, and everything moved slower.
Also, when your boss doesn't get to see you in person, they trust you less. That simple.
When we don't meet people in person to develop a robust mental model of them, it's so very easy to project our worst anxieties onto them.
Your point about wanting to do whatvwe already do better, but NOT wanting to innovate and do new things (especially if it doesn't come from the right pkace!) is spot on. Crazy how much gets passed by because it isn't our same old dog food.
I see the value in having the option to meet in person if you want, but I would be annoyed and resistant if my comoany wanted to fly me to meet once a year even. Even if we were meeting in Hawaii or something (although that would certainly smooth it a little).
At the same time, I'm resistant to the idea that being remote breeds anxieties. I've made lifelong connections with suoervisors and peers who i've never met in person, but worked closely with remotely for 2 years. We have common bonds and care about each other. It was strange that I thought oje of them was tall and it turned out she was short, but that is funny, rather than some damation caused by remote work.
I think the anxiety come from people who are mistrustful anyway, and those people will suck your life force whether in person or not.
Perhaps a a more naive take on this: I actually like working at the office. I prefer meeting in person, and I think I'm more productive (percentage points) at a 'place of work'. But that's likely predicated on the fact that:
Take away any single one of those, and suddenly I think I'm on the wrong side of the productivity/happiness equation again, should I be forced into coming in person to work.
I am the same. As much as I enjoyed parts of the working-from-home during Covid and even though I am the stereotypical introverted developer, I am still a social being that likes to be around other people than just my family from time to time. I found a mix to be the best of both worlds. If I have a day with many virtual meetings lined up, being at home makes most sense. I don't have to find a meeting room or phonebooth, it is just way easier to be at home. And if we are in a phase in our development where everyone knows what they need to do and just need some focus time to code, then being at home works great. However if we are working closely together at the start of a new feature where everything is not fully known yet and we need to try things out, experiment and talk a lot - being physically together helps immensely.
I understand. Some people in this situation like to find co-working groups or play "work with me" videos on Youtube as a means of preserving the feeling of being around others. I*m in a house with 4 kids, so i get plenty of ambient noise, but if it was just me and a dog I'd definitely need something to supplement, especially because there are stacked days when we don't leave the house for any signigicant length of time
Yeah, for some people, in some situations, being in office is amazing. I used to work at a beautiful office area with a crazy buffet for $7 at lunch and a rivee with dolphins right there. It was amazing, but it wasnt the best work environment to be sure.
Some people operate well in those spaces, but there are plenty who don't, most especially neurodivergent people who need small accomodation but often get treated poorly if they seek them out. I imagine the prevalence of sexual harrassment has dopped a good bit as well
I am pretty much in the same boat. Much like you I work in a city, and live close enough to be at the office in 30 minutes pretty much on foot. My company gave a relatively soft push to come back to office, so if you are in once a month you are fine.
I don’t work out of the main headquarters on the West Coast so my office is largely run by the collective of very chill likeminded coworkers(No executives lol). It also helps that the company pays for most if not all commuting and lunch costs. I know it’s all tactics to get us back in the office, but I respect the approach. I think if any of that was to change I would strongly reconsider that job.
This bit is the key to me:
"Some 71 percent of business leaders say they're under immense pressure to squeeze more productivity out of their workers, according to a new Slack survey of 18,000 knowledge workers, including managers. But most are measuring what workers put in, rather than what they put out."
Every C-suite is looking for the same or increased productivity from fewer workers, because cutting costs without cutting output is what's best for the stock value now, regardless of how tenable it is.
And these managers are being given an impossible task: get more work out of fewer employees without giving the ones who remain any more pay. So their best bet is to peg their metrics to what they do, their input, because they know they can sell that to their bosses. But there are limits to what you can input when you're a remote manager.
That's it. We're playing a rigged game to further enrich the already wealthy, and we're maxed out. That's why AI is getting so much money and attention, because it promises to unlock even more productivity from even fewer workers. In the meantime, since we really can't produce more without instantly burning out, everyone up and down the management chain is going to choose the measurable metric they can move and call that success.
It's also important to peg the value of workers to time rather than accomplishment, because time is a straight trade for pay. But as soon as you recognize contribution, workers are going to start wondering why they're not getting a share of the money their work generates.
This last bit is important. When you figure out how much your work makes the company and compare that with how much you make, the difference can shift the mood.
I used to be a consultant, and one time I accidentally found out that my company was selling my services for $140 and hour. I was not being paid anywhere near that. That was an eye-opener, I can tell you.
Yes lawd. When you're making 90 and they charge 130 it's not so bad. There is overhead and what not, but when you make 60 and they charge 130, it's just tragic
Unfortunately, so many people in management positions don't understand what this means. The reality of company hierarchical organization is that there are huge numbers of managers who don't know how to manage people. They've simply been made a manager for non-merit based reasons (seniority, promotion path, etc.). And people in those positions also get very little opportunities for actual management-based learning.
And part of that is also that what "management" actually means to a company isn't necessarily what management should be. Can a manager simply keep a team working and producing the necessary output on schedule? If yes, then good and why bother to care how they go about doing it?
Agreed. All the managers I know spend everyday double booked in meetings that could be emails. I can't imagine having enough juice left to do anything after a day or two of that crap.
I'm constantly amazed at how common it is to waste time and fill the gaps with "I'm so busy" work. At least one of my coworkers that I am aware of is working 2 other jobs. How much of that is the manager being too busy to notice, or it just not being worth policing when we seem to be producing enough to meet the quota, I don't know.
Former middle manager. Nailed it. Meetings should be about fixing a disagreement or making decisions on how to proceed. If they're not for one of those purposes, they're likely a waste of time.
One rubric for meetings: is there an agenda driving toward a particular goal. If not? Likely a waste of time.
Sure, some meetings are social lubricant. Those matter too. But call a spade a spade.
However, it's hard to say no to meetings. People take it personally, On some level, whether they admit it or not. They tell themselves (perhaps unconsciously) that you don't like them—so they like you less.
Speaking as a former middle manager who tried like hell to avoid meetings that could've been an email.