You want me back in the office because it’s essential to communication and collaboration? Fine, ban Teams meetings with no external participants. Otherwise the office is just where we go to work remotely in the same place.
Spot on. Go to work, jump on that Teams/Zoom meeting. And go out to lunch, so the local businesses don't fail. That includes not just restaurants, but parking lots as well (the public transport here is broken and getting worse). Somehow, 'green thinking' which was popular pre-COVID is no longer talked out - everyone should drive and come to the downtown office and support local business. How about suburb businesses? How about those business that cannot survive in a model are allowed to die a new business model (perhaps not food) pops up?
> You want me back in the office because it’s essential to communication and collaboration? Fine, ban Teams meetings with no external participants. Otherwise the office is just where we go to work remotely in the same place.
I think I'd agree with you, but I'd put it this way: "Fine, co-locate teams at the same office with their customers. No more distributed teams, anywhere, for any reason."
The only reasonable exception to that rule is first-line support team in the opposite time zone, that's it.
Also ban, hoteling/hot desking. You know what also f-cks up in person collaboration? Not knowing where your coworkers are sitting.
Most RTO is executives trying to have their cake and eat it too. The decisions are directly contradicted by other decisions they've made and ideas they advocate for.
This article makes a lot of noise about RTO being about corporate peacocking and/or real estate. But it also cites a source that a third of people _prefer_ in-office work and another third of people _prefer_ hybrid work. I don’t understand why it leaves no room for the simplest explanation: the managers pushing against remote work simply belong to one of those two thirds.
Not to mention that this means 2/3 of people prefer to be in the office at least some of the time and 2/3 of people prefer to work at home at least some of the time. So naturally if you're strictly going based off of numbers hybrid makes the most sense, but I've noticed a lot of "I only want to work from my home office and never go anywhere else ever for any reason" folks frame hybrid as "RTO" which it is not.
We frame hybrid as RTO because hybrid is usually mandatory rather than flexible, and implies having to live in some wretched metro area close to an office. I want to live someplace where offices do not exist, which means hybrid is a non-starter for me.
Mandatory hybrid == RTO, but optional hybrid - a combination of hybrid for those who live near an office and remote for those who don’t - can please both camps without drawing battle lines between them.
The article asserts it, yes, with not a single quantitative study actually supporting that. They have some tangentially related evidence around real estate and survey responses, and they assert - again, without direct evidence - that these are explained by corporate peacocking.
But perhaps corporate peacocking is not why they prefer it?
I like a day's worth of face time once a week or so. It's not because I like to show off to my colleagues or minions - most of my direct colleagues are not in the same country as me. I prefer it just because I'm the sort of person who prefers a little, but not a lot, of direct human contact when given the choice.
The managers get given the choice and may just prefer it innately. It's irritating that they elect to inflict it on others if it's not economically rational to do so.
There is definitely a trend, and not a new one, to assume that all managers, directors, etc. are just bumbling fools who nepotised their way into bags of cash every two weeks and provide no actual value. I'm sure there are examples where that's the case, but at least in the (small no-name) companies I've worked at my entire career, the non-owner bosses are typically as smart as I am or smarter, work about as hard as I do with a lot more inanity to deal with, and don't actually make that much more money especially at the front-line manager and director level.
I wonder if those in that category might also have a tendency towards lower empathy with those outside it?
"I don't work as well when I'm not in the office, so all those other guys are slacking off" would presumably be the thought process.
What I think's interesting is that those pushing for RTO rarely seem to be using data to support their positions. I don't know if it's that they're people who prefer "intuition over evidence" or just that there's a lack of evidence supporting a stance that they're emotionally committed to, but it's something I've noted quite a few times now. Or perhaps it's just that once you introduce the decision as data-driven you get into interminable arguments about methodologies and so on?
I don't really buy the various borderline conspiracy theories about a tie between corporate management and local property prices simply because that same set of people seems to have been wildly enthusiastic about the various offshoring waves that preceded Covid and the resulting WFH boom.
I think you might be on to something with the empathy but I don't think it's as naive as "I don't work well at home so these other people can't work well from home." I think it's much more likely something like "I don't work well from home, so if I'm in the office I will do better. If we're fully remote, I will do worse in my career, get fewer/smaller raises, miss a promotion, etc. I will have more success in the office so I will fight for everyone to be in the office."
If other people perform worse in the office it just means those that prefer that environment will do that much better in their careers.
Especially as you get into higher management levels, your coworkers are also your competitors - if the guy in the office next to you gets a promotion, you don't get that promotion.
I started at a hybrid company a few months all, after working remotely for a long time (way before Covid). I was initially very skeptical, but then I noticed that coming to the office positively affects my psychological wellbeing. I actually enjoy hanging out with my colleagues.
I really liked the dream of working from wherever, but now I would prefer not to go back to remote work. Granted, this very much depends on your coworkers.
The main downside of hybrid work (or office work) is that you're limited to the job offers in your city. If I want to work for a software company that has HQ in Paris but I live in Lyon, well I need to move to Paris. That sucks.
When you were remote, did you ever work from coffee shops or coworking spaces? In your hybrid role, are you actively working with others in-person?
I’ve definitely found that having other people around during some of my work week has a positive psychological impact for me, and solve it this way. At the coffee shops and spaces I frequent, I often see and cowork with folks I know from my various hobbies and clubs in town.
I remember that, even when I was in-office full-time (pre-2020), sitting in the same cube/desk area as my teammates… we mostly communicated over Slack about work. Only very occasionally would we come look at one another’s screens - less than I screen share over Zoom or Slack Huddle with them these days. (Slack Huddles are especially more efficient than anything that could be done in-person, as you can both view one another’s screens.)
I definitely did enjoy hanging with my colleagues in those days - really, socialization was the majority of our in-person interaction (well, and meetings, which I might argue are better conducted over Zoom, as some people being physically imposing, reducing helpful input from others, was always a thing).
I’d also say all our in-person hanging made us more of a monoculture - half my team would hit the gym downstairs and be spotting each other on bench press during lunch breaks. Whereas in my current remote role, I work with folks who never go to the gym, but are into dance, cooking, theater - all sorts of more varied things! I think the variety of life perspectives may make us more productive as well, though obviously there are too many variables at play to really compare these work scenarios with any sort of objective metric.
It depends on coworkers, it depends on the office environment more generally, and it also depends on the type of work you're doing.
I'm not a particularly social person, but in general I'd rather work in an office near my coworkers than remotely. But, I'd rather work remotely than work in a large open office space. A cubicle might be okay, depending on how many people are sharing the same room.
Another big factor is your commute. Spending an hour or more on a daily commute is very taxing, especially if you're raising a family.
Yeah independent of commuting, I'd not want to work for my company if I had to spend a lot of time with my coworkers in person. You want people to gel like that in person and I'd need really different demographics. Online it's fine.
I prefer working in a good office, in a nice area, to wfh.
That describes only some offices, and also I definitely don’t prefer it to the tune of thousands of dollars and a couple hundred hours per year and a bunch more micromorts.
As someone who was over-employed in '21-'22, I think RTO is mainly there to prevent employees from making too much money. It's not that they're worried about loss in productivity as much as their loss of leverage against the employees. The threat of making someone homeless is a benefit they enjoy. Having multiple jobs removes that threat and empowers employees to push back and be assertive. Which is the real threat to profits.
Assume that people in the office are 5% more productive than people at home. Just assume that's true. That matters... to the company.
But if I work from home, I have a 30-second commute. Assume I have a 30-minute commute to work, so an hour a day. That turns an 8-hour day of work into a 9-hour hit on my time. From my perspective, that makes me 12% less productive.
There's a way to work this out equitably. You want me to work in the office? Pay me more. Make WFH vs. RTO part of the terms of employment, and adjust the salary to match. It's worth more to the company? Fine. Pay for it. Not working in the office is worth something to the employee? OK, but you get less money for it.
That would be horrible for workers. Let's not establish that sort of precedent; if you do the job, remote or not, you get paid equally. Even assuming a slight productivity bump, John doesn't deserve more money than Dave just because he schleps himself to the office.
I mostly work from home.
Am I as productive as when I work from the office ?
No.
But that is a cost my employers are willing to bear, and why I work for them.
Arguments that WFH is as efficient as working in the office are missing the point.
Readit News
I think I'd agree with you, but I'd put it this way: "Fine, co-locate teams at the same office with their customers. No more distributed teams, anywhere, for any reason."
The only reasonable exception to that rule is first-line support team in the opposite time zone, that's it.
Also ban, hoteling/hot desking. You know what also f-cks up in person collaboration? Not knowing where your coworkers are sitting.
Most RTO is executives trying to have their cake and eat it too. The decisions are directly contradicted by other decisions they've made and ideas they advocate for.
The internet likes black & white. There's little room for shades of grey and any expression of nuance just invites hot takes. Like this one.
Mandatory hybrid == RTO, but optional hybrid - a combination of hybrid for those who live near an office and remote for those who don’t - can please both camps without drawing battle lines between them.
I like a day's worth of face time once a week or so. It's not because I like to show off to my colleagues or minions - most of my direct colleagues are not in the same country as me. I prefer it just because I'm the sort of person who prefers a little, but not a lot, of direct human contact when given the choice.
The managers get given the choice and may just prefer it innately. It's irritating that they elect to inflict it on others if it's not economically rational to do so.
"I don't work as well when I'm not in the office, so all those other guys are slacking off" would presumably be the thought process.
What I think's interesting is that those pushing for RTO rarely seem to be using data to support their positions. I don't know if it's that they're people who prefer "intuition over evidence" or just that there's a lack of evidence supporting a stance that they're emotionally committed to, but it's something I've noted quite a few times now. Or perhaps it's just that once you introduce the decision as data-driven you get into interminable arguments about methodologies and so on?
I don't really buy the various borderline conspiracy theories about a tie between corporate management and local property prices simply because that same set of people seems to have been wildly enthusiastic about the various offshoring waves that preceded Covid and the resulting WFH boom.
If other people perform worse in the office it just means those that prefer that environment will do that much better in their careers.
Especially as you get into higher management levels, your coworkers are also your competitors - if the guy in the office next to you gets a promotion, you don't get that promotion.
I really liked the dream of working from wherever, but now I would prefer not to go back to remote work. Granted, this very much depends on your coworkers.
And there are people who insist others come back since they themselves are extroverts, and they need someone to talk to (not my company, but family).
I’ve definitely found that having other people around during some of my work week has a positive psychological impact for me, and solve it this way. At the coffee shops and spaces I frequent, I often see and cowork with folks I know from my various hobbies and clubs in town.
I remember that, even when I was in-office full-time (pre-2020), sitting in the same cube/desk area as my teammates… we mostly communicated over Slack about work. Only very occasionally would we come look at one another’s screens - less than I screen share over Zoom or Slack Huddle with them these days. (Slack Huddles are especially more efficient than anything that could be done in-person, as you can both view one another’s screens.)
I definitely did enjoy hanging with my colleagues in those days - really, socialization was the majority of our in-person interaction (well, and meetings, which I might argue are better conducted over Zoom, as some people being physically imposing, reducing helpful input from others, was always a thing).
I’d also say all our in-person hanging made us more of a monoculture - half my team would hit the gym downstairs and be spotting each other on bench press during lunch breaks. Whereas in my current remote role, I work with folks who never go to the gym, but are into dance, cooking, theater - all sorts of more varied things! I think the variety of life perspectives may make us more productive as well, though obviously there are too many variables at play to really compare these work scenarios with any sort of objective metric.
I'm not a particularly social person, but in general I'd rather work in an office near my coworkers than remotely. But, I'd rather work remotely than work in a large open office space. A cubicle might be okay, depending on how many people are sharing the same room.
Another big factor is your commute. Spending an hour or more on a daily commute is very taxing, especially if you're raising a family.
That describes only some offices, and also I definitely don’t prefer it to the tune of thousands of dollars and a couple hundred hours per year and a bunch more micromorts.
Assume that people in the office are 5% more productive than people at home. Just assume that's true. That matters... to the company.
But if I work from home, I have a 30-second commute. Assume I have a 30-minute commute to work, so an hour a day. That turns an 8-hour day of work into a 9-hour hit on my time. From my perspective, that makes me 12% less productive.
There's a way to work this out equitably. You want me to work in the office? Pay me more. Make WFH vs. RTO part of the terms of employment, and adjust the salary to match. It's worth more to the company? Fine. Pay for it. Not working in the office is worth something to the employee? OK, but you get less money for it.
Arguments that WFH is as efficient as working in the office are missing the point.
But since I am here, I thought it was about US Broadcaster NBC and its owner Comcast. But was something else, an interesting read nevertheless.
Dead Comment