5 ms·

> I don't know a single one who deliberately has said "there is a performance hit if they are remote, we should switch to in office to increase performance". B

> I don't know a single one who deliberately has said "there is a performance hit if they are remote, we should switch to in office to increase performance". Because you can’t. The decision to go remote is a one way door. > People have also have been enforcing 40 hour weeks and argue open offices are better for performance. Open offices are a management trend and hardly universal among successful companies. Whereas remote work is an extreme aberration from the norm. I have been at three companies since the pandemic started, all of whom you would know. All of them struggle with performance management and output of remote teams, regardless of if they are public about it.

kortilla 5y ago
> Whereas remote work is an extreme aberration from the norm. No it’s not, it’s just new to you so it seems scary. Companies have been dealing with this for decades with branch offices, contractors, etc.
- KaiserPro 5y ago
  > branch offices, contractors, etc. Branch offices isnt remote, and contractors are mercenaries. Look, I think there is not "one" answer to this. I personally can't think of anything worse than complete remote. Its isolating, difficult to understand the entire company and everything requires explicit communication. Some companies do this well, Most do not. However I have worked with fully remote workers, and they love being remote. I don't know how we sensible accommodate both modes of working.
  - iso1631 5y ago
    Remote workers aren't stopping you from paying for an office, driving to it, and working there. You seem to not only want to work in an office (fine), but you want other people to.
  - kortilla 5y ago
    > Branch offices isnt remote Yes they are. Any time you have one or two employees on your team but in a branch office, they are effectively remote. This happens a lot a bit companies and has been happening for a long time.
rkk3 5y ago
>> I don't know a single one who deliberately has said "there is a performance hit if they are remote, we should switch to in office to increase performance". > Because you can’t. The decision to go remote is a one way door. That's pretty hand wave-y. If there is money in it companies will do it. It wouldn't be much different than moving an office or factory.
- mbesto 5y ago
  > That's pretty hand wave-y. If there is money in it companies will do it. Right. And if there was concrete evidence that this was the case then investors (especially controlling interest ones that I work with) would DEFINITELY being doing it. Follow the money...

kortilla 5y ago

> Whereas remote work is an extreme aberration from the norm. No it’s not, it’s just new to you so it seems scary. Companies have been dealing with this for decades with branch offices, contractors, etc.

KaiserPro 5y ago
> branch offices, contractors, etc. Branch offices isnt remote, and contractors are mercenaries. Look, I think there is not "one" answer to this. I personally can't think of anything worse than complete remote. Its isolating, difficult to understand the entire company and everything requires explicit communication. Some companies do this well, Most do not. However I have worked with fully remote workers, and they love being remote. I don't know how we sensible accommodate both modes of working.
- iso1631 5y ago
  Remote workers aren't stopping you from paying for an office, driving to it, and working there. You seem to not only want to work in an office (fine), but you want other people to.
- kortilla 5y ago
  > Branch offices isnt remote Yes they are. Any time you have one or two employees on your team but in a branch office, they are effectively remote. This happens a lot a bit companies and has been happening for a long time.

rkk3 5y ago

>> I don't know a single one who deliberately has said "there is a performance hit if they are remote, we should switch to in office to increase performance". > Because you can’t. The decision to go remote is a one way door. That's pretty hand wave-y. If there is money in it companies will do it. It wouldn't be much different than moving an office or factory.

mbesto 5y ago
> That's pretty hand wave-y. If there is money in it companies will do it. Right. And if there was concrete evidence that this was the case then investors (especially controlling interest ones that I work with) would DEFINITELY being doing it. Follow the money...