4 ms·

With this policy, you'll keep the 20% capable staff. Anyone else (except a few both too afraid to leave and too comfy with their current pay) will leave. That'

With this policy, you'll keep the 20% capable staff. Anyone else (except a few both too afraid to leave and too comfy with their current pay) will leave. That'll leave you with a few 10x staff, too lazy to leave, but capable, and a lot of ballast.

kozikow 5y ago
I forgot to add that our office is not in San Francisco, so you can get decently priced apartment within walking distance to the office, without people injecting heroin at your front door and a good public transport.
chefkoch 5y ago
I think you underestimate how many people like the socialising in the office if you have a relativly short commute.
- loco5niner 5y ago
  I prefer socializing with the people of my choosing
- nightski 5y ago
  I used to like it. About 10 years ago I went into consulting from home. I've developed much richer friendships outside of the office and like to go out in the evenings with them instead of coworkers. I've also become more engaged with my local technology/software community. It's nice to be able to lose a client or job and not worry about losing my friends. YMMV.
  - codegeek 5y ago
    Now think about you when you did like it. What was your situation/life back then ? There are plenty of people who are you from that time. They do like going into office. So the argument here is that it is not one size fits all and just like there are plenty of arguments FOR wfh, there are plenty against it. YMMV
    - nightski 5y ago
      No need to be defensive, I agree with you. Both sides are valid. But according to the OP employers want to kill WFH, not vice versa. I will say though thinking back to those times I was younger and more naive. I was a slave to that employer, often there until 8-9 at night. My life revolved around them. It wasn't healthy.
      - codegeek 5y ago
        No worries. I am also not arguing for office only and if employers are trying to kill WFH completely, that is a bad move and will not work.
adjkant 5y ago
Your points weighs heavily on a lot of implicit parts of the value equation you left out. 1. That 20% number. What if it's 40%? 50%? 2. How easy/quick is it to replace the people you will lose who don't prefer this work style? 3. What percentage of your current workforce likes the environment as described? Maybe hiring off the street is 20%, but you've already selected for 80% through other selection factors. Basically, at what point does the value gained from the in person work / setup overtake the loss of potential workforce? You're making an argument for why some people won't want to work there, but so long as the environment is not discriminating on things like race/gender/ability, a partial in person setup may actually be the right call for some teams/companies, without any "luring" needed. I say all this as someone who primarily prefers to work at home now, but goes into the office once a week or so without any requirement to do so. I agree with OP's initial points a lot, though I think I would lean less towards requirements and more towards guides.
- R0b0t1 5y ago
  For 1 it's the Pareto distribution. I've seen it normal that 80% of the people do 20% of the work, and the top 20% do 80% of it. He's saying you'll keep the lower 80%.
  - adjkant 5y ago
    Ah, I misunderstood then. I see that as a total misapplication then, as it actually assumes way worse - that 100% of the people would not like this work condition described, which is evidently false as OP has a company of people working in that. The question still remains though: what percentage of people would choose to stay / join this environment?

kozikow 5y ago

I forgot to add that our office is not in San Francisco, so you can get decently priced apartment within walking distance to the office, without people injecting heroin at your front door and a good public transport.

chefkoch 5y ago

I think you underestimate how many people like the socialising in the office if you have a relativly short commute.

loco5niner 5y ago
I prefer socializing with the people of my choosing
nightski 5y ago
I used to like it. About 10 years ago I went into consulting from home. I've developed much richer friendships outside of the office and like to go out in the evenings with them instead of coworkers. I've also become more engaged with my local technology/software community. It's nice to be able to lose a client or job and not worry about losing my friends. YMMV.
- codegeek 5y ago
  Now think about you when you did like it. What was your situation/life back then ? There are plenty of people who are you from that time. They do like going into office. So the argument here is that it is not one size fits all and just like there are plenty of arguments FOR wfh, there are plenty against it. YMMV
  - nightski 5y ago
    No need to be defensive, I agree with you. Both sides are valid. But according to the OP employers want to kill WFH, not vice versa. I will say though thinking back to those times I was younger and more naive. I was a slave to that employer, often there until 8-9 at night. My life revolved around them. It wasn't healthy.
    - codegeek 5y ago
      No worries. I am also not arguing for office only and if employers are trying to kill WFH completely, that is a bad move and will not work.

adjkant 5y ago

Your points weighs heavily on a lot of implicit parts of the value equation you left out. 1. That 20% number. What if it's 40%? 50%? 2. How easy/quick is it to replace the people you will lose who don't prefer this work style? 3. What percentage of your current workforce likes the environment as described? Maybe hiring off the street is 20%, but you've already selected for 80% through other selection factors. Basically, at what point does the value gained from the in person work / setup overtake the loss of potential workforce? You're making an argument for why some people won't want to work there, but so long as the environment is not discriminating on things like race/gender/ability, a partial in person setup may actually be the right call for some teams/companies, without any "luring" needed. I say all this as someone who primarily prefers to work at home now, but goes into the office once a week or so without any requirement to do so. I agree with OP's initial points a lot, though I think I would lean less towards requirements and more towards guides.

R0b0t1 5y ago
For 1 it's the Pareto distribution. I've seen it normal that 80% of the people do 20% of the work, and the top 20% do 80% of it. He's saying you'll keep the lower 80%.
- adjkant 5y ago
  Ah, I misunderstood then. I see that as a total misapplication then, as it actually assumes way worse - that 100% of the people would not like this work condition described, which is evidently false as OP has a company of people working in that. The question still remains though: what percentage of people would choose to stay / join this environment?