3 ms·

I think there are some well-known horror stories of "hybrid" companies that some companies are trying to avoid. (Disclaimer: I have to telecommute, I've been d

I think there are some well-known horror stories of "hybrid" companies that some companies are trying to avoid. (Disclaimer: I have to telecommute, I've been doing it since 2014. Because of where I live, I can only go in about 2-3 times a month.) For example: I worked for Intel in 2005-2007. It was hybrid by necessity: They had offices all over the world, and were so large that it was impractical for everyone to be on one campus; and even if everyone was on one campus, travel among buildings was somewhat time consuming. Thus, many meetings were conducted via teleconference, and no one cared if you were in the office. (I would always take early morning calls at home and leave after the call.) While I was there, it became obvious that people were abusing the liberal telecommuting policy. My boss went on vacation for one week, and then "telecommuted" the second week. I quickly realized he had an agreement with his higher up to get a 2nd week of vacation as long as he checked email and kept up appearances. A few months later Intel cut out most telecommuting. The rumors that came back to me was that a lot of people were just goofing off; and even running 2nd businesses, like liquor stores, while on company time. There's also the story of Yahoo. This is well documented, so I'll leave it up to someone else to dig up links, but the general belief is that many Yahoo telecommuters were just keeping up appearances and not really working. The company cracked down because it was going broke paying people to do nothing. So, I don't think it's a "ruse." I think it's a case of a company doing what it thinks is in its best interests. If it's in your best interests to be 100% remote, or 90% remote, ect, have a frank discussion with your boss, and if they can't accommodate you, find a new job.

ericmay 5y ago
You can also avoid this by hiring the right people - so to me this is indicative of an even deeper issue within the company which is bad hiring, bad/poor expectations, no consequences for failure, etc. Remote/Hybrid/On-Prem discussions are just the symptom.
- gwbas1c 5y ago
  I don't think a large company can unilaterally "hire the right people" to make hybrid work in all groups and departments. That was why Intel and Yahoo made work for home only on a case-by-case basis.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    What do you mean by "work in all groups..."? I mean, if someone could do their job remote but you are afraid of them goofing off so you need them to come to the office, well that's 100% a case of not hiring the right people. I don't know how it could be any other way. And in that case remote/not remote isn't the issue, it's that your company is incorrectly hiring the wrong people and that's the actual dysfunction - not the remote work environment. The remote/hybrid/on-prem stuff is just an expression of poor hiring practices. They're saying "we don't trust people to work unless we're watching them so they need to be in the office". To that I say "don't hire people you don't trust to work unless you are watching them and it's always exactly the company's fault when this occurs". I apply this universally to 100% of companies in this space without exception. Obviously, well let's take Intel - I mean you're building semiconductors so you probably need to be near machines/equipment/etc. so I'm not suggesting everybody in the world should or even wants to work remote.
    - oblio 5y ago
      I have bad news for you: despite all the HR and recruiting hype, there aren't enough "good people" out there to fill millions of tech jobs, even for top paying companies. Most companies have to settle for structure, flawed individuals and efficient and flexible processes to guide them (which could include peer pressure in actual offices). Of course everyone here pretends to be the 10x, hyper motivated individual contributor, because the world's a stage and HN is part of it.
      - ericmay 5y ago
        > Of course everyone here pretends to be the 10x, hyper motivated individual contributor, because the world's a stage and HN is part of it. Ha. I know what you're saying. Not me though. I'm just a 1x. Motivated and interested for sure, at least for my part. I think this might be an agree to disagree thing. I think most people genuinely want to just do something interesting and enjoyable, and make money so they can live fulfilling lives. There are a lot of disconnects though, ranging from flat out opportunity, to lack of available training - i.e. something like a bootcamp - full-time pipeline, bad corporate incentives and structure, and lack of investment in best practices and communication tools. I mean take Microsoft Teams. Absolute dog shit product (sorry guys) - stop using it and use something better. It'll make your employees lives easier and better, and you won't need people to be in the office in the same way because you're using better tools. Ultimately if a company has to "settle" for an employee who they have to monitor and watch from behind their chair, in my view it's still the hiring company's failure. It says nothing about remote/hybrid/on-prem. If they have to "settle" then that's still their fault, and bringing people to the office doesn't change that fundamental fact.
mindcrime 5y ago
I think it's a case of a company doing what it thinks is in its best interests. "Thinks" being the key word. Although I would posit that anybody who think this way hasn't thought about it very hard. I mean, it's trivially obvious that a worker can be in the office, and still contribute absolutely nothing. You can sit at the office, or at home, or in Tahiti, and surf Hacker News all day just the same. At the end of it all, companies that don't know how to measure the productivity of their people, and make any necessary adjustments based on those measurements, are going to get screwed.
kijin 5y ago
Many companies back then had no idea how to assign work and evaluate performance for telecommuting employees. Many companies still have no idea, so there's a huge opportunity for employees to take advantage of the unclear rules. Even in software, it's notoriously hard to estimate how long a project is going to take. You just assigned some bug to someone and told them to fix it by Tuesday. Is the employee slacking off if the bug isn't fixed by Tuesday, or is the issue actually more difficult than it seemed to be? Is it a bit of both? People will always find creative ways to get paid while doing nothing. The hastily set up WFH system just happens to contain more loopholes that the higher-ups aren't prepared for.
drewcoo 5y ago
> a lot of people were just goofing off . . . while on company time That's the sign of a company that should pay for work instead of time.
woah 5y ago
Why not look at what someone's actually producing? The fact that the only thing necessary was to "keep up appearances" gives me some strong 'Office Space' vibes. I think it's telling that the two companies mentioned are foundering in or out of the office.

ericmay 5y ago

You can also avoid this by hiring the right people - so to me this is indicative of an even deeper issue within the company which is bad hiring, bad/poor expectations, no consequences for failure, etc. Remote/Hybrid/On-Prem discussions are just the symptom.

gwbas1c 5y ago
I don't think a large company can unilaterally "hire the right people" to make hybrid work in all groups and departments. That was why Intel and Yahoo made work for home only on a case-by-case basis.
- ericmay 5y ago
  What do you mean by "work in all groups..."? I mean, if someone could do their job remote but you are afraid of them goofing off so you need them to come to the office, well that's 100% a case of not hiring the right people. I don't know how it could be any other way. And in that case remote/not remote isn't the issue, it's that your company is incorrectly hiring the wrong people and that's the actual dysfunction - not the remote work environment. The remote/hybrid/on-prem stuff is just an expression of poor hiring practices. They're saying "we don't trust people to work unless we're watching them so they need to be in the office". To that I say "don't hire people you don't trust to work unless you are watching them and it's always exactly the company's fault when this occurs". I apply this universally to 100% of companies in this space without exception. Obviously, well let's take Intel - I mean you're building semiconductors so you probably need to be near machines/equipment/etc. so I'm not suggesting everybody in the world should or even wants to work remote.
  - oblio 5y ago
    I have bad news for you: despite all the HR and recruiting hype, there aren't enough "good people" out there to fill millions of tech jobs, even for top paying companies. Most companies have to settle for structure, flawed individuals and efficient and flexible processes to guide them (which could include peer pressure in actual offices). Of course everyone here pretends to be the 10x, hyper motivated individual contributor, because the world's a stage and HN is part of it.
    - ericmay 5y ago
      > Of course everyone here pretends to be the 10x, hyper motivated individual contributor, because the world's a stage and HN is part of it. Ha. I know what you're saying. Not me though. I'm just a 1x. Motivated and interested for sure, at least for my part. I think this might be an agree to disagree thing. I think most people genuinely want to just do something interesting and enjoyable, and make money so they can live fulfilling lives. There are a lot of disconnects though, ranging from flat out opportunity, to lack of available training - i.e. something like a bootcamp - full-time pipeline, bad corporate incentives and structure, and lack of investment in best practices and communication tools. I mean take Microsoft Teams. Absolute dog shit product (sorry guys) - stop using it and use something better. It'll make your employees lives easier and better, and you won't need people to be in the office in the same way because you're using better tools. Ultimately if a company has to "settle" for an employee who they have to monitor and watch from behind their chair, in my view it's still the hiring company's failure. It says nothing about remote/hybrid/on-prem. If they have to "settle" then that's still their fault, and bringing people to the office doesn't change that fundamental fact.

mindcrime 5y ago

I think it's a case of a company doing what it thinks is in its best interests. "Thinks" being the key word. Although I would posit that anybody who think this way hasn't thought about it very hard. I mean, it's trivially obvious that a worker can be in the office, and still contribute absolutely nothing. You can sit at the office, or at home, or in Tahiti, and surf Hacker News all day just the same. At the end of it all, companies that don't know how to measure the productivity of their people, and make any necessary adjustments based on those measurements, are going to get screwed.

kijin 5y ago

Many companies back then had no idea how to assign work and evaluate performance for telecommuting employees. Many companies still have no idea, so there's a huge opportunity for employees to take advantage of the unclear rules. Even in software, it's notoriously hard to estimate how long a project is going to take. You just assigned some bug to someone and told them to fix it by Tuesday. Is the employee slacking off if the bug isn't fixed by Tuesday, or is the issue actually more difficult than it seemed to be? Is it a bit of both? People will always find creative ways to get paid while doing nothing. The hastily set up WFH system just happens to contain more loopholes that the higher-ups aren't prepared for.

drewcoo 5y ago

> a lot of people were just goofing off . . . while on company time That's the sign of a company that should pay for work instead of time.

woah 5y ago

Why not look at what someone's actually producing? The fact that the only thing necessary was to "keep up appearances" gives me some strong 'Office Space' vibes. I think it's telling that the two companies mentioned are foundering in or out of the office.