3 ms·

Here we go with the whole "100% remote or nothing" thing. There are plenty of reasons why it cannot work: - Entry Level employees who have never worked remote

Here we go with the whole "100% remote or nothing" thing. There are plenty of reasons why it cannot work: - Entry Level employees who have never worked remote and need a lot of training/guidance. Their chance of failure goes up significantly if they have to wfh. - Some people prefer to work from office as their home situation is not conducive for remote work. Lot of young people or even families literally live in shitty/tiny apartments where they hardly have space for desk. - Some people just prefer to work from dedicated office even though they CAN work from home (I am one of those). Social animals. Whatever you wanna call them. I love interacting with my team, co workers etc. - Some people actually enjoy a reasonable commute on a train/subway/bike etc. Yes, shocking right ? It allows them to get out of their house, get fresh air and take their minds off their house a little. I keep saying this and will say it. This is not a binary thing. The best option is Hybrid where it should be a combination and people should have flexibility. Keyword is flexibility. I am however getting tired of this "100% remote is the future blah blah" crowd.

decafninja 5y ago
The problem is that when offering flexibility, the WFO person is dependent on at least the majority of coworkers also being (forced?) to WFO to derive the often touted benefits of WFO. Meanwhile the WFH person is not dependent on their coworkers being WFO or WFH. What happens to the WFO person when a company/team offers the flexibility to WFH or WFO, but the majority of the team choose to WFH?
- codegeek 5y ago
  Depends if it is 100% WFH or hybrid ? Regardless though, unless you literally are the only person in office, I don't see that as an issue.
  - Wowfunhappy 5y ago
    The advantage of the office is that I can go over and talk to people as needed without going through the process of scheduling a call. While I of course do my best to not bother others too often, I can usually glance at someone's desk to get a sense of how "in the zone" they are, and most discussions are mutually beneficial. Having one other person in the office is great when they are also the one person I need to talk to, and pretty useless otherwise. Having 50% of people are in the office is useful around 50% of the time, and so on. And then there are meetings. IMO, meetings suck if even one person is remote, because we basically all have to gather around the camera instead of sitting around a table and facing each other like normal human beings. This might be better at big companies that can afford fancy conference room camera setups; I wouldn't know.
dmitrygr 5y ago
> Their chance of failure goes up significantly if they have to wfh. That is quite a bold claim to make with no citation. Just because something is "intuitive" to you does not make it so, as history shows. Please cite your sources for this claim.

decafninja 5y ago

The problem is that when offering flexibility, the WFO person is dependent on at least the majority of coworkers also being (forced?) to WFO to derive the often touted benefits of WFO. Meanwhile the WFH person is not dependent on their coworkers being WFO or WFH. What happens to the WFO person when a company/team offers the flexibility to WFH or WFO, but the majority of the team choose to WFH?

codegeek 5y ago
Depends if it is 100% WFH or hybrid ? Regardless though, unless you literally are the only person in office, I don't see that as an issue.
- Wowfunhappy 5y ago
  The advantage of the office is that I can go over and talk to people as needed without going through the process of scheduling a call. While I of course do my best to not bother others too often, I can usually glance at someone's desk to get a sense of how "in the zone" they are, and most discussions are mutually beneficial. Having one other person in the office is great when they are also the one person I need to talk to, and pretty useless otherwise. Having 50% of people are in the office is useful around 50% of the time, and so on. And then there are meetings. IMO, meetings suck if even one person is remote, because we basically all have to gather around the camera instead of sitting around a table and facing each other like normal human beings. This might be better at big companies that can afford fancy conference room camera setups; I wouldn't know.

dmitrygr 5y ago

> Their chance of failure goes up significantly if they have to wfh. That is quite a bold claim to make with no citation. Just because something is "intuitive" to you does not make it so, as history shows. Please cite your sources for this claim.