4 ms·

Managers are getting a pretty bad rap in these threads, and maybe (or maybe not) in BigCo’s that’s reasonable, but I run a tiny shop and I’ve asked my team to c

Managers are getting a pretty bad rap in these threads, and maybe (or maybe not) in BigCo’s that’s reasonable, but I run a tiny shop and I’ve asked my team to come to the office as often as possible, despite the fact that half of us have been working together for years - and we get on just fine online. The reason is that the other half of the team haven’t got this experience; they are young and relatively inexperienced, and I want them to see how we work, how we solve problems, how their peers communicate and how we think about different aspects of the business. I want to be able to jump on the whiteboard at a moments notice and maybe pull in a couple of others, while other people in the office can also listen in. This is every bit as important to the professional growth of our juniors as it is to my new business. If the sales guy and I are having a discussion and the junior front end developer hears us, he gets a sense of how we work that he’ll never get if the meeting is held in PMs on Slack or Discord. I have no problem with WFH in principle, but my position is, if you are able to come in, then come in. If you have kids or other commitments then fine, work from home a couple of days a week. But by default, it’s better for everyone if you’re in the office. I know this doesn’t work for all companies, but its not like this policy is poorly considered or arbitrary. I guess my company is going to attract people who prefer this mode of operation, and I know other companies are WFH first. But there are reasons for why we do what we do.

logicslave 5y ago
Right, so you want whats best for you and your profitability, with no consideration of the expense to the employee.
cookiengineer 5y ago
I think that most people that hate working in the office don't hate it because of the office - they hate it because of focus quality. A social obligation here, a senseless chat there, a coffee here...a person reminding you about an unimportant email there. There are just way too many distractions from work, at work. And those distractions are what people describe as "corporate life" because corporates over-micro-managed everything. Open office spaces are horrible, except for the people not having to work in them - which coincidentially always decide pro open office work space. If the work culture is manifested in interrupting your colleagues over unimportant stuff all the time, it's perceived as toxic by engineering people because they lose valueable focus time. That is essentially what it boils down to. Add the additional time required to get there (and costs on the side of the employee for commute) and you have the perfect formula to get rid of quality work people. While there are upsides of working in the office, there's also huge downsides that management likes to ignore in the discussion.
acituan 5y ago
> they are young and relatively inexperienced, and I want them to see how we work, how we solve problems, how their peers communicate and how we think about different aspects of the business. You basically want the seniors' suffer the uncompensated inconveniences of WFO so that the juniors can grow. > This is every bit as important to the professional growth of our juniors as it is to my new business. This is not altruism though, juniors' professional growth is important for your business growth. > if you are able to come in, then come in. If you have kids or other commitments then fine, work from home a couple of days a week. We know from "unlimited time off" experiments that the game theory of this doesn't play off that way. People will race to bottom yielding to tacit peer and management pressure. > I know this doesn’t work for all companies, but its not like this policy is poorly considered or arbitrary ... But there are reasons for why we do what we do. No one is saying it is arbitrary. It works better for management. And management makes the calls. That's the reason. > I guess my company is going to attract people who prefer this mode of operation Or lose the talent that prefers to have more agency on their work conditions.
- austhrow743 5y ago
  Presumably they pay their employees.
  - doctor_eval 5y ago
    Yeah and also “work from office” and “mentor juniors” is in the PD and the contract. It’s not like we were being underhanded. If they didn’t like it, they wouldn’t have signed on.
    - acituan 5y ago
      That's asking for perfect foresight; the job market structure have drastically changed while they are in contract and WFH is now a competitive advantage in the labor market. That results in being shortchanged.
      - doctor_eval 5y ago
fergie 5y ago
"I guess my company is going to attract people who prefer this mode of operation, and I know other companies are WFH first" It will be interesting to see if discouraging WFH can actually be an advantage when it comes to recruitment and retention, but when all of the main players in tech are embracing WFH, its hard to see how smaller players can sell "no WFH" as a benefit.
- doctor_eval 5y ago
  Is this statement true, that all the main players in tech are WFH first? Didn't Apple just announce 3 days WFO are mandatory? But in any case, I'm no FAANG, and I was just trying to explain the motivation for my preference that people WFO where possible. I wouldn't say I see it as a competitive recruitment advantage, but I'm yet to be convinced it's a disadvantage either.
voxl 5y ago
> I have no problem with WFH in principle, but my position is, if you are able to come in, then come in. If you have kids or other commitments then fine, work from home a couple of days a week. But by default, it’s better for everyone if you’re in the office. Lets hope to god there is a large enough demand for WFH that your position becomes intolerable for more companies. I think having access to on office as an option is great, but thinking its "better" is a unfounded claim.
- doctor_eval 5y ago
  But so is WFH! I’ve literally had a guy beg me to WFO. Surely a better world would have a diversity of options? Or are we one size fits all now? (That size being the one that fits you)
alksjoflkajsom 5y ago
>Managers are getting a pretty bad rap in these threads, and maybe (or maybe not) in BigCo’s that’s reasonable, but I run a tiny shop and I’ve asked my team to come to the office as often as possible, despite the fact that half of us have been working together for years - and we get on just fine online. In my BigCo job, your run-of-the-mill managers don't have any influence on this stuff. The high-level decisions are being made by executives who are at least four or five layers of reports away from the masses of ICs (eg the CEO is seven hops above me on my management chain), and whose entire job--as well as the entire job of everybody they come in contact with--consists of attending meetings. We experience the company and the workplace in vastly different ways, and articles & discussions like this are the result of that disconnect.
marcus_holmes 5y ago
Have you actually asked your team if they feel the same way, though? (and I mean actually asked, not just "hey bud, you're happy with coming into the office, right?") I used to whiteboard out problems with the whole team. I loved it. We had a couple of star employees who were really good at coming up with ideas and sketching them out. Being able to get the whole team on-side for a problem and understanding the answer was great. Then I discovered (overheard conversation at a social function) that half the team absolutely hated them. I followed up in 1-to-1 meetings, and yes, over half the team didn't enjoy them, didn't feel they could contribute, and saw them as a waste of everyone's time (and saw them as me ego grandstanding). The couple of "stars" did enjoy them, and thought they were great. During my MBA, I discovered this is common. Introverts don't enjoy this kind of interaction, and don't benefit from it. Some people don't come up with ideas by "vibing" off others - they come up with ideas by themselves. Some people can't talk about an idea until it's complete - the whole idea of "talking through" an idea to completion gives them the shudders, and doesn't work for them. You may find, after digging, that (like me) you're doing what you love, and not what the team benefits from.
- katbyte 5y ago
  Everyone on my team is different from goals to what makes them happy to how they work, cant expect them all to work the same and management is figuring out what’s best for each one
  - pdimitar 5y ago
    That's too wide a generalization. I believe your parent poster simply outlined the two polar opposites and that if somebody doesn't thrive in an environment where ideas are "bounced back and forth" then you shouldn't mandate them attending such sessions. Nothing else.
    - doctor_eval 5y ago
      If they don't thrive in that environment, maybe they are in the wrong environment? Is it important that the org bends to the will of a subset of workers with specific preferences, or is it important that we get a group of people who are going to get the work done? I suppose I'm firmly in the latter group. I have goals that I need to achieve; I need a crew that can achieve them; and whoever I pick necessarily has to be aligned with the way that I work, because it's on me - and only on me - if I fail.
hycaria 5y ago
I am rather junior and recently joined a fully remote team. The culture is so geared towards written documentation that it's honestly not a problem. Every one is extra careful about writing up extra detailed instructions for the youngsters. Also, I'm spending a good chunk of time exploring and researching by myself obviously, but I consider that a perk since one tend to learn better that way.
- doctor_eval 5y ago
  I dunno man, documentation is way different to what happens in person. I’m sure you’ll learn heaps, but I think what you learn will be qualitatively different from what you’d learn in an office. Maybe not better or worse, but certainly different. Good luck to you though! Welcome to the industry.
  - hycaria 5y ago
    I have worked for a few years in person before too. About quality I'm not really sure. It's probably dependent on the company / team you join. But it's true that I got most of my workstation/tooling out of my previous supervisor, who installed his stuff since I had no preference and it made it more similar to his own machine, making the process of helping me on my desk easier. That probably would not happen remotely :)

logicslave 5y ago

Right, so you want whats best for you and your profitability, with no consideration of the expense to the employee.

cookiengineer 5y ago

I think that most people that hate working in the office don't hate it because of the office - they hate it because of focus quality. A social obligation here, a senseless chat there, a coffee here...a person reminding you about an unimportant email there. There are just way too many distractions from work, at work. And those distractions are what people describe as "corporate life" because corporates over-micro-managed everything. Open office spaces are horrible, except for the people not having to work in them - which coincidentially always decide pro open office work space. If the work culture is manifested in interrupting your colleagues over unimportant stuff all the time, it's perceived as toxic by engineering people because they lose valueable focus time. That is essentially what it boils down to. Add the additional time required to get there (and costs on the side of the employee for commute) and you have the perfect formula to get rid of quality work people. While there are upsides of working in the office, there's also huge downsides that management likes to ignore in the discussion.

acituan 5y ago

> they are young and relatively inexperienced, and I want them to see how we work, how we solve problems, how their peers communicate and how we think about different aspects of the business. You basically want the seniors' suffer the uncompensated inconveniences of WFO so that the juniors can grow. > This is every bit as important to the professional growth of our juniors as it is to my new business. This is not altruism though, juniors' professional growth is important for your business growth. > if you are able to come in, then come in. If you have kids or other commitments then fine, work from home a couple of days a week. We know from "unlimited time off" experiments that the game theory of this doesn't play off that way. People will race to bottom yielding to tacit peer and management pressure. > I know this doesn’t work for all companies, but its not like this policy is poorly considered or arbitrary ... But there are reasons for why we do what we do. No one is saying it is arbitrary. It works better for management. And management makes the calls. That's the reason. > I guess my company is going to attract people who prefer this mode of operation Or lose the talent that prefers to have more agency on their work conditions.

austhrow743 5y ago
Presumably they pay their employees.
- doctor_eval 5y ago
  Yeah and also “work from office” and “mentor juniors” is in the PD and the contract. It’s not like we were being underhanded. If they didn’t like it, they wouldn’t have signed on.
  - acituan 5y ago
    That's asking for perfect foresight; the job market structure have drastically changed while they are in contract and WFH is now a competitive advantage in the labor market. That results in being shortchanged.
    - doctor_eval 5y ago

fergie 5y ago

"I guess my company is going to attract people who prefer this mode of operation, and I know other companies are WFH first" It will be interesting to see if discouraging WFH can actually be an advantage when it comes to recruitment and retention, but when all of the main players in tech are embracing WFH, its hard to see how smaller players can sell "no WFH" as a benefit.

doctor_eval 5y ago
Is this statement true, that all the main players in tech are WFH first? Didn't Apple just announce 3 days WFO are mandatory? But in any case, I'm no FAANG, and I was just trying to explain the motivation for my preference that people WFO where possible. I wouldn't say I see it as a competitive recruitment advantage, but I'm yet to be convinced it's a disadvantage either.

voxl 5y ago

> I have no problem with WFH in principle, but my position is, if you are able to come in, then come in. If you have kids or other commitments then fine, work from home a couple of days a week. But by default, it’s better for everyone if you’re in the office. Lets hope to god there is a large enough demand for WFH that your position becomes intolerable for more companies. I think having access to on office as an option is great, but thinking its "better" is a unfounded claim.

doctor_eval 5y ago
But so is WFH! I’ve literally had a guy beg me to WFO. Surely a better world would have a diversity of options? Or are we one size fits all now? (That size being the one that fits you)

alksjoflkajsom 5y ago

>Managers are getting a pretty bad rap in these threads, and maybe (or maybe not) in BigCo’s that’s reasonable, but I run a tiny shop and I’ve asked my team to come to the office as often as possible, despite the fact that half of us have been working together for years - and we get on just fine online. In my BigCo job, your run-of-the-mill managers don't have any influence on this stuff. The high-level decisions are being made by executives who are at least four or five layers of reports away from the masses of ICs (eg the CEO is seven hops above me on my management chain), and whose entire job--as well as the entire job of everybody they come in contact with--consists of attending meetings. We experience the company and the workplace in vastly different ways, and articles & discussions like this are the result of that disconnect.

marcus_holmes 5y ago

Have you actually asked your team if they feel the same way, though? (and I mean actually asked, not just "hey bud, you're happy with coming into the office, right?") I used to whiteboard out problems with the whole team. I loved it. We had a couple of star employees who were really good at coming up with ideas and sketching them out. Being able to get the whole team on-side for a problem and understanding the answer was great. Then I discovered (overheard conversation at a social function) that half the team absolutely hated them. I followed up in 1-to-1 meetings, and yes, over half the team didn't enjoy them, didn't feel they could contribute, and saw them as a waste of everyone's time (and saw them as me ego grandstanding). The couple of "stars" did enjoy them, and thought they were great. During my MBA, I discovered this is common. Introverts don't enjoy this kind of interaction, and don't benefit from it. Some people don't come up with ideas by "vibing" off others - they come up with ideas by themselves. Some people can't talk about an idea until it's complete - the whole idea of "talking through" an idea to completion gives them the shudders, and doesn't work for them. You may find, after digging, that (like me) you're doing what you love, and not what the team benefits from.

katbyte 5y ago
Everyone on my team is different from goals to what makes them happy to how they work, cant expect them all to work the same and management is figuring out what’s best for each one
- pdimitar 5y ago
  That's too wide a generalization. I believe your parent poster simply outlined the two polar opposites and that if somebody doesn't thrive in an environment where ideas are "bounced back and forth" then you shouldn't mandate them attending such sessions. Nothing else.
  - doctor_eval 5y ago
    If they don't thrive in that environment, maybe they are in the wrong environment? Is it important that the org bends to the will of a subset of workers with specific preferences, or is it important that we get a group of people who are going to get the work done? I suppose I'm firmly in the latter group. I have goals that I need to achieve; I need a crew that can achieve them; and whoever I pick necessarily has to be aligned with the way that I work, because it's on me - and only on me - if I fail.

hycaria 5y ago

I am rather junior and recently joined a fully remote team. The culture is so geared towards written documentation that it's honestly not a problem. Every one is extra careful about writing up extra detailed instructions for the youngsters. Also, I'm spending a good chunk of time exploring and researching by myself obviously, but I consider that a perk since one tend to learn better that way.

doctor_eval 5y ago
I dunno man, documentation is way different to what happens in person. I’m sure you’ll learn heaps, but I think what you learn will be qualitatively different from what you’d learn in an office. Maybe not better or worse, but certainly different. Good luck to you though! Welcome to the industry.
- hycaria 5y ago
  I have worked for a few years in person before too. About quality I'm not really sure. It's probably dependent on the company / team you join. But it's true that I got most of my workstation/tooling out of my previous supervisor, who installed his stuff since I had no preference and it made it more similar to his own machine, making the process of helping me on my desk easier. That probably would not happen remotely :)