5 ms·

I'm glad this works for you & others and that you are happy. However, every time WFH comes up here, people present their preferences as universally better or be

I'm glad this works for you & others and that you are happy. However, every time WFH comes up here, people present their preferences as universally better or best. I hate WFH but that is my preference. I really wish these discussions were more about how happy people are that they now have a choice instead of things being so authoritative. For clarity, I enjoy having a hard separation between home and work. If I'm at home, I'm more likely to be distracted with chores instead of working. I leave my laptop at work so I don't need to work off hours unless there is an emergency. I enjoy my 30 minute commute. I listen to podcasts or design board games. I understand I could do those at home, but I'm more likely to just watch a show or something instead of dedicating time to just listening to a podcast. I enjoy being around friends that I've worked with off and on for over 20 years. We go to lunch together and talk about life. Sometimes we play board games at lunch. I enjoy collaborating over a white board trying to solve a problem. It is sooo much easier to do that in person. I personally feel more part of a team in person than I do if we just communicate via Slack. But these are just the things that work for me. I don't expect anyone else to feel the way I do but there are lots of others out there like me too. I'm glad more companies have options for those with a preference.

b3morales 5y ago
Well said. Indeed, the whole "battle" over WFH should be about giving people the ability to choose what works best for them, not forcing either option. And that may even change for a particular person from year to year or job to job.
- ghaff 5y ago
  I agree. But the "battle" is at least partly around: - People who are technically allowed to WFH but who are concerned that co-workers/managers will pressure them to come in anyway and - People who want to come back into an office most days but don't want to come into a ghost town with most meetings over video anyway.
  - coliveira 5y ago
    > People who want to come back into an office most days but don't want to come into a ghost town with most meetings over video anyway. I think this battle is lost. Even if people go back to offices, a lot of meetings will happen over video anyway. This has been the norm in some large companies already.
    - lanstin 5y ago
      It's been considered best practice (at least according to the people I follow on twitter) that if 1 person is dialed in, the whole meeting is dialed in. The 5 people at a table and some other people on Webex or whatever just doesn't work.
      - ghaff 5y ago
        Yeah, I work with teams that have that as a rule. Pretty clearly it's a best practice in most contexts. (There are some exceptions like a scheduled on-site that someone can't travel to but for most things.) My guess is that a lot of people have noticed that video calls have been working better during the pandemic because of this.
rwmj 5y ago
As someone who has been working from home for 20 years, I've come to realise you need to be set up for it. I've gone from working in a spare bedroom to building a garden office, so there really is a hard separation between home and work.
enjo 5y ago
This is a really good point. To add to it, WFH has one clear massive weakness: the lack of face to face interaction leads to quite a bit of atrophy when it comes to team cohesion. I've been managing WFH teams for the better part of a decade and I've yet to find a satisfactory solution other than getting people together every couple of months to work on hard problems together and build some trust. I'm really bullish on the hybrid model right now. I think having an office designed more like a co-working space that can serve as a central meeting place for teams is what the future of software development looks like. No expectation that everyone is in the office every day, but rather reimagine the office more as a place where people come together when they really need (or want) too. We're experimenting with that now in my organization and the results so far are pretty good. Some people come in every day. Some people come in every now and then. Others come in when their teams needs them. We're continuing to use all of the best practices for remote work and I think people are finding a really good balance right now.
- thethought 5y ago
  >>> atrophy Have you consider team atrophy as a pre-existing/chronic condition which maynot have cure?
  - oblio 5y ago
    Probably not, because as with many of these studies, people that can impose their preference will do it and rationalize their preference. There was a study about US companies moving headquarters in the 60's. There would be planning committees, analyses, the whole shebang. This later study found that almost invariably the new HQ would be closer to the CEOs home/hometown/home state. Some of these companies even failed because obviously people working at the NY HQ would not necessarily want to move to the Texas HQ. In Romanian we say: "cine împarte, parte-și face": he who shares (does the sharing/gives things out), gets his share (cut).
- greggman3 5y ago
  I don't understand how the "work from the office one day a week" thing would work. If you mandate it's the same day for everyone then the office is empty 80% of the time. That's a huge waste of money. If you don't mandate everyone come in on the same day then all the benefits of being face to face disappear because the person you need/want to be face to face with chose a different day.
sgt 5y ago
I have worked in IT for two decades and usually I spend some time working on something in the evenings as well. If you make a clear separation, it's hard to spend time on expanding your knowledge, whether the goal is to use it for the next day at work or for own personal programming / tech projects. WFH lets me mix those two a lot more and become more efficient. There's less interruptions since I am not going to the office, and also I have supreme "quiet time" after work, usually between 9pm and midnight.
enraged_camel 5y ago
>>I enjoy my 30 minute commute. I listen to podcasts or design board games. I understand I could do those at home, but I'm more likely to just watch a show or something instead of dedicating time to just listening to a podcast. You don't have to do them at home. Take a 20-30 minute walk before work and it'll be the same thing, plus you'll also get some exercise!
standardUser 5y ago
If most people had an enjoyable 30 minute commute like you do, there would be a lot more people who agree with you. It's not that working in person doesn't have tons of meaningful benefits (to most people), it's that 10 hours of miserable commuting every week is such a soul-sucking curse that a lot of people would trade almost anything to get rid of it.
- _zamorano_ 5y ago
  I agree. In my case, living in a medium size city of Spain, I get a 30 minute commute from to the office, driving on a very good condition highway, on low-medium density traffic. For me, a relaxing listening audiobooks while safely driving is like a warm-up for my workday. An activity I wouldn't have time otherwise. And the same, in my way back home.
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago
  At one point in my career I had a 30 minute commute on a two-land road through beautiful hilly vineyards, and I'd end up at the beach where I could watch the sunset. Even if my workday was hellish, by the time I got home i felt great. At another point in my career I had a 30 minute commute in stop-and-go traffic on an ugly highway. It was soul crushing - I could feel the minutes being stolen from my life. Too many people quantify commutes in minutes, but should probably be looking at the drive itself when choosing a job or a home.

b3morales 5y ago

Well said. Indeed, the whole "battle" over WFH should be about giving people the ability to choose what works best for them, not forcing either option. And that may even change for a particular person from year to year or job to job.

ghaff 5y ago
I agree. But the "battle" is at least partly around: - People who are technically allowed to WFH but who are concerned that co-workers/managers will pressure them to come in anyway and - People who want to come back into an office most days but don't want to come into a ghost town with most meetings over video anyway.
- coliveira 5y ago
  > People who want to come back into an office most days but don't want to come into a ghost town with most meetings over video anyway. I think this battle is lost. Even if people go back to offices, a lot of meetings will happen over video anyway. This has been the norm in some large companies already.
  - lanstin 5y ago
    It's been considered best practice (at least according to the people I follow on twitter) that if 1 person is dialed in, the whole meeting is dialed in. The 5 people at a table and some other people on Webex or whatever just doesn't work.
    - ghaff 5y ago
      Yeah, I work with teams that have that as a rule. Pretty clearly it's a best practice in most contexts. (There are some exceptions like a scheduled on-site that someone can't travel to but for most things.) My guess is that a lot of people have noticed that video calls have been working better during the pandemic because of this.

rwmj 5y ago

As someone who has been working from home for 20 years, I've come to realise you need to be set up for it. I've gone from working in a spare bedroom to building a garden office, so there really is a hard separation between home and work.

enjo 5y ago

This is a really good point. To add to it, WFH has one clear massive weakness: the lack of face to face interaction leads to quite a bit of atrophy when it comes to team cohesion. I've been managing WFH teams for the better part of a decade and I've yet to find a satisfactory solution other than getting people together every couple of months to work on hard problems together and build some trust. I'm really bullish on the hybrid model right now. I think having an office designed more like a co-working space that can serve as a central meeting place for teams is what the future of software development looks like. No expectation that everyone is in the office every day, but rather reimagine the office more as a place where people come together when they really need (or want) too. We're experimenting with that now in my organization and the results so far are pretty good. Some people come in every day. Some people come in every now and then. Others come in when their teams needs them. We're continuing to use all of the best practices for remote work and I think people are finding a really good balance right now.

thethought 5y ago
>>> atrophy Have you consider team atrophy as a pre-existing/chronic condition which maynot have cure?
- oblio 5y ago
  Probably not, because as with many of these studies, people that can impose their preference will do it and rationalize their preference. There was a study about US companies moving headquarters in the 60's. There would be planning committees, analyses, the whole shebang. This later study found that almost invariably the new HQ would be closer to the CEOs home/hometown/home state. Some of these companies even failed because obviously people working at the NY HQ would not necessarily want to move to the Texas HQ. In Romanian we say: "cine împarte, parte-și face": he who shares (does the sharing/gives things out), gets his share (cut).
greggman3 5y ago
I don't understand how the "work from the office one day a week" thing would work. If you mandate it's the same day for everyone then the office is empty 80% of the time. That's a huge waste of money. If you don't mandate everyone come in on the same day then all the benefits of being face to face disappear because the person you need/want to be face to face with chose a different day.

sgt 5y ago

I have worked in IT for two decades and usually I spend some time working on something in the evenings as well. If you make a clear separation, it's hard to spend time on expanding your knowledge, whether the goal is to use it for the next day at work or for own personal programming / tech projects. WFH lets me mix those two a lot more and become more efficient. There's less interruptions since I am not going to the office, and also I have supreme "quiet time" after work, usually between 9pm and midnight.

enraged_camel 5y ago

>>I enjoy my 30 minute commute. I listen to podcasts or design board games. I understand I could do those at home, but I'm more likely to just watch a show or something instead of dedicating time to just listening to a podcast. You don't have to do them at home. Take a 20-30 minute walk before work and it'll be the same thing, plus you'll also get some exercise!

standardUser 5y ago

If most people had an enjoyable 30 minute commute like you do, there would be a lot more people who agree with you. It's not that working in person doesn't have tons of meaningful benefits (to most people), it's that 10 hours of miserable commuting every week is such a soul-sucking curse that a lot of people would trade almost anything to get rid of it.

_zamorano_ 5y ago
I agree. In my case, living in a medium size city of Spain, I get a 30 minute commute from to the office, driving on a very good condition highway, on low-medium density traffic. For me, a relaxing listening audiobooks while safely driving is like a warm-up for my workday. An activity I wouldn't have time otherwise. And the same, in my way back home.
rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago
At one point in my career I had a 30 minute commute on a two-land road through beautiful hilly vineyards, and I'd end up at the beach where I could watch the sunset. Even if my workday was hellish, by the time I got home i felt great. At another point in my career I had a 30 minute commute in stop-and-go traffic on an ugly highway. It was soul crushing - I could feel the minutes being stolen from my life. Too many people quantify commutes in minutes, but should probably be looking at the drive itself when choosing a job or a home.