3 ms·

> “Demonstrate with hard facts to an employer that work from home is more productive than in office work for the organization.” Again, we only have evidence t

> “Demonstrate with hard facts to an employer that work from home is more productive than in office work for the organization.” Again, we only have evidence that offices are bad for employees, and that happy workers are more productive, but I suspect that we'll have a lot more evidence about the advantages and disadvantages of remote work in the coming years. I also suspect that employees who enjoyed remote work will be more unhappy being back in an office than they were before they had a taste of freedom. > we own or have long term leases on all of our buildings and the commercial real estate market is not conducive to a reasonable financial exit from our leases and properties. That's an example of a sunk cost fallacy. > . Also, none of our office layouts fall into “the bad” categories that you provided. If you've managed to avoid open floor plans and cubicles than you're better off than most offices. You'll have to hope that the nice office and culture will be valued so much by employees that they won't mind giving up the ability work in an environment of their own choosing, closer to the things and people that they love. The good news is that there are a lot of people who really enjoy commuting and working in an office. Some people who were forced to work remotely during the worst of the pandemic have really struggled with it. You might find you lose a lot of talent, and that you struggle to hire new workers with your self-imposed restrictions of "needs to be geographically near us or willing to upend their lives and relocate, and must love commuting and working in an office environment" but there are certainly some people who will fit that criteria (or at least be willing to fake it), especially if you're paying your workers a lot more than others.

kcplate 3y ago
My point is that we (those of us who support WFH, because I am one of them) do not come to this debate from a position of strength. Our argument always seems to rely on anecdotal evidence and trying to string together reasons like you did here which literally means nothing to senior leaders who want RTO. They hold all the cards and can choose any reason they want to justify it and you are bound to their whims of where your place of work is located if you want to continue receiving a paycheck from them. The uphill battle is ours. Office layout studies do not get us there because organizations will redesign if they perceive that the office layout is a problem. Sick building studies do not help because they already have legal obligations to provide good environmental quality in their workspaces and most comply. Frankly even your active shooter and security concerns do not help because I bet there are plenty of statistics that can be gathered that will show that a person is much more likely to encounter violence within their homes than at the office. Sunk cost fallacy is only real if the only reason they want RTO is because of RE investments. Some companies might lose good people, but my suspicion is that this will even out over time. As more companies RTO the remote jobs openings will slow down a bit and soon you could find a that remote gigs become less and less available and harder to find, you will see people that quit because of RTO softening their stance on in office if it becomes difficult to find well paying remote gigs. To be in a position of real strength on this issue, we need real reputable studies that show a measurable and significant increases in productivity to the organization if workers are remote. That is literally the only reason that has a hope of convincing an organization hell bent on RTO to change. It has to be a significant increase—-eye opening levels. Tiny net improvements don’t matter, because most leadership will convince themselves that they can manage up small levels of net productivity differences. Until that day we are going to be fighting an uphill battle against a more powerful enemy with an insufficient arsenal.

kcplate 3y ago

My point is that we (those of us who support WFH, because I am one of them) do not come to this debate from a position of strength. Our argument always seems to rely on anecdotal evidence and trying to string together reasons like you did here which literally means nothing to senior leaders who want RTO. They hold all the cards and can choose any reason they want to justify it and you are bound to their whims of where your place of work is located if you want to continue receiving a paycheck from them. The uphill battle is ours. Office layout studies do not get us there because organizations will redesign if they perceive that the office layout is a problem. Sick building studies do not help because they already have legal obligations to provide good environmental quality in their workspaces and most comply. Frankly even your active shooter and security concerns do not help because I bet there are plenty of statistics that can be gathered that will show that a person is much more likely to encounter violence within their homes than at the office. Sunk cost fallacy is only real if the only reason they want RTO is because of RE investments. Some companies might lose good people, but my suspicion is that this will even out over time. As more companies RTO the remote jobs openings will slow down a bit and soon you could find a that remote gigs become less and less available and harder to find, you will see people that quit because of RTO softening their stance on in office if it becomes difficult to find well paying remote gigs. To be in a position of real strength on this issue, we need real reputable studies that show a measurable and significant increases in productivity to the organization if workers are remote. That is literally the only reason that has a hope of convincing an organization hell bent on RTO to change. It has to be a significant increase—-eye opening levels. Tiny net improvements don’t matter, because most leadership will convince themselves that they can manage up small levels of net productivity differences. Until that day we are going to be fighting an uphill battle against a more powerful enemy with an insufficient arsenal.