4 ms·

They must have some data that shows people are more productive (whether it's against their will or not/whether they hate their lives sitting in traffic to and f

They must have some data that shows people are more productive (whether it's against their will or not/whether they hate their lives sitting in traffic to and from work or not/whether they thinking being in the office surrounded by a bunch of people who are mostly fake is soul sucking or not) in the office. There's no way Google + Apple + Amazon + Meta are all aligned on "work from home isn't a viable option" without dating backing it. It's just an echo chamber here on HackerNews that we begrudgingly don't want to believe it.

JohnFen 4y ago
Maybe they do. If so, they should share it, then, because it's certainly not readily available. It would go far to increase their credibility.
ssully 4y ago
No, they have data on how much money they paid for office space. Thats all it is.
- Fargren 4y ago
  I've heard this a million times, but isn't that a sunk cost fallacy? They don't get their money back when people come back, and they can either stop renting or sell. They aren't charging employee's rent for using the offices.
  - xienze 4y ago
    > but isn't that a sunk cost fallacy? Maybe? But it's human nature to feel a little better about shelling out cash on something if it actually gets used. To make an analogy, let's say your kid insisted you buy them a car. Not some lame Toyota, it has to be a Ferrari (read: lavish office in expensive downtown location). They use it, they're happy. Then some event happens that makes them not want to use the car anymore, but for contractual reasons you still have to keep it around for several more years (read: pay insurance and maintenance). It doesn't ever get used, but you're still paying for it (read: paying for maintenance and utilities for a mostly empty office). You'd feel at least a LITTLE better if your kid at least attempted to drive the car a few times per week, but they just want to stay home and call you an asshole. I strongly prefer WFH, but I get the thinking. Also keep in mind that city governments are probably breathing down the necks of these companies telling them to get workers back into the office ASAP because the local economy is going to shit without thousands of office workers buying Starbucks, going to lunch, etc. every single day.
    - Fargren 4y ago
      Yes, what you describe is a sunk cost fallacy. I get it, people do fall for them, we're wired that way. But a public company with stockholders shouldn't make decisions like this. It's either better for the company to make the people come back, or it isn't. "The CEO has buyer's remorse" is not an argument for such a highly impacting decision. You might be onto something with the cities asking for this, but I have not seen any data or anecdotes pointing to that.
      - p_j_w 4y ago
        >But a public company with stockholders shouldn't make decisions like this. Yes and all people should be decent and look out for each other as well.
  - jonathankoren 4y ago
    Yes. It is a sunk cost fallacy. That doesn't mean that they're not engaging in it. The fact that it's named shows how common of a fallacy it is. Amazon spent $2.5 BILLION on HQ2. It's not just a some normal office complex, but rather a massive custom complex with domes full of trees and all sorts of weird stuff. It's the same thing with Facebook's MPK 2x, Apple's Apple Park, and Google's "circus tents". These buildings aren't just for housing people, they're statements to the companies' -- and through extension their executives' -- greatness. They're modern day temples... and they're empty. Selling or renting out these buildings is literally unthinkable for the executives, but also impractical. It's humiliating to have have to part with your custom shrine to yourself. You can't sell item because the only companies that have the money buy it, and the people to fill it, are your competitors, and they have their own shrines to fill. You can't subdivide it and rent it out, because the buildings are giant aircraft hangers that no one wants, and they're not easily subdivided due to the location of cafeterias and bathrooms. So what do you do? Exercise your capricious and unaccountable power to force the serfs back into the temple. You like seeing the building filled because it makes you feel important. They'll even admit this to an extent when they talk about the joys of seeing people in the office, being able to ask people what they're doing. If we want to be charitable, we can call it the primacy of management by random encounter. But they know, we know it's all bullshit, because everyone has witnessed the growth and effectiveness of when the company was (almost) fully remote.
    - uxcolumbo 4y ago
      I like the way you put this… best plausible explanation (for me) . In this regard upper management isn’t driven by data, like you said it’s mainly about them and how it makes them feel to be in control again. I hope us the serfs can ‘win’ this.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    Yes, it is. But they're human, and their decisions are subject to human fallacies as much as anyone else's.
    - fragmede 4y ago
      For now. Just wait for UpperManagementGPT to start making business decisions.
tut-urut-utut 4y ago
Believe it or not, there are enough people who like to go to the office rather than working from home.
- MuffinFlavored 4y ago
  I don't think this describes why executive leadership would force people who want to work from home back into the office against their will.
- misnome 4y ago
  None of whom are affected by any of these.
Xcelerate 4y ago
Worked at one of those four companies you mentioned on one of the teams analyzing employee productivity during the pandemic through EOY 2022. The one liner (that ignores all nuance) is that remote work does not negatively affect productivity, at least for the company I was at. Decisions by leadership are not significantly influenced by what the data shows.
- MuffinFlavored 4y ago
  > Decisions by leadership are not significantly influenced by what the data shows. If it isn't productivity (or morale) driving their decision on "putting their foot down and demanding no work from home", what is it? I don't believe it's some simple reductionist "they're evil and want employee control" narrative.
  - Xcelerate 4y ago
    > If it isn't productivity (or morale) driving their decision on "putting their foot down and demanding no work from home", what is it? Unfortunately, my background is in data science. I would say the field of psychology is better suited to answering that question.
  - tsgagnon 4y ago
    I don't believe it's some simple reductionist "they're evil and want employee control" narrative. Remove the "they're evil" part and I don't see what's reductionist about it being about "having more control over employees"? That to me sounds like a very likely explanation.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    I don't think many people are ascribing it to maliciousness. What it looks like to me is a combination of two things: 1) Working in an office full of people is what they personally prefer, and 2) They have large investments in physical infrastructure that they need to use.
    - MuffinFlavored 4y ago
xienze 4y ago
> They must have some data that shows people are more productive I think it comes down to not liking the idea of paying $$$ on lavish offices that are ghost towns. And I also wouldn’t doubt cities are “encouraging” companies to force BTO because local economies have been hit hard by the lack of office workers.
- vitaflo 4y ago
  The city I live in did this. Gave all sorts of tax breaks to companies downtown to get people back in the office because lack of employees was hurting all the other small businesses that were built up around downtown to service those employees during the day (think restaurants, coffee shops, dry cleaners, day care, etc).
NikolaNovak 4y ago
I keep thinking that; I don't want to believe this is just people who don't know how to use email and slack, enforcing their habits on everybody else. But, why has nobody come out and shared that data? All I keep hearing is these nice anecdotes about meeting random people accidentally, and vague hand-waving about collaboration. (my own team is operations/application maintenance, and we are WAY more effective and efficient now that everybody is remote and on the same level. I understand that may not be the case in all fields/areas/teams).
- dalyons 4y ago
  if the data existed it would have been shouted from the rooftop, given the anti WFH corporate sentiment. That you havent seen any speaks volumes.

JohnFen 4y ago

Maybe they do. If so, they should share it, then, because it's certainly not readily available. It would go far to increase their credibility.

ssully 4y ago

No, they have data on how much money they paid for office space. Thats all it is.

Fargren 4y ago
I've heard this a million times, but isn't that a sunk cost fallacy? They don't get their money back when people come back, and they can either stop renting or sell. They aren't charging employee's rent for using the offices.
- xienze 4y ago
  > but isn't that a sunk cost fallacy? Maybe? But it's human nature to feel a little better about shelling out cash on something if it actually gets used. To make an analogy, let's say your kid insisted you buy them a car. Not some lame Toyota, it has to be a Ferrari (read: lavish office in expensive downtown location). They use it, they're happy. Then some event happens that makes them not want to use the car anymore, but for contractual reasons you still have to keep it around for several more years (read: pay insurance and maintenance). It doesn't ever get used, but you're still paying for it (read: paying for maintenance and utilities for a mostly empty office). You'd feel at least a LITTLE better if your kid at least attempted to drive the car a few times per week, but they just want to stay home and call you an asshole. I strongly prefer WFH, but I get the thinking. Also keep in mind that city governments are probably breathing down the necks of these companies telling them to get workers back into the office ASAP because the local economy is going to shit without thousands of office workers buying Starbucks, going to lunch, etc. every single day.
  - Fargren 4y ago
    Yes, what you describe is a sunk cost fallacy. I get it, people do fall for them, we're wired that way. But a public company with stockholders shouldn't make decisions like this. It's either better for the company to make the people come back, or it isn't. "The CEO has buyer's remorse" is not an argument for such a highly impacting decision. You might be onto something with the cities asking for this, but I have not seen any data or anecdotes pointing to that.
    - p_j_w 4y ago
      >But a public company with stockholders shouldn't make decisions like this. Yes and all people should be decent and look out for each other as well.
- jonathankoren 4y ago
  Yes. It is a sunk cost fallacy. That doesn't mean that they're not engaging in it. The fact that it's named shows how common of a fallacy it is. Amazon spent $2.5 BILLION on HQ2. It's not just a some normal office complex, but rather a massive custom complex with domes full of trees and all sorts of weird stuff. It's the same thing with Facebook's MPK 2x, Apple's Apple Park, and Google's "circus tents". These buildings aren't just for housing people, they're statements to the companies' -- and through extension their executives' -- greatness. They're modern day temples... and they're empty. Selling or renting out these buildings is literally unthinkable for the executives, but also impractical. It's humiliating to have have to part with your custom shrine to yourself. You can't sell item because the only companies that have the money buy it, and the people to fill it, are your competitors, and they have their own shrines to fill. You can't subdivide it and rent it out, because the buildings are giant aircraft hangers that no one wants, and they're not easily subdivided due to the location of cafeterias and bathrooms. So what do you do? Exercise your capricious and unaccountable power to force the serfs back into the temple. You like seeing the building filled because it makes you feel important. They'll even admit this to an extent when they talk about the joys of seeing people in the office, being able to ask people what they're doing. If we want to be charitable, we can call it the primacy of management by random encounter. But they know, we know it's all bullshit, because everyone has witnessed the growth and effectiveness of when the company was (almost) fully remote.
  - uxcolumbo 4y ago
    I like the way you put this… best plausible explanation (for me) . In this regard upper management isn’t driven by data, like you said it’s mainly about them and how it makes them feel to be in control again. I hope us the serfs can ‘win’ this.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  Yes, it is. But they're human, and their decisions are subject to human fallacies as much as anyone else's.
  - fragmede 4y ago
    For now. Just wait for UpperManagementGPT to start making business decisions.

tut-urut-utut 4y ago

Believe it or not, there are enough people who like to go to the office rather than working from home.

MuffinFlavored 4y ago
I don't think this describes why executive leadership would force people who want to work from home back into the office against their will.
misnome 4y ago
None of whom are affected by any of these.

Xcelerate 4y ago

Worked at one of those four companies you mentioned on one of the teams analyzing employee productivity during the pandemic through EOY 2022. The one liner (that ignores all nuance) is that remote work does not negatively affect productivity, at least for the company I was at. Decisions by leadership are not significantly influenced by what the data shows.

MuffinFlavored 4y ago
> Decisions by leadership are not significantly influenced by what the data shows. If it isn't productivity (or morale) driving their decision on "putting their foot down and demanding no work from home", what is it? I don't believe it's some simple reductionist "they're evil and want employee control" narrative.
- Xcelerate 4y ago
  > If it isn't productivity (or morale) driving their decision on "putting their foot down and demanding no work from home", what is it? Unfortunately, my background is in data science. I would say the field of psychology is better suited to answering that question.
- tsgagnon 4y ago
  I don't believe it's some simple reductionist "they're evil and want employee control" narrative. Remove the "they're evil" part and I don't see what's reductionist about it being about "having more control over employees"? That to me sounds like a very likely explanation.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  I don't think many people are ascribing it to maliciousness. What it looks like to me is a combination of two things: 1) Working in an office full of people is what they personally prefer, and 2) They have large investments in physical infrastructure that they need to use.
  - MuffinFlavored 4y ago

xienze 4y ago

> They must have some data that shows people are more productive I think it comes down to not liking the idea of paying $$$ on lavish offices that are ghost towns. And I also wouldn’t doubt cities are “encouraging” companies to force BTO because local economies have been hit hard by the lack of office workers.

vitaflo 4y ago
The city I live in did this. Gave all sorts of tax breaks to companies downtown to get people back in the office because lack of employees was hurting all the other small businesses that were built up around downtown to service those employees during the day (think restaurants, coffee shops, dry cleaners, day care, etc).

NikolaNovak 4y ago

I keep thinking that; I don't want to believe this is just people who don't know how to use email and slack, enforcing their habits on everybody else. But, why has nobody come out and shared that data? All I keep hearing is these nice anecdotes about meeting random people accidentally, and vague hand-waving about collaboration. (my own team is operations/application maintenance, and we are WAY more effective and efficient now that everybody is remote and on the same level. I understand that may not be the case in all fields/areas/teams).

dalyons 4y ago
if the data existed it would have been shouted from the rooftop, given the anti WFH corporate sentiment. That you havent seen any speaks volumes.