4 ms·

This is a non-sequitur. Sure that’s possible, and sure it’s case by case, and sure it’s nuanced. What’s especially helpful to such nuanced and detailed debates

This is a non-sequitur. Sure that’s possible, and sure it’s case by case, and sure it’s nuanced. What’s especially helpful to such nuanced and detailed debates is data. So my question is why isn’t data being brought out in support of the RTO argument? Two pretty obvious potential reasons are that they don’t have data or the data doesn’t support the argument they’re making, which reflects rather poorly on management and their decision-making. I’m personally skeptical of the explanation “they have the data and it supports their argument but they just don’t wanna show it to their employees as they beg them to come back to office.” Just makes a lot less sense than the other explanations IMO.

kcplate 3y ago
> So my question is why isn’t data being brought out in support of the RTO argument? No one’s bringing out data to support WFH either, so I really don’t understand this demand. WFH at scale only has around 3 years of history where in office has decades and decades.
voisin 3y ago
The only data I’ve seen supporting WFH is that some percentage of employees prefer it and will quit their job if required to go back to the office and other jobs exist that do not require the office. There are plenty of anecdotes by employees stating that they are definitely, for sure, 100% more productive at home. But I have seen very few by top level execs stating that this is true and that it also scales to teams, divisions, etc. Even the definition of productivity seems very, very loose in these discussions - is it that an employee feels more productive because they don’t have to commute? Because they write more code or better code? Because they can do the laundry at lunch rather than outside work hours?
- ethanbond 3y ago
  So on the one hand you have people saying “I prefer it.” On the other hand you have people saying “in office is more productive.” Note how it only makes sense to ask one of those parties for data to substantiate their position.
  - voisin 3y ago
    The people saying “in office is more productive” don’t have to answer to anyone because they pay the salaries. The employees who are saying “I prefer it” have the right to quit. There really isn’t a debate here that requires scientific studies backing it. It’s like asking whether Elon Musk had any studies showing X was a better name than Twitter. Companies can do what they want and employees can vote with their feet. If the job market weakens then it becomes a harder vote in the negative. WFH is really no different a perk than free lunches or unlimited PTO. it will be offered when the labour market demands it, but I think we are heading into a weaker market and employees will be up shit’s creek.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      As explained elsewhere: no one is saying companies have any obligation to do any of this That is irrelevant to the conversation going on here.
hug 3y ago
Your skepticism is unsolvable, as it is for the majority of managers who have this data, individually. Imagine, for a moment, that I have collected metrics on the members of the teams that I manage that measure productivity against work from home, things like sprint burn down versus work from home, and things of that nature. Suppose that I have this information for 50 people. I can’t share it externally due to corporate policy, and I can’t extend its scope to other teams that don’t use Jira in the way we do. I can use it to try to discuss WFH with my teams directly, but even starting this conversation is liable to upset WFH stalwarts, but if I do I cannot present this information in a way that is both deidentifiable and satisfyingly comprehensive. If I aggregate it I get something like “we’re 10% better at task completion while in the office”, I have people who claim to be an exception to the rule (and the loudest complainers are disproportionately actually the worst when it comes to WFH productivity), and if I present it unaggregated then I have people complaining about being called out publicly as under-performers (rightfully so) and people complaining since their productivity didn’t slip 10% they should be able to work from home. I cannot manage 50 different WFH policies due to incoming complaints about fairness, mandating RTO upsets the team, allowing unrestricted WFH nets a productivity loss, and anyone who says “fire the people who are underperforming from home” knows nothing about management. So my personal response here is to just allow the productivity loss: 10% productivity means less to me than the major impact on the happiness of the teams, but it must be recognised that this pick is the “best of bad options”, if you’re trying to maximise business output. Clearly, at some level of management, the happiness is less important that the profit, but that’s beyond my pay grade.
- voisin 3y ago
  > Clearly, at some level of management, the happiness is less important that the profit, but that’s beyond my pay grade. It isn’t beyond your pay grade. If your team underperforms because of your decision, then you risk the entire team being let go in the next downturn.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  Yeah this is a thoughtful comment rooted in the (complicated) reality of management. I’m curious in your specific experience: do you feel like you have that data and what type of data are you looking at? (Without sharing the figures of course)

kcplate 3y ago

> So my question is why isn’t data being brought out in support of the RTO argument? No one’s bringing out data to support WFH either, so I really don’t understand this demand. WFH at scale only has around 3 years of history where in office has decades and decades.

voisin 3y ago

The only data I’ve seen supporting WFH is that some percentage of employees prefer it and will quit their job if required to go back to the office and other jobs exist that do not require the office. There are plenty of anecdotes by employees stating that they are definitely, for sure, 100% more productive at home. But I have seen very few by top level execs stating that this is true and that it also scales to teams, divisions, etc. Even the definition of productivity seems very, very loose in these discussions - is it that an employee feels more productive because they don’t have to commute? Because they write more code or better code? Because they can do the laundry at lunch rather than outside work hours?

ethanbond 3y ago
So on the one hand you have people saying “I prefer it.” On the other hand you have people saying “in office is more productive.” Note how it only makes sense to ask one of those parties for data to substantiate their position.
- voisin 3y ago
  The people saying “in office is more productive” don’t have to answer to anyone because they pay the salaries. The employees who are saying “I prefer it” have the right to quit. There really isn’t a debate here that requires scientific studies backing it. It’s like asking whether Elon Musk had any studies showing X was a better name than Twitter. Companies can do what they want and employees can vote with their feet. If the job market weakens then it becomes a harder vote in the negative. WFH is really no different a perk than free lunches or unlimited PTO. it will be offered when the labour market demands it, but I think we are heading into a weaker market and employees will be up shit’s creek.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    As explained elsewhere: no one is saying companies have any obligation to do any of this That is irrelevant to the conversation going on here.

hug 3y ago

Your skepticism is unsolvable, as it is for the majority of managers who have this data, individually. Imagine, for a moment, that I have collected metrics on the members of the teams that I manage that measure productivity against work from home, things like sprint burn down versus work from home, and things of that nature. Suppose that I have this information for 50 people. I can’t share it externally due to corporate policy, and I can’t extend its scope to other teams that don’t use Jira in the way we do. I can use it to try to discuss WFH with my teams directly, but even starting this conversation is liable to upset WFH stalwarts, but if I do I cannot present this information in a way that is both deidentifiable and satisfyingly comprehensive. If I aggregate it I get something like “we’re 10% better at task completion while in the office”, I have people who claim to be an exception to the rule (and the loudest complainers are disproportionately actually the worst when it comes to WFH productivity), and if I present it unaggregated then I have people complaining about being called out publicly as under-performers (rightfully so) and people complaining since their productivity didn’t slip 10% they should be able to work from home. I cannot manage 50 different WFH policies due to incoming complaints about fairness, mandating RTO upsets the team, allowing unrestricted WFH nets a productivity loss, and anyone who says “fire the people who are underperforming from home” knows nothing about management. So my personal response here is to just allow the productivity loss: 10% productivity means less to me than the major impact on the happiness of the teams, but it must be recognised that this pick is the “best of bad options”, if you’re trying to maximise business output. Clearly, at some level of management, the happiness is less important that the profit, but that’s beyond my pay grade.

voisin 3y ago
> Clearly, at some level of management, the happiness is less important that the profit, but that’s beyond my pay grade. It isn’t beyond your pay grade. If your team underperforms because of your decision, then you risk the entire team being let go in the next downturn.
ethanbond 3y ago
Yeah this is a thoughtful comment rooted in the (complicated) reality of management. I’m curious in your specific experience: do you feel like you have that data and what type of data are you looking at? (Without sharing the figures of course)