4 ms·

> We've _heard_ from Googlers that those who spend at least three days a week in the office _feel_ more connected to other Googlers, and that this effect is mag

> We've _heard_ from Googlers that those who spend at least three days a week in the office _feel_ more connected to other Googlers, and that this effect is magnified when teammates work from the same location," As an employee or an investor I would not want any of my CXOs to make major decisions based on hearsay and feelings, but it's guess it's different for WFH.

llamaboy 3y ago
Don’t forget the confirmation bias too! Who would have thought the people that go to the office think going to the office is good?!? Perhaps ask the remote workers how connected they feel…
hakfoo 3y ago
I also love the self-selected aspect. "The people who did X say positive things about X." There are scenarios where WFH is an excellent away around socially awkward scenarios. If the guy in the next cubicle makes things subtly uncomfortable-- maybe you don't like his cologne, maybe he's just a little too friendly-- being able to just bail and limit your exposure to scheduled meetings in a videochat box can be a huge win. Or conversely, I'd expect WFH to appeal to many people with social anxiety issues and autism-spectrum conditions, as again, you can just exit an environment that makes you uncomfortable on a daily basis. I'd also be interested to see how many on-premise perks they rolled back when nobody was in-office to claim them. That's a completely quantifiable number-- for the sake of "bringing people back to the office", you have to pay for a lot more catered lunches, probably way more claims for child care subsidies and transport reimbursements.
emodendroket 3y ago
It's pointless reading the justifications since they're obvious post hoc rationalizations.
LinuxBender 3y ago
Just a theory but I would guess that investors are probably interested in the bottom line which may be impacted by tax incentives or lack thereof for having their multi-million dollar investments into buildings occupied by {n}% of staff for {y}% of the year. I don't have anything to back this up, just vague memories of articles discussing the effect Covid-19 had on real estate. I believe there have also been real estate crashes predicted for large office buildings which could lead investors to hold on for dear life and double-down on utilizing the buildings for a few years. Otherwise people could just try to get out of contracts, write-down losses and sell their buildings fully embracing WFH.
- pydry 3y ago
  I always used to think that but with tech I really think that fashion and herd mentality is a bigger driver of investor behavior.
lepus 3y ago
Regardless of your opinion of WFH this sounds exactly like the kind of statement a company makes when they want to force their employees to deeply identify with their employer in an unhealthy way, or at least fake it. It's a great strategy for producing a monoculture of thought long term.

llamaboy 3y ago

Don’t forget the confirmation bias too! Who would have thought the people that go to the office think going to the office is good?!? Perhaps ask the remote workers how connected they feel…

hakfoo 3y ago

I also love the self-selected aspect. "The people who did X say positive things about X." There are scenarios where WFH is an excellent away around socially awkward scenarios. If the guy in the next cubicle makes things subtly uncomfortable-- maybe you don't like his cologne, maybe he's just a little too friendly-- being able to just bail and limit your exposure to scheduled meetings in a videochat box can be a huge win. Or conversely, I'd expect WFH to appeal to many people with social anxiety issues and autism-spectrum conditions, as again, you can just exit an environment that makes you uncomfortable on a daily basis. I'd also be interested to see how many on-premise perks they rolled back when nobody was in-office to claim them. That's a completely quantifiable number-- for the sake of "bringing people back to the office", you have to pay for a lot more catered lunches, probably way more claims for child care subsidies and transport reimbursements.

emodendroket 3y ago

It's pointless reading the justifications since they're obvious post hoc rationalizations.

LinuxBender 3y ago

Just a theory but I would guess that investors are probably interested in the bottom line which may be impacted by tax incentives or lack thereof for having their multi-million dollar investments into buildings occupied by {n}% of staff for {y}% of the year. I don't have anything to back this up, just vague memories of articles discussing the effect Covid-19 had on real estate. I believe there have also been real estate crashes predicted for large office buildings which could lead investors to hold on for dear life and double-down on utilizing the buildings for a few years. Otherwise people could just try to get out of contracts, write-down losses and sell their buildings fully embracing WFH.

pydry 3y ago
I always used to think that but with tech I really think that fashion and herd mentality is a bigger driver of investor behavior.

lepus 3y ago

Regardless of your opinion of WFH this sounds exactly like the kind of statement a company makes when they want to force their employees to deeply identify with their employer in an unhealthy way, or at least fake it. It's a great strategy for producing a monoculture of thought long term.