3 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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 agoIt'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 agoYeah, 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.