4 ms·
I work for a large tech company based on the east coast. My partner works for another large tech company. We are both mid-level managers at companies that seem
by kbos87 5y ago
I work for a large tech company based on the east coast. My partner works for another large tech company. We are both mid-level managers at companies that seem to be taking a pretty dramatically different approach.
My company:
- Started with a strong in-office culture
- Communicated to managers that all employees now have a choice between being fully remote, hybrid, or in-office; there’s never a mandate to be in person
- All new roles can be based anywhere in the country of the roles’ origin
- All salaries are being standardized to one city per country (NYC for the US.)
By contrast, my partner’s company:
- Mandated return to work date 3 days/week minimum unless you’ve transitioned to remote (and they don’t seem to be making that easy for existing employees)
- Significant, growing attrition problem causing serious concern among leadership
- Growing pushback from employees asking great questions… for example, why they should be required to sit on zoom at an office, conferencing with their remote colleagues
If I had to put money on which company will thrive and which one will seriously regret it’s decision a year from now… the answer seems very clear.
- natdempk 5y agoThe first one is HubSpot for anyone wondering (and yes we are hiring). I do think that companies that allow remote are going to see an influx of workers as people leave other companies with in-office mandates. So many people have adjusted to remote working that it seems somewhat crazy to me to try and walk that back. There’s a clear preference based on what we’ve seen for some level of remote work among existing in-office workers who probably aren’t going to put up with a shift back, especially when tech jobs are in such high demand.
- icedistilled 5y ago>Mandated return to work date 3 days/week minimum unless you’ve transitioned to remote This is what bugs me about the hybrid set up. If the company onboarded a lot of permanent remotes and also doesn't have people sync up the in office days, then there is no point of going into the office. It's the worst of both worlds.
- randomsearch 5y agoWhich is why hybrid doesn’t work, and back to the office will win for most companies.
- arrosenberg 5y agoThere's definitely room for a hybrid where teams (or whatever org-unit) are able to determine which days will be in-office and what hours people are expected to be physically available for during those days. I don't really need to go into the office 40 hours (plus the 5-8 hours of commute time), but I'd have no objection with 3-5 hours, 2 days a week to facilitate meetings, teambuilding, etc.
- k4ch0w 5y agoI think you'll lose some talented employees if you don't allow WFH. I think it will take time to see how this plays out.
- randomsearch 5y agoI think you’re right, because many employees prefer wfh. But I think for companies and esp startups wfh is a big loss, so that losing some employees is worth it. And if the bubble pops things will change.
- bduerst 5y agoEh, it's really not that hard. It basically means for most weeks you work remote Mon and Fri, while just about everyone is in the office Tues-Thurs. Bay area already feels like most people work remote on Fridays anyways. Yes there's variance but it's being left intentionally vague for teams to set their own cadences.
- biztos 5y agoSpeaking only for myself, if I had a company office in my city I would go to it three-four days a week — even if my colleagues were all working elsewhere. (Assuming I can define my hours and commute by public transit or cheap taxi.) I was remote for 13 years and I definitely missed the option of the office, though not the mandate of it. So in my biased opinion the hybrid model is to keep people like me happy. And my bet is these will eventually become the new senior management, comfortable with remote but happy in the office, just like the current managers who set up the hybrid thing for similar reasons for themselves. Doesn’t help people like me who can’t do the jobs they want in the cities they want without being remote, but I think we’re a pretty small minority.
- listenallyall 5y agoThese two companies sound the same... Your company allows remote, hybrid or fulltime in-office. Partner's company allows hybrid (3 days minimum), fulltime (people going above the minimum) or "transitioned to remote".
- kbos87 5y agoMy company allows whatever you want. Partners company allows hybrid, not full remote unless that was something you negotiated at the start or got them to change. Those are two very different things.
- djanogo 5y agoDoes your company have web app where employee can choose what they prefer, submit it, and done?, or bunch of management have to approve that request?
- kbos87 5y agoNope, there’s no management or oversight of who is in and when.
- listenallyall 5y ago> If I had to put money on which company will thrive and which one will seriously regret it’s decision a year from now… the answer seems very clear Well don't I look stupid for initially being skeptical... surely your company, with "no management or oversight" over its employees, is clearly set up for enormous success!
- djanogo 5y agoHe was answering in regards to this particular option of going remote.
- 5y ago
- throoo0ooowaway 5y agoYour partner's company sounds like the one I left recently, for those exact reasons...
- thenipper 5y agoIs the second one wayfair? It echoes what all my friends there are saying.
- kbos87 5y agoIt isn’t, but I’ve heard the same thing about Wayfair.