3 ms·

3 days office. 2 days home. That's what most people want where I work.

rossdavidh 6y ago
I have done that before, and it worked well. Not completely without downsides, but definitely the best of both worlds (for programmers, anyway).
ipaddr 6y ago
It sounds good but you don't have a decicated workspace as everyone rotates pods and you lose the face to face advantage because no one is there on on the same days because there are not enough seats / pods. Everyone ends up coming in for townhall type meetings and there are not enough workspaces.
- cobalt 6y ago
  depends on where you work. my last job did that (~20 engineers) and everyone had a dedicated desk
  - ipaddr 6y ago
    I like that better. My old company went rotating because they wanted a space in a certain building and had to settle for a smaller space. At that point you lose the benefits. If you keep the full space you lose out on rent savings.
ganoushoreilly 6y ago
This is the best of both worlds I think. I've always allowed employees to work their own hours as long as we tend to a core of 10-2. Some had 4 day work weeks, and worked in the office, many others would do one day in, one day out or some other combination. I find it makes it easier for people to co-ordinate normal life tasks like going to the bank etc. as well as work around all those things that pop up. We're definitely going to see more hybridization and I think now that the number crunchers realize they can save on physical space (we cut down our 5 offices to only one still active), the savings will far outweigh the losses on paper. I do think there is value in understanding nuance with an in person conversation though so i'm not sure 100% WF is the best long term plan.
wott 6y ago
I really don't like this kind of in-between. * You're still stuck having to live near your work place (unless you are one of the few people who enjoy extra-long commutes). * You need to have your stuff in two places, or move it several time a week (if you need or like to have stuff). * It is a mess to coordinate, to know who's going to be there or not; if you hoped to meet Person A and Person B in the same stay; and so on. * Remote becomes second class citizen. A remote situation which isn't thought as remote-first organisation is a pain. Too much information circulates off-band. Decision are taken without people which were remote that day. You basically just wait for people to come physically to get things done. Remote becomes some sort of bastardised day off.
- pdimitar 6y ago
  100% agreed. Remote just doesn't work when it's not all-in. I am mind-blown that this is not obvious to so many.

I have done that before, and it worked well. Not completely without downsides, but definitely the best of both worlds (for programmers, anyway).

ipaddr 6y ago

It sounds good but you don't have a decicated workspace as everyone rotates pods and you lose the face to face advantage because no one is there on on the same days because there are not enough seats / pods. Everyone ends up coming in for townhall type meetings and there are not enough workspaces.

cobalt 6y ago
depends on where you work. my last job did that (~20 engineers) and everyone had a dedicated desk
- ipaddr 6y ago
  I like that better. My old company went rotating because they wanted a space in a certain building and had to settle for a smaller space. At that point you lose the benefits. If you keep the full space you lose out on rent savings.

ganoushoreilly 6y ago

This is the best of both worlds I think. I've always allowed employees to work their own hours as long as we tend to a core of 10-2. Some had 4 day work weeks, and worked in the office, many others would do one day in, one day out or some other combination. I find it makes it easier for people to co-ordinate normal life tasks like going to the bank etc. as well as work around all those things that pop up. We're definitely going to see more hybridization and I think now that the number crunchers realize they can save on physical space (we cut down our 5 offices to only one still active), the savings will far outweigh the losses on paper. I do think there is value in understanding nuance with an in person conversation though so i'm not sure 100% WF is the best long term plan.

wott 6y ago

I really don't like this kind of in-between. * You're still stuck having to live near your work place (unless you are one of the few people who enjoy extra-long commutes). * You need to have your stuff in two places, or move it several time a week (if you need or like to have stuff). * It is a mess to coordinate, to know who's going to be there or not; if you hoped to meet Person A and Person B in the same stay; and so on. * Remote becomes second class citizen. A remote situation which isn't thought as remote-first organisation is a pain. Too much information circulates off-band. Decision are taken without people which were remote that day. You basically just wait for people to come physically to get things done. Remote becomes some sort of bastardised day off.

pdimitar 6y ago
100% agreed. Remote just doesn't work when it's not all-in. I am mind-blown that this is not obvious to so many.