7 ms·

One of the many benefits of working from home is that writing great software is heavily dependent on getting into a good "flow". Commuting alone absolutely dest

One of the many benefits of working from home is that writing great software is heavily dependent on getting into a good "flow". Commuting alone absolutely destroys that for most people. When you work from home you drop so many stages and so much stress out of your morning routine. I find myself being productive within an hour of waking up. That's definitely not the case if I'm forced into an office. Especially if people start chatting me up once I get there (which always happens). Commuting home after a long day is soul destroying as well. It's time stolen from my personal life.

dcow 3y ago
I feel like this discussion is missing the hybrid part of the policy. 2 days at home for flow state work and 3 at the office to collaborate doesn't seem crazy. Maybe it should be 2-3 instead of 3-2 for some people, but in my experience the biggest productivity disruptor is meetings. And you’re only getting two “no meetings” days a week anyway. And the biggest downside from working at home is the hit to socializing and collaboration. You’ll hear anecdotes for days from both sides. A hybrid policy addresses both perspectives. Now if you just want to work for a fully remote company or in a remote role, why not take a job at a place where that’s the philosophy? And on the flip side, if companies want productive employees over the age of 28, and deliberately don’t want to be remote, maybe they should start providing offices instead of desk clusters…
- troupe 3y ago
  If there is value in interacting in the office, hybrid work that has people coming in on random days seems almost like the worst of both worlds. If the value is to get face time with your teammates, then the in office days need to be aligned.
  - judge2020 3y ago
    The "solution" is for everyone on a team to come in on the same days.
    - troupe 3y ago
      Yes, but that doesn't seem to be what is happening in most places.
      - _ph_ 3y ago
        But it sounds like a management problem, if they cannot organize their team to get together on one day. Shouldn't that be easier than just forcing everyone to be in every day?
    - LinXitoW 3y ago
      Which can only work if you have a team entirely located in the same place, working on the same project.
- SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
  > Now if you just want to work for a fully remote company or in a remote role, why not take a job at a place where that’s the philosophy? Because during COVID a lot of companies started saying that's their new philosophy and are reneging on it now that they feel they can, and a lot of us shuffled around during that time. People hired onto remote teams and are getting rug pulled now.
  - dcow 3y ago
    To my knowledge nobody said they were 100% remote, you are in a remote role, and are now reneging. If they said they’re remote then they’re still remote.
    - bluefishinit 3y ago
      They did: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23155647 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23155647 > you are in a remote role, and are now reneging It's completely unreasonable for a company to force you to move, if a company asks that of you start looking for a new job immediately. There are companies out there that respect your personal life and don't want to consume it.
      - dcow 3y ago
        Twitter reneged? We’re talking about Google here.
        bluefishinit 3y ago
        The post we're replying to said: > Because during COVID a lot of companies started saying that's their new philosophy and are reneging on it now that they feel they can, and a lot of us shuffled around during that time. People hired onto remote teams and are getting rug pulled now. Twitter is one of those companies. Any company that didn't say "you can work remote temporarily", but now wants to force RTO is also going back on their social (and potentially legal) contract with their employees.
- bluefishinit 3y ago
  I don't like hybrid because what I say about ruining flow is still true on the days that you have to come in and even worse, you're forced into the real-estate market by the office vs living where you want and where you can afford.
  - dcow 3y ago
    That should be a discussion with your manager and HR department. Most places assist with relocation expenses. And nobody paid you to move away from the office in the first place.
    - harulfool 3y ago
      Hey dcow, maybe they were hired for remote work and are now being forced into hybrid. And absolutely no company is going to help their employees pay for the cost of living in places like Vancouver, San Fran, London. So let's bring the argument back to reality, ok?
      - addisonl 3y ago
        > And absolutely no company is going to help their employees pay for the cost of living in places like Vancouver, San Fran, London Well this is definitely not true.
    - bluefishinit 3y ago
      I WFH and would never work in the office again. If the place I was working demanded that I go into the office, I wouldn't talk to the HR department, I'd find a new remote job.
      - dcow 3y ago
        Good, that’s exactly what you should do!
- hedora 3y ago
  I did the force hybrid thing for a while (team showed up on the same days). It was awful for productivity. One in-person day per week would have been OK, but the other time in the office was a waste. The only work that got done that day could have been done via a few scheduled 30 minute 1:1’s. If management must force people into the same spot, I’d suggest considering a “Thursday we grab beers or go hiking, etc at noon” schedule. It would be better for morale and productivity, and also cheaper than maintaining an office. They could even give everyone a free coworking account.
  - harulfool 3y ago
    [dead]
  - PKop 3y ago
    This is a great idea and an example of thinking outside the box to actually achieve a goal, rather than cargo-culting the corporate conventional wisdom that collaboration has to be in the office or can't be constrained to a small amount of actual work time, mixed with activities.
  - Arelius 3y ago
    Yeah, for sure. I can't get anything done in the office anymore. At this point, we just go in once every couple of weeks, when we can all arrange a lunch, and it generally just turns into a: Do a bit of office maintenance, and socialize with coworkers day. I actually quite like it.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > And you’re only getting two “no meetings” days a week anyway. My experience working from home was that it didn't change the amount of meetings at all.
  - dcow 3y ago
    Right that was my (slightly ambiguously worded, my bad) point. WFH hasn't materially changed the amount of time I spend in meetings, which ultimately is the thing that pulls me out of flow states aside from typically distracting stuff that can happen in any environment.
dagw 3y ago
For what it's worth I find it the exact opposite. If I need 8+ hours of uninterrupted 'flow', nothing beats the office. My 'commute' (a 30 minute walk) clears my head, and really helps me switch into 'work mode'. Then I grab a desk in the designated quiet section of the office and I have a clean desk, no distractions and, since I'm in the quiet section, I can be reasonably sure I won't be disturbed all day. At work there is nothing to do but work. If I need something to eat or drink the office cafe will sort me out quickly and efficiently. I can stay in the office until I'm done, then walk away leaving work behind me both physically and metaphorically. Don't get me wrong, I love working from home as well and never want to go back to the office full time, but home is full of distractions. Everything from cooking lunch, to deciding to quickly throw on a load of laundry to talking with daughter about her day when she comes home from school are all distractions I don't have att the office.
- ericmay 3y ago
  If I had to guess, other than most offices just absolutely sucking ass, this is the nation-wide crux of the entire debate: > My 'commute' (a 30 minute walk) Most Americans have a 30 minute drive at best, and state departments of transportation and the federal government are doing everything they possibly can to make sure more cars are sold, more highways are built, and lanes are widened because they'll be damned if someone is going to wake up with no car related debt and walk to work. No state DOT is turning down a lane widening project, or a new highway build, or a "smart lane" because their jobs depend on it, even if it comes at the expense of us all. They really are not departments of transportation but just departments of highways and cars. Recently I joined a community input/comment session regarding a $44 million "Smart Lane" here in Columbus. I learned two things: 1) These comment periods are a formality. A state's DOT will never turn down a big project. 2) The state DOTs are focused on metrics like maintaining existing commute times.
  - milkytron 3y ago
    > No state DOT is turning down a lane widening project, or a new highway build, or a "smart lane" because their jobs depend on it, even if it comes at the expense of us all. They really are not departments of transportation but just departments of highways and cars. I think states DOTs differ pretty widely. In Texas and I imagine Ohio, yeah they're very car oriented. But where I live, a lane widening project was just rejected because of how expensive it would be and instead they are using funding towards improving other transportation solutions that don't involve cars. In the past CDOT has been heavily car and highway oriented, but that seems to be changing slowly. Maybe other states are also considering different options to cars. https://coloradosun.com/2022/05/16/i-25-no-expansion-central-denver/ https://coloradosun.com/2022/05/16/i-25-no-expansion-central...
osigurdson 3y ago
Nonsense. Good software is about good looking people looking at the screen, one of them is sitting down and typing while the other are pointing and confidently smiling. No grilled cheese.
RestlessMind 3y ago
You are assuming that all the homes are well equipped to handle good flows. Maybe true in American suburbia with big homes and spare rooms. How about small city apartments shared other people (partner, roommates)? Multi-generational setups? Toddlers at home? I bet most of the workers do not have a proper working set up at home.
newsclues 3y ago
"Commuting alone absolutely destroys that for most people." Commuting is not equal. Short vs Long commutes, commuting where you have to drive, commuting where you physically exert yourself, commuting where you meander through a park or market on the way to the office and leisurely have breakfast on the way... these are all commutes but they might not all be experienced by everyone the same. Some people hate driving to work, other people have a sports car and love it, and some people might not mind sitting in rush hour traffic with some good music and a bong in their lap. Personally I love a 15-25 minute bike ride to work. Nothing like it to wake up, clear your mind and get energized for the work day, and the ride home can be a furious workout to destress, or slow and blissful. But that is me. A) Not all commutes are bad B) Cities should probably be designed to make commuting better (but that may require less cars and more public transportation and better urban planning) C) Some commutes can be good. D) Long term consequences of decreased activity and social interaction may not be apparent yet.

dcow 3y ago

I feel like this discussion is missing the hybrid part of the policy. 2 days at home for flow state work and 3 at the office to collaborate doesn't seem crazy. Maybe it should be 2-3 instead of 3-2 for some people, but in my experience the biggest productivity disruptor is meetings. And you’re only getting two “no meetings” days a week anyway. And the biggest downside from working at home is the hit to socializing and collaboration. You’ll hear anecdotes for days from both sides. A hybrid policy addresses both perspectives. Now if you just want to work for a fully remote company or in a remote role, why not take a job at a place where that’s the philosophy? And on the flip side, if companies want productive employees over the age of 28, and deliberately don’t want to be remote, maybe they should start providing offices instead of desk clusters…

troupe 3y ago
If there is value in interacting in the office, hybrid work that has people coming in on random days seems almost like the worst of both worlds. If the value is to get face time with your teammates, then the in office days need to be aligned.
- judge2020 3y ago
  The "solution" is for everyone on a team to come in on the same days.
  - troupe 3y ago
    Yes, but that doesn't seem to be what is happening in most places.
    - _ph_ 3y ago
      But it sounds like a management problem, if they cannot organize their team to get together on one day. Shouldn't that be easier than just forcing everyone to be in every day?
  - LinXitoW 3y ago
    Which can only work if you have a team entirely located in the same place, working on the same project.
SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
> Now if you just want to work for a fully remote company or in a remote role, why not take a job at a place where that’s the philosophy? Because during COVID a lot of companies started saying that's their new philosophy and are reneging on it now that they feel they can, and a lot of us shuffled around during that time. People hired onto remote teams and are getting rug pulled now.
- dcow 3y ago
  To my knowledge nobody said they were 100% remote, you are in a remote role, and are now reneging. If they said they’re remote then they’re still remote.
  - bluefishinit 3y ago
    They did: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23155647 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23155647 > you are in a remote role, and are now reneging It's completely unreasonable for a company to force you to move, if a company asks that of you start looking for a new job immediately. There are companies out there that respect your personal life and don't want to consume it.
    - dcow 3y ago
      Twitter reneged? We’re talking about Google here.
      - bluefishinit 3y ago
        The post we're replying to said: > Because during COVID a lot of companies started saying that's their new philosophy and are reneging on it now that they feel they can, and a lot of us shuffled around during that time. People hired onto remote teams and are getting rug pulled now. Twitter is one of those companies. Any company that didn't say "you can work remote temporarily", but now wants to force RTO is also going back on their social (and potentially legal) contract with their employees.
bluefishinit 3y ago
I don't like hybrid because what I say about ruining flow is still true on the days that you have to come in and even worse, you're forced into the real-estate market by the office vs living where you want and where you can afford.
- dcow 3y ago
  That should be a discussion with your manager and HR department. Most places assist with relocation expenses. And nobody paid you to move away from the office in the first place.
  - harulfool 3y ago
    Hey dcow, maybe they were hired for remote work and are now being forced into hybrid. And absolutely no company is going to help their employees pay for the cost of living in places like Vancouver, San Fran, London. So let's bring the argument back to reality, ok?
    - addisonl 3y ago
      > And absolutely no company is going to help their employees pay for the cost of living in places like Vancouver, San Fran, London Well this is definitely not true.
  - bluefishinit 3y ago
    I WFH and would never work in the office again. If the place I was working demanded that I go into the office, I wouldn't talk to the HR department, I'd find a new remote job.
    - dcow 3y ago
      Good, that’s exactly what you should do!
hedora 3y ago
I did the force hybrid thing for a while (team showed up on the same days). It was awful for productivity. One in-person day per week would have been OK, but the other time in the office was a waste. The only work that got done that day could have been done via a few scheduled 30 minute 1:1’s. If management must force people into the same spot, I’d suggest considering a “Thursday we grab beers or go hiking, etc at noon” schedule. It would be better for morale and productivity, and also cheaper than maintaining an office. They could even give everyone a free coworking account.
- harulfool 3y ago
  [dead]
- PKop 3y ago
  This is a great idea and an example of thinking outside the box to actually achieve a goal, rather than cargo-culting the corporate conventional wisdom that collaboration has to be in the office or can't be constrained to a small amount of actual work time, mixed with activities.
- Arelius 3y ago
  Yeah, for sure. I can't get anything done in the office anymore. At this point, we just go in once every couple of weeks, when we can all arrange a lunch, and it generally just turns into a: Do a bit of office maintenance, and socialize with coworkers day. I actually quite like it.
JohnFen 3y ago
> And you’re only getting two “no meetings” days a week anyway. My experience working from home was that it didn't change the amount of meetings at all.
- dcow 3y ago
  Right that was my (slightly ambiguously worded, my bad) point. WFH hasn't materially changed the amount of time I spend in meetings, which ultimately is the thing that pulls me out of flow states aside from typically distracting stuff that can happen in any environment.

dagw 3y ago

For what it's worth I find it the exact opposite. If I need 8+ hours of uninterrupted 'flow', nothing beats the office. My 'commute' (a 30 minute walk) clears my head, and really helps me switch into 'work mode'. Then I grab a desk in the designated quiet section of the office and I have a clean desk, no distractions and, since I'm in the quiet section, I can be reasonably sure I won't be disturbed all day. At work there is nothing to do but work. If I need something to eat or drink the office cafe will sort me out quickly and efficiently. I can stay in the office until I'm done, then walk away leaving work behind me both physically and metaphorically. Don't get me wrong, I love working from home as well and never want to go back to the office full time, but home is full of distractions. Everything from cooking lunch, to deciding to quickly throw on a load of laundry to talking with daughter about her day when she comes home from school are all distractions I don't have att the office.

ericmay 3y ago
If I had to guess, other than most offices just absolutely sucking ass, this is the nation-wide crux of the entire debate: > My 'commute' (a 30 minute walk) Most Americans have a 30 minute drive at best, and state departments of transportation and the federal government are doing everything they possibly can to make sure more cars are sold, more highways are built, and lanes are widened because they'll be damned if someone is going to wake up with no car related debt and walk to work. No state DOT is turning down a lane widening project, or a new highway build, or a "smart lane" because their jobs depend on it, even if it comes at the expense of us all. They really are not departments of transportation but just departments of highways and cars. Recently I joined a community input/comment session regarding a $44 million "Smart Lane" here in Columbus. I learned two things: 1) These comment periods are a formality. A state's DOT will never turn down a big project. 2) The state DOTs are focused on metrics like maintaining existing commute times.
- milkytron 3y ago
  > No state DOT is turning down a lane widening project, or a new highway build, or a "smart lane" because their jobs depend on it, even if it comes at the expense of us all. They really are not departments of transportation but just departments of highways and cars. I think states DOTs differ pretty widely. In Texas and I imagine Ohio, yeah they're very car oriented. But where I live, a lane widening project was just rejected because of how expensive it would be and instead they are using funding towards improving other transportation solutions that don't involve cars. In the past CDOT has been heavily car and highway oriented, but that seems to be changing slowly. Maybe other states are also considering different options to cars. https://coloradosun.com/2022/05/16/i-25-no-expansion-central-denver/ https://coloradosun.com/2022/05/16/i-25-no-expansion-central...

osigurdson 3y ago

Nonsense. Good software is about good looking people looking at the screen, one of them is sitting down and typing while the other are pointing and confidently smiling. No grilled cheese.

RestlessMind 3y ago

You are assuming that all the homes are well equipped to handle good flows. Maybe true in American suburbia with big homes and spare rooms. How about small city apartments shared other people (partner, roommates)? Multi-generational setups? Toddlers at home? I bet most of the workers do not have a proper working set up at home.

newsclues 3y ago

"Commuting alone absolutely destroys that for most people." Commuting is not equal. Short vs Long commutes, commuting where you have to drive, commuting where you physically exert yourself, commuting where you meander through a park or market on the way to the office and leisurely have breakfast on the way... these are all commutes but they might not all be experienced by everyone the same. Some people hate driving to work, other people have a sports car and love it, and some people might not mind sitting in rush hour traffic with some good music and a bong in their lap. Personally I love a 15-25 minute bike ride to work. Nothing like it to wake up, clear your mind and get energized for the work day, and the ride home can be a furious workout to destress, or slow and blissful. But that is me. A) Not all commutes are bad B) Cities should probably be designed to make commuting better (but that may require less cars and more public transportation and better urban planning) C) Some commutes can be good. D) Long term consequences of decreased activity and social interaction may not be apparent yet.