5 ms·

Consider that it took a pandemic to get many SV companies to consider this. Forget employees advocating for it or workplace research, some external event had to

Consider that it took a pandemic to get many SV companies to consider this. Forget employees advocating for it or workplace research, some external event had to force their hand first.

sharkweek 6y ago
I am guessing many didn’t want to be an early mover on such a paradigm shift.
- ghaff 6y ago
  Yeah, it's not even unreasonable that many companies were resistant to conduct a disruptive experiment on their own volition.
  - _qulr 6y ago
    Apple Park cost $5 billion and took over a decade to design a build. I'd call that a lot more disruptive than experimenting with WFH.
    - ghaff 6y ago
      Building a new campus on the site of an existing tech company campus in the same city you're already located doesn't seem like a particularly risky experiment even if it cost a bunch of money.
      - _qulr 6y ago
        What is risk, besides time and money?
        ghaff 6y ago
        Disrupting the business. Which at some level translates into time and money I guess but it seems different from "We handed over a bunch of money for something that it turns out we maybe didn't need." (Though Apple has tons of leased real estate in the Bay Area so I'm pretty sure they'll continue to find plenty of use for the campus.)
        _qulr 6y ago
        I don't think they just handed over money though. It was said that Apple Park was a singular focus of Jony Ive. It's difficult to find something more disruptive to Apple than taking away their head of design from the focusing on customer products.
  - JSavageOne 6y ago
    The whole point is that it wasn't disruptive and even turned out better. Also it's not merely an "experiment", we're talking about peoples' lives here. People aren't just fungible resources to be commanded and lorded over like chattel. Workers have been fighting for the freedom to work remotely for decades now, and it's sad that it takes a pandemic for employers to start respecting their employees enough to allow them the basic freedom of not being chained to their open office desks like zoo animals.
    - ThrowawayR2 6y ago
      > "The whole point is that it wasn't disruptive and even turned out better." Turned out better for you, maybe, but not for everyone. There are plenty of people here on HN, including myself, who have said that they want to go back to the office, either full time or part time.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dekervin 6y ago
An exogenous shock is almost alwyas needed. It provides energy for a system to move into a new equilibrium.
seunosewa 6y ago
Yahoo was doing this way back in 2013 and Marissa Mayer banned it because it wasn’t working. What has changed since then apart from the pandemic? I expect most companies to go back to office work after the pandemic, for the same reasons why they were not doing much remote work before. In Apple’s case, IP theft is likely to be the trigger.
- raverbashing 6y ago
  "Wasn't working" based on what data? Yahoo was already down the drain at that point. Sounds like it was more about blaming the workers (and trying to shake things up) than anything else Though to be fair, video conferencing systems at the time weren't great
- notional 6y ago
  > Yahoo was doing this way back in 2013 and Marissa Mayer banned it because it wasn’t working. I've never seen anyone make the claim that Mayer banned it because 'it wasn't working'. That's quite a revisionist history take.
  - perpetualpatzer 6y ago
    Are you suggesting Yahoo getting rid of WFH wasn't an effort to boost employee performance? Or just objecting to the idea that "it wasn't working" suggests absolute performance was poor? Rereading the announcement memo[0], it seems pretty clear that the change flowed from a belief that being physically present would yield better work outcomes: "Speed and quality are often sacrificed when we work from home. We need to be one Yahoo!, and that starts with physically being together." [0] http://allthingsd.com/20130222/physically-together-heres-the-internal-yahoo-no-work-from-home-memo-which-extends-beyond-remote-workers/ http://allthingsd.com/20130222/physically-together-heres-the...
    - TomVDB 6y ago
      I wouldn't discount the possibility that this was a case of mistaken causation instead of correlation, and some kind of hail Mary pass. "Yahoo isn't doing great work, a lot of people work from home, it must be because they are working from home." Mayer's tenure at Yahoo wasn't exactly a great success...
baron_harkonnen 6y ago
HN has this bizarre obsession with remote work having anything to do with what's best for the employee. When in the history of office space have decisions ever been made because upper management thought "oh the employees will really like this!"? In one generation we've gone from everyone has an office with a door (even Homer Simpson has one!), to cube farms, to open offices. I've seen all of these and don't recall a single transition where employees thought "this is great!" The pandemic has made corporate leadership realize that people will continue to work and produce things no matter what, even if their kids are pulling on their arm all day, because they need to work to live. Additionally the benefits to corporations are obvious, reduced real estate is the just the tip of the iceberg. We've already seen companies can start thinking about reducing salaries based on location (which I can assure you will eventually translate to reduced salaries everywhere, why pay a premium for someone to live in SF 3 years from now?), the talent pool is now nation wide (and soon global) which will again reduce salaries. It's much easier to identify people who were just taking up space in the office and remove them. With no offices corporate travel becomes completely unnecessary etc. None of these advantages have anything to do with whether or not employees are happier, or even more productive.
- commandlinefan 6y ago
  > anything to do with what's best for the employee If open offices taught us anything, employers seem to be obsessed with finding what's the absolute worst for the employee, their productivity, the company, the stock price and the quality of the output.

Consider that it took a pandemic to get many SV companies to consider this. Forget employees advocating for it or workplace research, some external event had to force their hand first.

sharkweek 6y ago

I am guessing many didn’t want to be an early mover on such a paradigm shift.

ghaff 6y ago
Yeah, it's not even unreasonable that many companies were resistant to conduct a disruptive experiment on their own volition.
- _qulr 6y ago
  Apple Park cost $5 billion and took over a decade to design a build. I'd call that a lot more disruptive than experimenting with WFH.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    Building a new campus on the site of an existing tech company campus in the same city you're already located doesn't seem like a particularly risky experiment even if it cost a bunch of money.
    - _qulr 6y ago
      What is risk, besides time and money?
      - ghaff 6y ago
        Disrupting the business. Which at some level translates into time and money I guess but it seems different from "We handed over a bunch of money for something that it turns out we maybe didn't need." (Though Apple has tons of leased real estate in the Bay Area so I'm pretty sure they'll continue to find plenty of use for the campus.)
        _qulr 6y ago
        I don't think they just handed over money though. It was said that Apple Park was a singular focus of Jony Ive. It's difficult to find something more disruptive to Apple than taking away their head of design from the focusing on customer products.
- JSavageOne 6y ago
  The whole point is that it wasn't disruptive and even turned out better. Also it's not merely an "experiment", we're talking about peoples' lives here. People aren't just fungible resources to be commanded and lorded over like chattel. Workers have been fighting for the freedom to work remotely for decades now, and it's sad that it takes a pandemic for employers to start respecting their employees enough to allow them the basic freedom of not being chained to their open office desks like zoo animals.
  - ThrowawayR2 6y ago
    > "The whole point is that it wasn't disruptive and even turned out better." Turned out better for you, maybe, but not for everyone. There are plenty of people here on HN, including myself, who have said that they want to go back to the office, either full time or part time.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

dekervin 6y ago

An exogenous shock is almost alwyas needed. It provides energy for a system to move into a new equilibrium.

seunosewa 6y ago

Yahoo was doing this way back in 2013 and Marissa Mayer banned it because it wasn’t working. What has changed since then apart from the pandemic? I expect most companies to go back to office work after the pandemic, for the same reasons why they were not doing much remote work before. In Apple’s case, IP theft is likely to be the trigger.

raverbashing 6y ago
"Wasn't working" based on what data? Yahoo was already down the drain at that point. Sounds like it was more about blaming the workers (and trying to shake things up) than anything else Though to be fair, video conferencing systems at the time weren't great
notional 6y ago
> Yahoo was doing this way back in 2013 and Marissa Mayer banned it because it wasn’t working. I've never seen anyone make the claim that Mayer banned it because 'it wasn't working'. That's quite a revisionist history take.
- perpetualpatzer 6y ago
  Are you suggesting Yahoo getting rid of WFH wasn't an effort to boost employee performance? Or just objecting to the idea that "it wasn't working" suggests absolute performance was poor? Rereading the announcement memo[0], it seems pretty clear that the change flowed from a belief that being physically present would yield better work outcomes: "Speed and quality are often sacrificed when we work from home. We need to be one Yahoo!, and that starts with physically being together." [0] http://allthingsd.com/20130222/physically-together-heres-the-internal-yahoo-no-work-from-home-memo-which-extends-beyond-remote-workers/ http://allthingsd.com/20130222/physically-together-heres-the...
  - TomVDB 6y ago
    I wouldn't discount the possibility that this was a case of mistaken causation instead of correlation, and some kind of hail Mary pass. "Yahoo isn't doing great work, a lot of people work from home, it must be because they are working from home." Mayer's tenure at Yahoo wasn't exactly a great success...

baron_harkonnen 6y ago

HN has this bizarre obsession with remote work having anything to do with what's best for the employee. When in the history of office space have decisions ever been made because upper management thought "oh the employees will really like this!"? In one generation we've gone from everyone has an office with a door (even Homer Simpson has one!), to cube farms, to open offices. I've seen all of these and don't recall a single transition where employees thought "this is great!" The pandemic has made corporate leadership realize that people will continue to work and produce things no matter what, even if their kids are pulling on their arm all day, because they need to work to live. Additionally the benefits to corporations are obvious, reduced real estate is the just the tip of the iceberg. We've already seen companies can start thinking about reducing salaries based on location (which I can assure you will eventually translate to reduced salaries everywhere, why pay a premium for someone to live in SF 3 years from now?), the talent pool is now nation wide (and soon global) which will again reduce salaries. It's much easier to identify people who were just taking up space in the office and remove them. With no offices corporate travel becomes completely unnecessary etc. None of these advantages have anything to do with whether or not employees are happier, or even more productive.

commandlinefan 6y ago
> anything to do with what's best for the employee If open offices taught us anything, employers seem to be obsessed with finding what's the absolute worst for the employee, their productivity, the company, the stock price and the quality of the output.