34
votes
Nothing CEO Carl Pei gives employees two months to return to office full-time
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Nothing is requiring employees to be in the office five days a week
- Authors
- Jess Weatherbed
- Published
- Aug 21 2024
- Word count
- 319 words
Full text of the original letter from LinkedIn
We’ve come a long way in a short space of time. We are the only company to have established a smartphone business in the last 10 years. We are the fastest growing smartphone brand in India at 567% YoY.
Yet, we are at 0.1% of our potential. With the solid start we’ve made, we really have the chance to create a generational tech company that can change the world. This is an incredibly exciting opportunity that we’ve earned together, and now it’s time to double down.
We started Nothing during COVID, and had to make do with working remotely at first. Later on, we transitioned to hybrid in London and in-office at our other sites. Now, we are announcing the transition to in-office in London too.
I know this is a controversial decision that may not be a fit for everyone, and there are definitely companies out there that thrive in remote or hybrid setups. But that’s not right for our type of business, and won’t help us fully realize our potential as a company. There are three key reasons for this.
First of all, we make physical products where design, engineering, manufacturing and quality have to collaborate closely together to deliver products to our users. This does not work well remotely.
Second, creativity and innovation are really key to us winning against bigger companies. Not only in products, we also need to solve difficult problems and do more with way less resources than competitors in all areas of our business. This does not work well remotely.
Lastly, our ambition level is different from many peer companies started at the same time. We are not looking to create a good business that gets acquired by a big company, we are looking to realize our full potential of becoming a generation-defining company. And we’re really serious about moving fast. Remote work is not compatible with a high ambition level plus high speed.
Some may be worried about flexibility, but this is no different from pre-COVID. This is a company for grown ups, so if you need to be out of office to deal with some issues, we trust you to make the right decision. In fact, some roles like sales and PR need to be out of the office meeting with customers and press regularly.
We know it’s not the right type of setup for everybody, and that’s OK. We should look for a mutual fit. You should find an environment where you thrive, and we need to find people who want to go the full mile with us in the decades ahead.
This takes effect two months from now. In our next Town Hall in London, we can take live questions if there are any.
Thank you all for the progress we’ve made together so far, and I’m looking forward to learning, growing, and building the next stage of the company with you all.
I'm not sure how I feel about this. The decision itself is harsh and I think employees should be pushing back, but The Verge is definitely stoking the fire with some WAY out of context quotes.
Most of the cases are subjective, but I'm pretty sure this one is contradictory.
Yeah, there's a lot of poor wording and contradiction. I also found this quote to be counter to the message of requiring workers to be there 5 days a week:
Like, do you or don't you trust people?
The full quote is way less rage inducing than The Verge's distillation of it though.
The way I read that quote was "We need you to plan to be in the office as your primary workplace, but we're not shackling you to your desks. We can be flexible, within the reasonable constraints of your job."
Practically, if you're working on physical products, it does make a difference to be able to stand around the sample item together. Working from a default 100% in office standard makes sense for some companies.
It might make sense for particular teams, namely those concerned with physical design and manufacturing, but I don't see why companies couldn't downsize their office to accommodate only such teams (which are usually on the smaller side) and a little extra, while allowing everybody else to work remotely. They could stand to save a lot of money on office costs that way.
Yes, but it also means two different administrative systems to manage those employees; different onboarding and provisioning, different availability expectations, different hours, different payroll procedures and employment tax systems, different employee equipment and tech support needs, different data security procedures and concerns...
The cost of rent is real, but so is the effort needed to manage a distributed workforce. If a business says they want everyone in-house, I'm inclined to trust that they're making a choice they think will actually work best for them.
Best for the workers? Probably not.
I disagree. In my observation, organizational dysfunction seems to be the norm these days and not the exception. What exactly have they done to earn your trust?
They're doing something they think is in their best interests, or they aren't. The degree to which their internal systems are dysfunctional are unrelated to their intentions. Setting aside the degree to which they're right that it'll be good for them, do you think they're intentionally doing something wrong for their business?
That's how I read it. The tone seems pretty reasonable. I'm curious what the messaging was to employees when they were hired. If it was always started that in person was a thing that would likely happen eventually then this seems reasonable. If it's a complete blind side them 2 months seems short.
Kinda depends on what he means by "the right decision", doesn't it? Like, if you have to run out to pick up your kids or something, is the right decision to then work until 9pm? :-)
This is the new normal in Tech. Profits must stay up, to satisfy investors. Costs must be cut to maintain profits and growth (the first derivative of profit).
And, so, that tired maxim: do more with less.
I just heard from a buddy today still at <REDACTED big tech company> that I once worked a few jobs ago. It's exactly this. Those who haven't been laid off are tired and overworked. Of course, the businesses believe they can afford to exploit their workers thus; with 400k+ laid off in Tech, businesses believe they can layoff the burnouts and hire new people. Of course, this neglects the brain drain.
It's a terrific time to fuck right off from Tech. Ironically, this brings me back to this tildes comment.
Based on what metric, exactly?
So I suppose the plan is to have each of these departments in the same office space, so Teams meetings aren't going to be necessary anymore. I don't buy it.
So paying for far more office space than would be needed if your workforce were not required to come in daily is using "way less resources than [their] competitors"? Bullshit.
Translation: we need to push our employees exactly as far as we can before they quit en masse, and that line is easier to determine if we can see in your eyes the moment your soul dies. This does not work well remotely.
No, my assessment is that the Verge has parsed this guy's bullshit appropriately.
Meanwhile half of them will be laid off within 2-3 years regardless of performance. And half the remaining will move on to a better situation. Because they aren't going to be given proper compensation for "going the full mile", maybe not even Inflation based raises.
Companies love to pretend we're still in the 70/80's where people are kept long term with incentives like pension and career development and whatnot. They, not us, have long since chosen to hire as fancy contractors. At least contractors know when their terms end.
By making avant-garde style cell phones, leaning on their Chinese manufacturer's experience in making thousands of phone models for other folks?
This is a fashion brand, not a technology company. It drives me a little bit crazy how no one says anything about delusional comments like this.
I think it’s the Trump effect: tech companies regularly make insane statements like this so it’s become mundane and boring to point them out.
Hadn't heard of this company before, google them....their "products" look exactly like every single off-brand/no-name phone or headset you see on Taobao. I would say fashion brand is even a stretch, it looks like more of a throw shit at the wall and see what sticks company.
I mean I understand the need to inspect prototypes, but that's legitimately the only thing I can think of that would make physical design different to any other type of design. Aren't you still gonna be looking at renders most of the time? If their office was in Shenzen, and they were able to get physical prototypes in like every day, but they are in London.
This is just demeaning. If you want to do homeoffice, you're not a grown-up. Thanks Mr. CEO with the head in the clouds.
Hope it fails.
Translation: "We want to do layoffs without actually paying out severance".
I genuinely hope no one takes him up on this and forces layoffs. This should not be allowed and more companies need to be punished.
I've been playing with a litmus test for this kind of thing ever since my dad told me he was ending wfh for the department he runs: if it makes business sense to bring everyone into the office, and they are losing the perk of wfh, then give everyone a token raise of a few grand per year. If office work really increases productivity this will pay for itself a few times over, and prevent turnover. In my experience (sample size 1) they dismiss the idea as absurd, which kind of betrays the lack of actual business value. It's more about optics.
That’s a really great observation and I’ll definitely be looking for this kind of thing in future too! That’s a great way to spot the possible bullshit — if it’s for increased productivity, then yeah give everyone a bonus that year (even cheaper for the business than an ongoing increase!) and it pays for itself
Hell, you could even have it tied to the return to office! “Hey everyone, for the next 6 months we’ll be transitioning to full time in the office. You can set your own pace but by the end of 6 months it will be mandatory. Here’s our incentive structure — every work day that you come into the office, you’ll get a bonus $20 (no partial days from home, only counts if you do the full day) and double that if you hit all 5 days in a given week”
And that still only ends up being $5k per employee, and that’s if they immediately switch to 100% in the office on day one.
Also, is there a reason the CEO felt the need to broadcast this message over LinkedIn vs making this a series of internal emails? Maybe there was a series of internal emails and this is just the final public announcement? Why does that sort of thing even need to be public though?
Answering my own question here, but I'm guessing he did this so he could get ahead of any leaks. At least this way he has put the original context out there in case anyone publishes snippets that make it look worse.
Everyone needs and wants something different out of a workplace. Some people thrive in offices and some people don't. It's all a part of your stay/go calculation. If you don't like it look for another job and quit when you find it. It's not like the white collar people complaining about the end of wfh are living paycheck to paycheck because they are making minimum wage.
You're 100% correct, that is the approach people should take and I personally think the inevitable result will be WFH remaining very widespread. But people also don't need to be living paycheck to paycheck to complain. The pushback is an important form of feedback. If some really key staff consider this a dealbreaker, or far more staff than the company estimated, or even if some staff could make it work but not on two months' notice, I think the company would prefer they push back rather than just quitting without further discussion.
Yes thank you. You have said it more eloquently than I could have.
This company was started as remote-first and is now asking people to come work in an office. Bottom line, that's not a reasonable thing to demand on a short timeline. It's also tone deaf and simply bad managememt if it's coming from out of the blue versus getting buy-in from its employees
Yeah I agree it's not reasonable to demand. I would absolutely be upset if I worked there.
The bottom line is that when you work for someone else you don't get to make those kinds of decisions. The workers ability to walk away gives them power in aggregate. It's why the ability to survive a reasonable time without employment is so valuable. It gets harder every year but it's still true imo.
While the basis of what you say makes sense, certainly the first part. The way you decided to word the last two sentences make it seem unnecessarily combative to me. It's also simply is a fallacy of relative privation you are applying here.
I think it important to point out that @Spacepope wasn't replying to anyone, but advanced their own opinion as a top level comment in response to the article posted. They didn't call anyone out or otherwise seem to target another poster. If someone feels that their comment lacks empathy for people who can't leave their position, I think that is also fair. But that is different than being combative. I think Tilde's is at its best when a variety of viewpoints are shared, so long as they don't break the sites rules.
I think it is perfectly reasonable for me to share how a comment comes across to me due to certain wording. Just like you are doing now by sharing how you feel my use of the word combative comes across to you.
Likewise, I feel it appropriate to state my appreciation for a variety of viewpoints shared appropriately, and to share my meta opinions on what does and does not facilitate thoughtful discussion. I disagree with calling someone out as combative to an idea, when it is perfectly reasonable for people who disagree to discuss. Especially on their own top level post.
I am not calling the idea out as combative. I am sorry, but that is you misreading what I wrote. In fact, I acknowledge this as the first thing I wrote. I am merely pointing out that their closing words come over as combative (again to me) and contains a fallacy. Which overall, as far as I am considered, weakens an otherwise perfectly fine argument.
Again, I don't think we are acting in a dissimilar spirit here. Where we disagree is that I don't see my comment as calling them out and more as a heads-up in the spirit of “hey, are you aware your comment can also come across as this?”. Because I think it is not only important to share viewpoints. If you share them, but they get lost on someone, then that is an overall loss.
I don't know how productive our conversation will be, but I struggle to reconcile you posts together. You say that you are not calling the idea combative, but you posted this:
I don't know what that means other than you feeling they are combative to an idea. My point is that viewpoints should be discussed and not shutdown. Calling someone combative doesn't seem to promote thoughtful discussion to me.
Edit: I'll also say I'm going off the general definition of consider as: Eager or disposed to fight. synonym: belligerent. If you mean something else, I would suggest alternative phrasing.
Well, that is easily explained. We are talking past each other.
Their original comment consists of two parts. One that simply states that different people thrive in different environments and that this is all part of someone's stay/go calculation.
This, in itself is not something I see as combative and is also what I see as the core of their argument and overal philosophy/idea.
It is very specifically said that their closing sentence does make them come over as combative towards wfh. Which I see as a concept, already in practice.
And to be very clear, I never said they themselves are combative. Which I at this point I feel like I should mention as reading back that was also the phrasing used at least once.
I hope that clears it up for you as well. I for one will make a mental note that the word combative to some also in itself is seen as... well... combative.
I think your point is clear. However, let me also clarify.
While we could play semantics about the definition of combative, etc, the crux of my point is "so what if they are opposed to wfh?" I don't think that is their point, nor am I opposed to wfh. But even if they were, and someone disagrees, I believe in debating the merits of the point.
If I'm following your point correctly, you intended your comment as feedback (maybe?) that they sounded against wfh. I personally think the term combative makes it sound like you felt they were targeting a person or people, given the definition of the term.
But what I was commenting on was what I perceived as intolerance or incivility towards expressing different opinions or ideas, and not even of the normal human rights variety I can understand folks having strong emotional reactions to.
It doesn't sound like that was your intent, though I do suspect at least some idea intolerance given what I interpret as defense of wfh.
My apologies if I misunderstand.
I strongly feel you are overcomplicating things. Although I cannot entirely pinpoint what is the exact stumbling block here. Or if there are perhaps multiple stumbling blocks.
Let me start by saying that if someone is against wfh that they are entirely entitled to that opinion.
So you will find no disagreement from me on this point.
Which is also what promoted me to post my initial comment. As from how I read the last two sentences this can easily be interpreted as the opposite. Because the last sentences can also be read as "if you do not like coming to the office quit and people who have should not complain about loosing wfh given their salary".
Read like that it does come over as combative, or at the very least due to the use of a fallacy of relative privation is not debating the point.
Which, given the rest of the comment stood out to me as out of place. Which made me leave my comment addressing this.
As it turns out after talking with spacePope they had indeed intended to convey something else.
And now I hope things have also cleared up for you. If not I will have to disappoint you as it is past midnight and I'm turning in now.
I hope you have a good night, and appreciate the dialogue, though I still respectfully disagree with your assessment.
I don't find the portion you quoted as combative, because I didn't read it as targeted at anyone and I don't feel it was written with the intent to pick a fight. I do think it could have been worded to land better to a wider audience, as the comment you linked was done. I would feel different if the original comment has been in response to someone.
But just like I think the original comment could have been worded better, I didn't find that your comment helped further the discussion. Critically, clarification on the op's comment didn't come out of someone critiquing the OP or saying they sounded combative, but rather a rather neutrally worded restatement of their initial point. Critically, you called them combative, said they applied a fallacy, and have a bulleted critique of what they wrote. They directly rebuffed your reply. It didn't further the conversation.
I really don't mean to belabor the issue. "Two people misunderstand each other and disagree on the Internet, more at 11." I appreciate the civil discourse. I think we simply disagree on what a helpful follow on to a comment is, and feel differently about the connotations of the word combative. Which is fine, the world is more interesting when we aren't all clones on each other.
Cheers and have a good night!
What I said was not combative. As an employee of someone else, you don't get to make those kinds of decisions. In a good job you might be allowed a degree of influence but that's the exception. Your ability to walk away is power. It's withholding labor. Unfortunately, not everybody has that option.
As I said, it seems combative to me towards wfh sentiment due to the way you phrased it and certainly the remark of living paycheck to paycheck. It is in my opinion an unnecessary inclusion which weakens an otherwise perfectly fine comment and argument.
Well it was not my intention. My point was that this is a class of people, in general, who have the means to do what I suggested. Wfh is great and I'd personally like to see it be an option in more places but that won't happen if workers just take it on the chin for fear of financial ruin.
Perhaps I could have phrased it better but I don't see any malice in what I wrote.
To be clear, I never thought you intended malice. However, your last sentence very well can also be read as “People who complain about loosing WFH generally are people with a higher income, so it is a luxury problem and should not complain too much or just quit”.
Reading your comment here, I understand you had somewhat else in mind when writing that sentence. Quitting and moving to a different company certainly can be a strong signal, if also clearly communicated to the company you are leaving. However, I also think there are more forms of pushback that should be employed before walking out on a company.
It's interesting how he boasta about how they have grown during COVID when they all worked from home while simultaniously claiming that it is very import for growth to be at the office.
So, the Nothing CEO is trash, got it.