4 ms·
The crazy thing is the pandemic still wasn't long enough to teach companies how to work remote or hybrid. I literally forwarded a list of 10 best-reviewed books
by 0xbadcafebee 5y ago
The crazy thing is the pandemic still wasn't long enough to teach companies how to work remote or hybrid. I literally forwarded a list of 10 best-reviewed books, articles, etc about remote working to my org's leadership, and I don't think they read any of them. They certainly never changed the way they work. We still spend upwards of 25% of our time in meetings with no agenda to talk about coming up with a plan to start working. We still don't document needed information, we just bug people on Slack for the same information over and over. In-person people are still "huddling" around a laptop that nobody on remote can hear.
I'm not aware of any empirical evidence that working in person is better for productivity. But what it does do is make 50% of the people feel happier - the people who want to escape their home-family to be with their work-family. In this sense I totally understand why management is forcing people to come into the office: it's because management just likes in-person, and they don't want to learn how to work hybrid or remote-first if they keep the office.
I think there continues to be a competitive advantage for remote-first companies. They can be more productive, have a global pool of talent to choose from, and potentially lower overhead. I think we're going to see incumbents remain in-person while disruptive companies will be increasingly remote-first.
- Dave3of5 5y agoThe head of HR at my last job actually took a paid course (I think it's free now) by gitlab based upon a convo I had with her. The company ignored it all and said "back in the office". I suspect that it was because of the CEO who was saying throughout the pandemic that he wasn't a fan of remote work. That's how the decision was made, based on one old guys feelings. They don't care about you as an employee, remember that.
- motoboi 5y ago> That's how the decision was made, based on one old guys feelings. Isn't this how all decisions get made on a company?
- elldoubleyew 5y agoIts not just any "old guy". Its an "old guy" thats either appointed by stakeholders or personally heavily invested in the success of the company. Like it or not his "feelings" are formed from decades of experience in making a business profitable. I understand its not every case but lets not be overly-dismissive of his opinions, especially on HN where we are so concerned with ageism.
- greedo 5y agoI'm an old guy, and I have to disregard 99% of what our C-level officers say about technology. Most of what they understand is out of date with technology from the early Oughts, much less the 2020's. They make purchasing decisions based on what they read in airline flight magazines, or what their vendor buddies recommend while they're golfing. Their feelings are formed by cronyism, nepotism and ignorance. When it comes to embracing change, they're fine when it something motivated by these three factors, but when it means a perceived loss of control, or a loss of prestige, then they resist.
- toshaga 5y agoWould you care to share the list of resources you sent to your leadership?
- granshaw 5y ago"It Is Difficult to Get a Man to Understand Something When His Salary Depends Upon His Not Understanding It"
- threads2 5y agoyou don't need to capitalize words in a quote