4 ms·

For me, either I can go to the office 90% of the time or I can burn out from being alone at home and only talking to people via chat/video. My personal live is

For me, either I can go to the office 90% of the time or I can burn out from being alone at home and only talking to people via chat/video. My personal live is qualitatively better when I go to work most of the time. There are tradeoffs but on the whole the benefits of WFH (less interruptions) don't make up for the isolation. In the same way working 60-80hrs a week will start being more productive at the start but eventually burn most people out, at least for me and people like me, not hanging out with others will do the same thing. It's a balance for me. Too little direct interaction, short breaks, sharing lunches, having non-work related conversations, will end up decreasing my over all productivity. You're welcome to WFH but I personally hope you're in the minority because if no one but me goes to the office then it's just as bad as WFH for me.

hyko 6y ago
I’m not suggesting WFH is right for everyone; I think you should have the right to work the way you need to, as you know yourself and your work best. I personally feel you have nothing to fear in terms of numbers, because there’s an enormous bias towards IRL work for both strong and weak reasons. I think one of the major challenges for an organisation is how to get peak performance from a diverse team (in terms of life circumstances and personality) and still maintain one culture and a ‘team mind’ where everyone is safe and content with their work. I’m not a WFH evangelist really: remote is just another modality, with its own costs and benefits. It just doesn’t seem to get a fair hearing in a lot of places.
alibarber 6y ago
I'm in exactly the same position. My worry is, even if there's this move to both WFH and office, at some point 'office' is going to become an expense and be cut and then there's no choice. I am too cynical to believe that companies want to push WFH for good and nice warm fuzzy reasons. Also I feel for the people who's work was supporting workers in, y'know, work. I no longer live there, but even a crappy day in London for me was brightened by the countless interactions with people, the guy in the magazine shop, a new hipster pop up cafe, the street vendors selling exciting new food. Will they work from home?

hyko 6y ago

I’m not suggesting WFH is right for everyone; I think you should have the right to work the way you need to, as you know yourself and your work best. I personally feel you have nothing to fear in terms of numbers, because there’s an enormous bias towards IRL work for both strong and weak reasons. I think one of the major challenges for an organisation is how to get peak performance from a diverse team (in terms of life circumstances and personality) and still maintain one culture and a ‘team mind’ where everyone is safe and content with their work. I’m not a WFH evangelist really: remote is just another modality, with its own costs and benefits. It just doesn’t seem to get a fair hearing in a lot of places.

alibarber 6y ago

I'm in exactly the same position. My worry is, even if there's this move to both WFH and office, at some point 'office' is going to become an expense and be cut and then there's no choice. I am too cynical to believe that companies want to push WFH for good and nice warm fuzzy reasons. Also I feel for the people who's work was supporting workers in, y'know, work. I no longer live there, but even a crappy day in London for me was brightened by the countless interactions with people, the guy in the magazine shop, a new hipster pop up cafe, the street vendors selling exciting new food. Will they work from home?