5 ms·

Put yourself in the executives shoes for a second, they're not stupid people, they know how large the risk of blowback is and how many employees they might dise

Put yourself in the executives shoes for a second, they're not stupid people, they know how large the risk of blowback is and how many employees they might disenfranchise or lose. They're that confident that remote work is a bigger threat to their long-term performance and they don't want to get lapped by the companies with an in-office culture

lolinder 4y ago
This argument is an appeal to authority that I just can't buy. You don't have to be a stupid person to succumb to your own biases, you just have to be human, and plenty of executives make irrational decisions based on their subjective feelings.
- q7xvh97o2pDhNrh 4y ago
  FWIW, I read GP's comment as more an elaboration of incentive structures rather than an appeal to authority. You're still right that plenty of people make irrational decisions under whatever incentive structure they're in, but I think that the steelman version of GP's argument would probably go something like: If we see a large % of companies going full-RTO, then maybe there's something to be said for the bet that RTO is a long-term competitive advantage. ...or, they might all just be lemmings, too. It's hard to say just yet, but I think it'll be interesting to see if there's an effect on stock performance over the next 10 years based on what companies decide now. (I feel like that's probably how long it'll take for the full impact on company culture to play out.)
  - marcosdumay 4y ago
    It's quite safe to say that whatever companies do next year or the following one is purely due to executives bias or lemming effects. If there is a very strong impact on competitiveness, maybe we will notice in about a decade, if companies don't collude in stopping it.
- edmundsauto 4y ago
  As do the people being asked to commute. It’s the same base rate.
- RestlessMind 4y ago
  Not like you are providing any cogent argument. Execs sure have their own biases but they do have a lot of data to make important decisions like RTO policy. If you disagree with them, maybe it says more about your ignorance, blind spots and biases?
  - mixedCase 4y ago
    Sure, I'll bite. What's the data on remote work?
    - brutus1213 4y ago
      I was talking to a CTO at a mid-sized startup (200 people or so; private company; I think ex-YC but not 100%); been there for a decade type concern. Person flatly said no one works in WFH. I am also a manager and responded my team busted their balls the whole time, and delivered results. My personal opinion is my team did 120% of their productivity. I also acknowledge that some people are not built for it and their productivity may fall. I believe a manager can deal with this (either creating the right task-incentive structure, or getting the person off the bus). After my impassioned argument, the person said ..nope .. people just don't work during WFH. This was a social event, just the two of us talking, so I am quite sure this guy was being honest. I also ran into a different person in a leadership position (just not very high; more like technical leadership; ex-professor; stints at Google). He was convinced the real reason FAANG hired so crazily was because productivity per employee had dropped dramatically. His belief was no one worked during WFH. Again, my impassioned arguments and personal anecdotes did not really move this person.
    - RestlessMind 4y ago
      Just replied to another comment in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34679651 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34679651 TL;DR: if there is no data, decision makers are going to stick to what they know best. And what current execs / c-suite knows best is in-office. They haven't learned management techniques for fully-remote yet. I also started compiling research showing the value of in-person interaction: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34673235 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34673235
terminatornet 4y ago
Executives are indeed stupid people > Workers with full schedule flexibility report 29% higher productivity and 53% greater ability to focus than workers with no ability to shift their schedule, according to a just-announced report from Future Forum. But do bosses trust employees to be productive when working out of the office? > Microsoft released a new study, where it found that 85% of leaders say that the “shift to hybrid work has made it challenging to have confidence that employees are being productive.” More concretely, 49% of managers of hybrid workers “struggle to trust their employees to do their best work.” This lack of trust in worker productivity has led to what Microsoft researchers termed productivity paranoia: “where leaders fear that lost productivity is due to employees not working, even though hours worked, number of meetings, and other activity metrics have increased.” So workers are more productive with remote flexibility, working more hours and managers and execs still want more. https://www.forbes.com/sites/glebtsipursky/2022/11/03/workers-are-less-productive-working-remotely-at-least-thats-what-their-bosses-think/?sh=65221ea1286a https://www.forbes.com/sites/glebtsipursky/2022/11/03/worker...
- falcor84 4y ago
  There is a bit of a leap of faith between "Workers with full schedule flexibility report 29% higher productivity" to "workers are more productive". Everything else being equal, I would trust the managers more than the employees' self-assessment.
  - terminatornet 4y ago
    > Microsoft released a new study, where it found that 85% of leaders say that the “shift to hybrid work has made it challenging to have confidence that employees are being productive.” More concretely, 49% of managers of hybrid workers “struggle to trust their employees to do their best work.” nothing about this figure from managers says employees are more or less productive, just that managers having a feeling workers are less productive, they can't trust them etc. sounds like the managers are just projecting their feelings onto employees.
    - kyleee 4y ago
hgsgm 4y ago
Execs know that they have no idea how to measure performance so they can't risk someone taking a paycheck and doing no work, because they can't detect that.
csomar 4y ago
You are making the dangerous assumption that these people know what they are doing. Time and again, winners and losers emerge of this and many of the top level executives turns out to be dead wrong.
- RestlessMind 4y ago
  And you are making assumption that these people are all stupid. What is your arguement?
  - csomar 4y ago
    I’m not making that assumption, it would be as dangerous. I’m making the statement to not assume their intelligence based on their position (high level c-exec)
  - kaba0 4y ago
    Intelligence aside, do we/they have proper data on the topic to make an objective and sound decision in the first place? It’s not really something that can be just “thought out” like a step in a game of chess. In my opinion and experience, coworker’s performance vary greatly in and of itself and we can hardly ever correctly measure a single person’s “productivity” in a non-faulty way. Many companies’ simply fall back on more-or-less subjective, textual analysis of their workers and base basically every decision on that.
    - RestlessMind 4y ago
      > do we/they have proper data on the topic to make an objective and sound decision in the first place? Let's assume none of us have any data to make an informed decision. Then what is our "default path"? In-office arrangement is something that has been tried out for decades if not more. The decision makers, who are typically C-suite or execs, are specifically the ones who progressed and thrived in that system. Guess what they are going to choose when there is a lot of uncertainty? Obviously an in-office setup, with maybe some concessions to working from home 1-2 days a week because that's comfortable even for them. The only exception would be young founders who haven't learned any setting yet, and in fact who would like the allure of a "digital nomad" lifestyle more to embrace fully-remote.
potta_coffee 4y ago
I think you're wrong, people are generally short-sighted, stupid and selfish, including executives.

lolinder 4y ago

This argument is an appeal to authority that I just can't buy. You don't have to be a stupid person to succumb to your own biases, you just have to be human, and plenty of executives make irrational decisions based on their subjective feelings.

q7xvh97o2pDhNrh 4y ago
FWIW, I read GP's comment as more an elaboration of incentive structures rather than an appeal to authority. You're still right that plenty of people make irrational decisions under whatever incentive structure they're in, but I think that the steelman version of GP's argument would probably go something like: If we see a large % of companies going full-RTO, then maybe there's something to be said for the bet that RTO is a long-term competitive advantage. ...or, they might all just be lemmings, too. It's hard to say just yet, but I think it'll be interesting to see if there's an effect on stock performance over the next 10 years based on what companies decide now. (I feel like that's probably how long it'll take for the full impact on company culture to play out.)
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  It's quite safe to say that whatever companies do next year or the following one is purely due to executives bias or lemming effects. If there is a very strong impact on competitiveness, maybe we will notice in about a decade, if companies don't collude in stopping it.
edmundsauto 4y ago
As do the people being asked to commute. It’s the same base rate.
RestlessMind 4y ago
Not like you are providing any cogent argument. Execs sure have their own biases but they do have a lot of data to make important decisions like RTO policy. If you disagree with them, maybe it says more about your ignorance, blind spots and biases?
- mixedCase 4y ago
  Sure, I'll bite. What's the data on remote work?
  - brutus1213 4y ago
    I was talking to a CTO at a mid-sized startup (200 people or so; private company; I think ex-YC but not 100%); been there for a decade type concern. Person flatly said no one works in WFH. I am also a manager and responded my team busted their balls the whole time, and delivered results. My personal opinion is my team did 120% of their productivity. I also acknowledge that some people are not built for it and their productivity may fall. I believe a manager can deal with this (either creating the right task-incentive structure, or getting the person off the bus). After my impassioned argument, the person said ..nope .. people just don't work during WFH. This was a social event, just the two of us talking, so I am quite sure this guy was being honest. I also ran into a different person in a leadership position (just not very high; more like technical leadership; ex-professor; stints at Google). He was convinced the real reason FAANG hired so crazily was because productivity per employee had dropped dramatically. His belief was no one worked during WFH. Again, my impassioned arguments and personal anecdotes did not really move this person.
  - RestlessMind 4y ago
    Just replied to another comment in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34679651 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34679651 TL;DR: if there is no data, decision makers are going to stick to what they know best. And what current execs / c-suite knows best is in-office. They haven't learned management techniques for fully-remote yet. I also started compiling research showing the value of in-person interaction: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34673235 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34673235

terminatornet 4y ago

Executives are indeed stupid people > Workers with full schedule flexibility report 29% higher productivity and 53% greater ability to focus than workers with no ability to shift their schedule, according to a just-announced report from Future Forum. But do bosses trust employees to be productive when working out of the office? > Microsoft released a new study, where it found that 85% of leaders say that the “shift to hybrid work has made it challenging to have confidence that employees are being productive.” More concretely, 49% of managers of hybrid workers “struggle to trust their employees to do their best work.” This lack of trust in worker productivity has led to what Microsoft researchers termed productivity paranoia: “where leaders fear that lost productivity is due to employees not working, even though hours worked, number of meetings, and other activity metrics have increased.” So workers are more productive with remote flexibility, working more hours and managers and execs still want more. https://www.forbes.com/sites/glebtsipursky/2022/11/03/workers-are-less-productive-working-remotely-at-least-thats-what-their-bosses-think/?sh=65221ea1286a https://www.forbes.com/sites/glebtsipursky/2022/11/03/worker...

falcor84 4y ago
There is a bit of a leap of faith between "Workers with full schedule flexibility report 29% higher productivity" to "workers are more productive". Everything else being equal, I would trust the managers more than the employees' self-assessment.
- terminatornet 4y ago
  > Microsoft released a new study, where it found that 85% of leaders say that the “shift to hybrid work has made it challenging to have confidence that employees are being productive.” More concretely, 49% of managers of hybrid workers “struggle to trust their employees to do their best work.” nothing about this figure from managers says employees are more or less productive, just that managers having a feeling workers are less productive, they can't trust them etc. sounds like the managers are just projecting their feelings onto employees.
  - kyleee 4y ago

hgsgm 4y ago

Execs know that they have no idea how to measure performance so they can't risk someone taking a paycheck and doing no work, because they can't detect that.

csomar 4y ago

You are making the dangerous assumption that these people know what they are doing. Time and again, winners and losers emerge of this and many of the top level executives turns out to be dead wrong.

RestlessMind 4y ago
And you are making assumption that these people are all stupid. What is your arguement?
- csomar 4y ago
  I’m not making that assumption, it would be as dangerous. I’m making the statement to not assume their intelligence based on their position (high level c-exec)
- kaba0 4y ago
  Intelligence aside, do we/they have proper data on the topic to make an objective and sound decision in the first place? It’s not really something that can be just “thought out” like a step in a game of chess. In my opinion and experience, coworker’s performance vary greatly in and of itself and we can hardly ever correctly measure a single person’s “productivity” in a non-faulty way. Many companies’ simply fall back on more-or-less subjective, textual analysis of their workers and base basically every decision on that.
  - RestlessMind 4y ago
    > do we/they have proper data on the topic to make an objective and sound decision in the first place? Let's assume none of us have any data to make an informed decision. Then what is our "default path"? In-office arrangement is something that has been tried out for decades if not more. The decision makers, who are typically C-suite or execs, are specifically the ones who progressed and thrived in that system. Guess what they are going to choose when there is a lot of uncertainty? Obviously an in-office setup, with maybe some concessions to working from home 1-2 days a week because that's comfortable even for them. The only exception would be young founders who haven't learned any setting yet, and in fact who would like the allure of a "digital nomad" lifestyle more to embrace fully-remote.

potta_coffee 4y ago

I think you're wrong, people are generally short-sighted, stupid and selfish, including executives.