3 ms·

There is a binary component to this. Proponents of remote work don’t generally oppose hybrid or in person for anyone else who prefers it, but those going to th

There is a binary component to this. Proponents of remote work don’t generally oppose hybrid or in person for anyone else who prefers it, but those going to the office would find themselves effectively doing “remote from the office”, if enough people choose not to go. This is the reason why I think hybrid is a bit dumb. Regardless of the social component, the hybrid model effectiveness relies on everyone who collaborates in the same field, to agree when and where to attend, most of the time. If not, it’s just an excuse to fill up cubicles.

MattGaiser 5y ago
This is why I don’t see hybrid lasting. It breaks what most like about their preferred option.
- noirbot 5y ago
  I think it can somewhat work with flexible timelines. A full 2/5 days a week in-office hybrid is decidedly the worst of both, but a "we come into the office every N weeks for 1-2 days to handle major meetings in person" feels both more fair and less disruptive to all parties. Expand it further where folks living further away are maybe only expected to come in quarterly for maybe a full week. It helps to keep up some in-person social constructs - you can spend time with coworkers at lunch, or going out for a group activity if you want, but keeps the majority of the day-to-day focused on making remote work for everyone.
  - hackerfromthefu 5y ago
    Coming to the office for 1-2 days a month would also be reasonably possible for people living far away.
    - noirbot 5y ago
      Yea, it depends on the distance. I wouldn't want to demand that people fly for a few hours every months, and that's not really particularly environmentally friendly, but if it's in drive/train range, much more reasonable.
dan-robertson 5y ago
I agree this is a good counter argument. If many people are remote (or potentially even just a few) then you may lose the advantages of working in the office (e.g. spontaneity, easy ‘point at the screen’ or ‘just speak like a human being’ communication that doesn’t need to be intermediated by inevitably broken technology, avoiding some of the futile attempts at recreating an office environment remotely, etc). The counter to that is then that lots of the ways one must deal with remote workers (e.g. more better written communication, getting tools to attempt to recreate some of the interactions that were previously in-person remotely, although the best-in-class tool is usually still terrible only people sometimes don’t say it because they don’t realise we ought to want tools that don’t suck) are good improvements to in-office working. And having people remote isn’t so different from having multiple offices (and is perhaps better than different offices separated by large time differences) although being beholden to whatever Internet connection someone can get and chooses to pay for in the place they choose to work can be frustrating and the quality of communication hardware/software is frankly abysmal. Certainly there is something to be said for companies that try to take remote seriously (eg stack overflow had private offices which recreated some of the quiet and isolation and communication requirements of remote work within the office). But a lot of companies basically had their hands forced by the ’rona and I think significant culture changes are required to more thoroughly embrace and accommodate remote or hybrid work.
andrewingram 5y ago
> Proponents of remote work don’t generally oppose hybrid or in person for anyone else who prefers it This is true, but in most of the rhetoric I see, this gets omitted (I'll assume with benign intentions). There's also a lot of people on social media (e.g twitter) who wax lyrical about how it's only controlling management teams who want people in an office, and how everyone else wants remote. As an IC who hates remote on a personal level, it makes me feel increasingly marginalised and depressed.
theshrike79 5y ago
We have a hybrid model and it has worked well so far. A handful of people go to the office because they prefer it that way and/or don't (want to) have a proper work setup at home. The majority is fully remote, but have signed a hybrid contract so they can be called to the office if there is a need. The only need so far has been a going-away party that involved a case of whiskey =)

MattGaiser 5y ago

This is why I don’t see hybrid lasting. It breaks what most like about their preferred option.

noirbot 5y ago
I think it can somewhat work with flexible timelines. A full 2/5 days a week in-office hybrid is decidedly the worst of both, but a "we come into the office every N weeks for 1-2 days to handle major meetings in person" feels both more fair and less disruptive to all parties. Expand it further where folks living further away are maybe only expected to come in quarterly for maybe a full week. It helps to keep up some in-person social constructs - you can spend time with coworkers at lunch, or going out for a group activity if you want, but keeps the majority of the day-to-day focused on making remote work for everyone.
- hackerfromthefu 5y ago
  Coming to the office for 1-2 days a month would also be reasonably possible for people living far away.
  - noirbot 5y ago
    Yea, it depends on the distance. I wouldn't want to demand that people fly for a few hours every months, and that's not really particularly environmentally friendly, but if it's in drive/train range, much more reasonable.

dan-robertson 5y ago

I agree this is a good counter argument. If many people are remote (or potentially even just a few) then you may lose the advantages of working in the office (e.g. spontaneity, easy ‘point at the screen’ or ‘just speak like a human being’ communication that doesn’t need to be intermediated by inevitably broken technology, avoiding some of the futile attempts at recreating an office environment remotely, etc). The counter to that is then that lots of the ways one must deal with remote workers (e.g. more better written communication, getting tools to attempt to recreate some of the interactions that were previously in-person remotely, although the best-in-class tool is usually still terrible only people sometimes don’t say it because they don’t realise we ought to want tools that don’t suck) are good improvements to in-office working. And having people remote isn’t so different from having multiple offices (and is perhaps better than different offices separated by large time differences) although being beholden to whatever Internet connection someone can get and chooses to pay for in the place they choose to work can be frustrating and the quality of communication hardware/software is frankly abysmal. Certainly there is something to be said for companies that try to take remote seriously (eg stack overflow had private offices which recreated some of the quiet and isolation and communication requirements of remote work within the office). But a lot of companies basically had their hands forced by the ’rona and I think significant culture changes are required to more thoroughly embrace and accommodate remote or hybrid work.

andrewingram 5y ago

> Proponents of remote work don’t generally oppose hybrid or in person for anyone else who prefers it This is true, but in most of the rhetoric I see, this gets omitted (I'll assume with benign intentions). There's also a lot of people on social media (e.g twitter) who wax lyrical about how it's only controlling management teams who want people in an office, and how everyone else wants remote. As an IC who hates remote on a personal level, it makes me feel increasingly marginalised and depressed.

theshrike79 5y ago

We have a hybrid model and it has worked well so far. A handful of people go to the office because they prefer it that way and/or don't (want to) have a proper work setup at home. The majority is fully remote, but have signed a hybrid contract so they can be called to the office if there is a need. The only need so far has been a going-away party that involved a case of whiskey =)