18 ms·

I understand the merits of WFH and in-person work. One thing that is however funny is the guilt tripping used by employers who have this straw-man version of a

I understand the merits of WFH and in-person work. One thing that is however funny is the guilt tripping used by employers who have this straw-man version of a lazy WFH employee, and more so, employers who have a delusion that their workplace is important enough that people need to sacrifice a large portion of their lives just for the opportunity to be there in person. 90% of jobs aren't people's "passions" and have no chance at becoming some big world changing venture. Lots of employers like to delude themselves that their company is some big important, cutting-edge enterprise that's making a real impact in the world. People just work because they need to. Claiming that WFH is bad because you can't bounce ideas off other employees and get into the real world-changing "deep work" is silly because that's just the employer overvaluing the importance of their company. Those companies do exist, but they're in the minority, and employers smart enough to have founded/run those kinds of companies usually are smart enough to see the merits of a hybrid policy.

smsm42 3y ago
I get their fears about people slacking off WFH, but if they think that I will slack off WFH, but would work like a miner's horse because they are "supervising" me, these poor bastards are so deluded it's not even funny. There's no way they could supervise anybody to that extent, purely on numbers even. Nah, if somebody is prone to slack off because they failed to motivate and engage him, that'd happen in the office in the same way.
sharts 3y ago
These very same employers will never take a pay cut for said “passion” that they have for their product (which they probably don’t even use much either). They want to only pay others per keyboard keystroke but can’t accept that often the most efficient/productive workers don’t need to be busy. They spend a lot of their time thinking so that they can generate more impact with fewer keystrokes. Treat people like adults and, surprisingly, get adult results. Set strategic goals, not daily quotas for minutia work.
- atleastoptimal 3y ago
  There are two issues in the psychology of employers that keep them from doing this. 1. They care more about control than doing the right thing. 2. They don't get satisfaction from improvements that don't come directly from their doing Very stringent quotas, asinine team building activities, and of course, mandatory in-office policies construct a narrative for the company that no good thing that happens is from anywhere but the top-down. They can look at improvements in the bottom line and concoct a much more salient narrative that they were responsible for it; that their employees were nannied and hand-held to success. It's much more satisfying for an egomaniac to reckon with this conclusion than the still gratifying albeit less viscerally satisfying one that granting workers respect and independence will merit the best outcomes.
  - nine_zeros 3y ago
    Astute observations. +1
kneebonian 3y ago
> 90% of jobs aren't people's "passions" I'd also like to add that even if you are in a field and doing work you are "passionate" about you'll spend between 25-75% of your time doing boring administrative bull hockey that no one is passionate about. Whether it's feeling out a time sheet, or watching HR videos on harassing coworkers.
- zer8k 3y ago
  My passion for my job is limited regardless of salary. I am not going to break my back for someone who makes me jump through arbitrary hoops for everything. Want that promotion? Here's yet another 3 things this review cycle we want to see changed. Just do the work of the title before you're awarded the title! No problem! Take unpaid pagerduty shifts that are forced upon you to resolve problems we wouldn't have if we allowed developers time to do anything! I work because I have to. There's nothing to be passionate about. Employers are just mad because it takes a little more talent to do as little as possible when remote. If you're smart, optimizing your work to exactly the requisite sprint points (maybe a little more occasionally to show "initiative"), making the appearance of availability, etc will net you the same effect as zoning out at 2pm and staring at your monitor for the next 3 hours when in office. Even better if you learn to exploit PM's miraculous ability to expand into any time available for work. Now you can reduce your sprint obligation commensurate to the amount of time the PM needed you to "plan". Employers never realized often the smartest most talented employees were mentally checking out way before clocking out. The physical appearance of "work" was enough to trick these morons. I made this realization when I realized how Cxx's, sales, etc view engineers. Just "pie in the sky" dreamers who want "perfect" everything. After making a VP particularly mad at one company (for formally criticizing his dogshit work during an audit as the source of a sev0) I got a reaming that included these exact words. It didn't take long after that to make the connection between engineering and labor, the solid titanium ceiling to progress, and the subsequent solution.
troupe 3y ago
I find it funny that when people were required to be home, employers talked about what great productivity they were getting with people at home. Then when it isn't required anymore, they want everyone back in the office for...productivity. My guess is that most employers really have no way to measure if an employee is being productive or not so managers are just reporting what makes them look good...and now we are back to where managers will look better with lots of people running around the office.
- mkl95 3y ago
  > My guess is that most employers really have no way to measure if an employee is being productive or not so managers are just reporting what makes them look good...and now we are back to where managers will look better with lots of people running around the office. My guess is that CEOs and VCs have some obscure reason to force people back into the office. Perhaps related to real estate, especially considering how hard to sell it is and how much higher the interest rates are. Middle management will typically eat up whatever narrative C-level feeds them.
  - rabuse 3y ago
    I honestly think it's mostly a huge ego boost to flex with. "Look at how GIANT our new billion dollar HQ is, and look at all of these people working for ME!"
    - nine_zeros 3y ago
      > I honestly think it's mostly a huge ego boost to flex with. "Look at how GIANT our new billion dollar HQ is, and look at all of these people working for ME!" This may sound like a joke but having gleaming, globally distributed offices is absolutely is a matter of great pride and ego for the C-Suite. They absolutely fantasize about how they are jet setting from one office to another and how all the employees roll a red carpet for them.
      - AtlasBarfed 3y ago
mkl95 3y ago
> Lots of employers like to delude themselves that their company is some big important, cutting-edge enterprise that's making a real impact in the world. Pretty much. The only time I've considered going back to in-person work since the pandemic was for a FAANG. If you think your employees want to go back to the office, you are either a big tech company or you are deluded
- flangola7 3y ago
  Realistically most FAANG employees are not doing anything that will be written down in history either. For example, whichever division at Microsoft is responsible for Teams.
  - skirmish 3y ago
    It's a common joke at Google: thousands of PhDs moving fields from one protobuf into another. Can confirm, did some of that personally before transferring into a more interesting area.
- okaram 3y ago
  Actually, I work for one of the FAANGs. The vast majority of employees don't one to go back to the office either. What makes it even worse is the one-size-fits-all mandate, with strict enforcement, like you didn't come in to the office Monday, so you have to come on Tuesday.
ecshafer 3y ago
"Hybrid" is just in office work with a fancy name. A company I worked for pushed heavy for RTO and said "Its part time Hybrid". But we already had 1+ days (at managers discretion) WFH a week before covid hit. Hybrid was In office Tuesday through Thursday with remote Monday and Friday. This was actually less flexible than 1 or maybe more as you need it WFH that we had it prior.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  YMMV. two of the companies I worked at mid-post pandemic were truly hybrid when they opened back up. Some people never ever came in and a few came in everyday. Others still were very far away so it was never an option. But I've also heard of old co-workers at later jobs where hybrid was just flowery words and really meant "mandatory remote time and mandatory office".
water9 3y ago
Acting like all humans will work equally as hard when they are supervised vs unsupervised is completely naïve
- fyrn_ 3y ago
  That only makes sense if the employees in question don't produce anything measurable
  - _gabe_ 3y ago
    What’s the difference between producing something measurable that gets scrapped before ever hitting prod regardless of the several months spent working on it and not producing anything measurable at all? Unfortunately, these are the thoughts I’m left with, especially now that my current job is deprecating the years of effort some other guys spent building the last system.
- atleastoptimal 3y ago
  It's also naïve to assume that the work people do when supervised is always valuable and not optimizing for the appearance of work, rather than work itself.
  - deprecative 3y ago
    It's also naive to assume that optimizing for productivity is some goal we should work toward when zero reward structures are in place for it. The thing to optimize for is just enough productivity.
    - imbnwa 3y ago
      Particularly when pay increases in this craft are largely found by job hopping until you possibly land a FAANG job or approximate
    - johnnyanmac 3y ago
      > when zero reward structures are in place for it. we used to have them. Pension is long dead, however. Hell, promotions and raises are arguably dead as well in certain industries. It's practically common knowledge that it's easier for tech jobs to change jobs for a 20% raise than to ask the current company for a 5% raise. And then that company you left after 2 years proceeds to pay someone a 20% raise in order to ramp up someone doing your same job. Companies need to reward tenure and actually budget for employee bonuses if they don't want to keep doing this. But from what I've read, they don't care and HR may even be incentivize to do this song and dance: https://old.reddit.com/r/datascience/comments/uo589a/why_are_companies_willing_to_spend_so_much_on/i8cut6w/ https://old.reddit.com/r/datascience/comments/uo589a/why_are... or if you want a TL;DR for the TL;DR: >HR / recruiting "wins" when hiring, and does not "lose" when employees leave. Their incentives are in most cases at the fastest possible rotation of people.
ryanSrich 3y ago
> One thing that is however funny is the guilt tripping used by employers who have this straw-man version of a lazy WFH employee Which is also a hilarious self-own on the part of the company because they: 1.) hired the person 2.) have such a shitty remote work structure that the same employee is somehow more productive in the office All of these companies that aren’t remote first, or were forced into remote because of the pandemic have put in roughly 0% effort to make remote actually work. It’s not like you can just pick up the office culture and move it to slack. You have to actually make an effort to build the process, tools, and workflows that allow employees to be effective remote workers.
judge2020 3y ago
> employers who have a delusion that their workplace is important enough that people need to sacrifice a large portion of their lives just for the opportunity to be there in person. Being in the office only works with others in the office, so it's a balancing act between this (likely minority) group of both people managers and employees that want RTO, and the group that excels when working in their own curated, controlled environment.
- paulcole 3y ago
  What about the group that thinks they excel when working in their own curated, controlled environment? Companies can probably get more out of average and below average people easily by forcing them into an office. That’s good enough for some companies to get by. And I say this as an average person who would get more done if I didn’t work remotely.
  - mikhailfranco 3y ago
    Upvote for a brave comment. I was triggered by the word Excel in conjunction with average and below average, but that's just me. Also saddened by the phrase get by. Move, if you can, and are also saddened by that phrase.
marcosdumay 3y ago
It's a small point, but we bounce ideas around just fine on my fully remote workplace.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
throwaway72957 3y ago
We have a generous hybrid work policy: you can WFH, but you may be required to attend on-site sessions and meetings, for example if we're doing architecture brainstorms or design reviews. We've not found this to work well over zoom. Overall, this works out to a day or two a month, but most people choose to come in at least 1 day a week for various reasons (mostly social). We casually observed there seemed to be a split in employee WFH performance, with most performing as expected or better when WFH, but a minority performing MUCH worse. That is, significantly less than 50% of the productivity they have while in the office. We've had casual one-to-one meetings with those individuals, and while a few will sort themselves out, most just flat out deny a difference. So we resorted to adding some very basic anonymised monitoring tools to a random subset of staff laptops (hence throwaway account). What we found was that the majority are indistinguishable which days they are working from home and which days they are in the office, but a minority basically do no work when WFH. By this I mean, behaviour such as their laptop is idle for 20 minutes then active for a few seconds. As it's anonymised we can't be sure, but I'm guessing those are the staff we've identified as having a problem. I wouldn't be surprised if they had a second job. The problem is: what to do about it? We're in the UK so just firing people without cause isn't an option. HR are saying it would be unfair, humiliating and potentially constructive dismissal if we forced the problem staff into the office but not everyone else. There's also a lot of valid discomfort and GDPR-related fear around the idea of installing heavy surveillance tools on laptops to collect evidence, and a concern that it will make for a hostile work environment. Even if we just used it very selectively on staff suspected to be breaking their contract, they would undoubtedly tell their colleagues which would lead to discontent. But without that evidence, it's very difficult to legally justify sacking someone. The HR people are trying to force us back to the office because these issues are too challenging to deal with, but we (the tech team management) are trying to find a way to deal with staff who are taking the piss without upsetting everyone else in the process. What's the play here? Genuinely looking for a good solution as, like many others, I personally enjoy WFH and don't want to have to give it up.
- WillDaSilva 3y ago
  Why not have the managers of the underperforming employees be straightforward with them? Tell them that, as far as the manager/company is concerned, they're underperforming (no need to single out the WFH aspect here if you don't want to). They may deny that their performance while working from home is different from their performance in the office, but the manager can dismiss that. It's unpleasant, but better than resorting to surveillance software, and better than making things worse for everyone just to help out this minority who underperform while working from home. Once they've been notified that they're underperforming, try to help them out. If they can't be helped, fire them with well-documented cause (their history of poor performance).
avereveard 3y ago
For me it's not even about the office I quite like there it's quiet compared to home, but the one hour commute back and forth heavily impact my quality of life
Alupis 3y ago
There's a lot of nuance that isn't discussed in the WFH circles. I don't believe the cynical claims some offer of VC's losing out on real estate deals, or mid-level managers needing to boost their butts-in-seats numbers or whatever. For some, perhaps, but on average? What percentage of long-distance relationships work out long-term? Do you become more or less close with friends after they move out of town? Do you still "know" them the same as you did when you regularly met in person for lunch or drinks? Is it awkward when you do see each other in person that one visit a year? Human beings are social creatures - yes, even we introverts need interaction. A pure voice-only relationship can feel close, but it's not the same thing. Current technology like Zoom and similar is just not a good replacement for in-person interactions. How many times have you spoken right over someone on a Zoom call or Discord server? The social queues are erased, and things become awkward and less productive. Creativity (which applies even in engineering) is diminished when you have to use online whiteboards and planning tools vs. a real physical whiteboard with everyone holding their own pen and bouncing ideas around in real-time. To use Zoom et al effectively, the pace of thought and contribution are greatly diminished into a sort of per-turn dance. WFH is fantastic when you have a head-down, concentration-demanding task that is very clearly defined. For most other things, it's actually harder to get work done. WFH is simply not a replacement for team cohesivity. There is a great deal lost when you do not meet in person with the people you work with on a regular basis - we can't just sweep that under the rug because we'd prefer to sit in our home office. We have to acknowledge the real tradeoffs - the loss of the "team". That's not the say WFH doesn't work. Some people make an entire career working from home after all. It is simply an acknowledgement that WFH isn't as beneficial in all situations as you might believe.
- mfitton 3y ago
  I think you're right about this, but there are companies that are putting distributed teams back into open offices just so that... they can sit in zoom meetings with their team. But now, they're less likely to have ad-hoc collaborations over Zoom because it's a pain in the neck to find a conference room and feels borderline disrespectful to one's neighbors to carry on a long call when they're trying to focus. It's all situational. I agree with you that in-person collaboration is beneficial, but bringing people to the office doesn't necessarily do that without restructuring teams that were built on a distributed basis, which can be super disruptive and lose a lot of organizational context.
tester457 3y ago
> Claiming that WFH is bad because you can't bounce ideas off other employees and get into the real world-changing "deep work" is silly Ironically it's easier to get into deep work at home because you don't have to worry about coworkers bouncing ideas on you.
denkmoon 3y ago
If my boss implied that I'm some lazy git taking advantage of WFH he could find a new employee. It's just insulting. Maybe others are, but don't make unfounded accusations.
placesalt 3y ago
> 90% of jobs aren't people's "passions" and have no chance at becoming some big world changing venture. Lots of employers like to delude themselves that their company is some big important, cutting-edge enterprise that's making a real impact in the world. They're not completely to blame; the hordes of people who claim their 'passion' is analyzing widget sales or what have you share some of it. Going along with what are essentially lies about motivations to fit in with the perceived trends of the crowd is understandable (people want to get and keep jobs), but still immoral. And, n=1, but in my experience, it isn't actually necessary.
Sai_ 3y ago
You're missing the fact that work/job _is_ life changing for someone who needs it to put food on the table. Just because no one is inventing anti-cancer medication every other week doesn't mean that person's internal world is not improved by having a job.
- atleastoptimal 3y ago
  > food on the table That point has nothing to do with WFH. If you get paid you can afford food, regardless of where you work. In fact WFH is better because you can save up to 2 hours a day not commuting and instead can spend it on cooking, grocery shopping, food prep, gardening, or any other food on the table related task.
  - Sai_ 3y ago
    The comment I was replying to was premised on most of our work being essentially meaningless in the grander scheme of things. That’s false. You can’t eat if you don’t have UBI or a job.
GMoromisato 3y ago
Complete tangent: I wonder if it's uniquely American to believe that people can/should only be passionate about jobs that are world-changing. Or maybe it's just very common in the tech-world and HN. I'm absolutely guilty of this. I'm a software engineer, and I feel proud of having worked on products that millions of people use. Steve Jobs's challenge to "put a dent in the universe" is axiomatic for many of us. Yet I know that in other countries (e.g., Japan) there is a belief that any job, no matter how humble, is worth doing well and that passion for excellence is a virtue inside us and is not conditional on the perceived pecking order of the job. If we had such an attitude, maybe it would be easier to feel fulfilled--if you're holding out for changing the world before you can be happy, you're (statistically) going to die miserable. On the other hand, maybe a culture in which we give 110% to meaningless jobs is just another chain for the rich and powerful to keep us productive. I honestly don't know.
- eulgro 3y ago
  I find it very difficult to find meaning in a large portion of the jobs available today. Most workers are just another cog in the wheel. The system is so large that one cannot directly appreciate the effects of their work, or even know whether they are positive at all. This contrasts with say, a subsistance farmer who produces food for their family and lives in a small community where every product of their labor has a known and appreciable impact. In that case, the equivalent goal of "changing the world" is "helping the community", which is much more attainable.
  - newaccount74 3y ago
    At some point you have to just like your job. No amount of "you are changing the world" feeling is going to keep you motivated for a job you hate. I get joy from figuring out how to solve a tricky UX issue, or from finally discovering the root cause of a difficult bug. The work itself can be fulfilling, regardless of any potential deeper meaning.
  - mgrund 3y ago
    > I find it very difficult to find meaning in a large portion of the jobs available today. Most workers are just another cog in the wheel. The system is so large that one cannot directly appreciate the effects of their work, or even know whether they are positive at all. My experience is that the same job also has a large range for meaningfulness depending on how well leadership manages to facilitate it.
re-thc 3y ago
> One thing that is however funny is the guilt tripping used by employers who have this straw-man version of a lazy WFH employee, and more so, employers who have a delusion that their workplace is important enough that people need to sacrifice a large portion of their lives just for the opportunity to be there in person. If only it's all the "employers" fault. I've seen plenty of employees post on social media about how their office is "alive" again and feeling the "vibes" of their team with photos sharing them and their co-workers in-office. It's the pro-office crowd in general that wants to crush everyone. Some employers are guilt-tripped or forced to support these loud people. They would complain that it's lonely and no 1 is coming to the office with them.
joj123 3y ago
My cynical take is that HR teams don't know how to manage or engage remote teams. Instead of picking up that skill, they are forcing a return to office.
godelski 3y ago
> Claiming that WFH is bad because you can't bounce ideas off other employees and get into the real world-changing "deep work" What is a bigger hindrance to this to me is an open office plan. Being distracted by watching everyone walk around, no one respecting my headphones being on, walking over to me for a "quick question" that disrupts my flow and ends up being 60 minutes of work which I get no credit for but they do. At least over slack I can not respond to messages, though the ping is still disruptive. What helps create deep work is a fucking door which I can communicate to people that I am in the zone and do not bother me unless you really need me. The truth is that people are just justifying their previous decisions. They made open offices because it is "cheaper" (short term, but arguable long term) and have to come up with a reason that it is "better" other than cost. The same shit happens with WFH because they are still paying for office space. This is crazy since silicon valley was known for crazy perks like laundry and free food and all that but still wouldn't give you an office with a door. But now all that is going away as all their stocks are still going up. The reason those companies got big in the first place is that they realized that there were diminishing returns on financial compensation and that giving other perks actually boosted performance, created loyalty, and keeps people happy. So why stop doing something that is working? (gotta get those stock prices up somehow, right? And a quarterly level, not long term)
- magicalhippo 3y ago
  > a "quick question" that disrupts my flow and ends up being 60 minutes of work which I get no credit for but they do I ask which project this is for and log my hour on that. At least my boss sees I'm not slacking, and if it happens a lot can take action. Perhaps the other person needs more guidance or maybe was a poor fit for that project.
hintymad 3y ago
> this straw-man version of a lazy WFH employee I thought performance management was all about managing results. So, I don't quite understand how "lazy WFH employee" could be a management headache.
johnnyanmac 3y ago
>Lots of employers like to delude themselves that their company is some big important, cutting-edge enterprise that's making a real impact in the world. to be fair, the center of talk on this site are usually in fact the cutting-edge enterprise that is making a real impact on the world (whether that impact is positive or negative is arguable). >employers smart enough to have founded/run those kinds of companies usually are smart enough to see the merits of a hybrid policy. so far, I believe Google and Microsoft and Facebook haven't. Twitter sure hasn't but that's honestly the least of their problems.
didibus 3y ago
I've also found it's all just a matter of processes. For example, open source is often all online, and it creates innovation all the time. People bounce off ideas on forums, on issues, often with a high level of thought going into it all. Great exchanges can happen in written form. But I think a lot of companies that went remote just had no clue how to organize processes, discussions, and decision making for a remote environment.
coldtea 3y ago
>I understand the merits of WFH and in-person work. One thing that is however funny is the guilt tripping used by employers who have this straw-man version of a lazy WFH employee, and more so, employers who have a delusion that their workplace is important enough that people need to sacrifice a large portion of their lives just for the opportunity to be there in person. Also the acceptance of that by employees who have no personal life or live for office drama, and are anti-WFH. God forbid people miss the wondeful brainstorming opportunities of BS meeting -that-could-have-been-an-email, or the wonderful backstabbing and gossip watercooler camaraderie.
nonameiguess 3y ago
This is particularly amusing to me as I sit in bed, right now, at 6 AM on a Saturday morning, having just figured out how to do something and done it in an isolated staging environment, after bouncing ideas of a co-worker in another time zone who happened to also be online and thinking about it right now. And if the idea of working on a Saturday morning at 6 AM sounds toxic, I also logged off at 2 PM yesterday to spend the afternoon with my wife, who'd come home early from her office, and went to sleep by 8 PM, so it's not like I'm hustle culturing it working 80 hour weeks. I just happen to like early mornings. So suck it, dumbass CEOs.
whywhywhywhy 3y ago
> this straw-man version of a lazy WFH employee It's not a straw-man, I've seen behavior in the past year that I've never seen in my entire career things as absurd as someone working 7 other jobs while pretending to work for us. Frankly it isn't worth the risk or waste of time or money anymore. Thankfully just by saying you need to be in the office a few days a week will weed out 90% of timewasters. >employers who have a delusion that their workplace is important enough that people need to sacrifice a large portion of their lives just for the opportunity to be there in person. Employers don't owe you a living, you're welcome to go work somewhere that's fine with you not showing up.
- n4r9 3y ago
  > someone working 7 other jobs while pretending to work for us... Thankfully just by saying you need to be in the office a few days a week will weed out 90% of timewasters Either they're not producing enough output to warrant their salary - in which case you have good grounds to fire them regardless - or they're perfectly productive - in which case why does it matter? The biggest issue many managers have is that they have no idea how to measure employee output, separately from time spent at the desk imor in meetings.
  - atleastoptimal 3y ago
    Many employers feel very insecure when their employees don't spend the majority of their waking hours fixated on their job.
    - tekknik 3y ago
      Probably because they believe salaried pay means 24/7 access to your talents.
- i_am_jl 3y ago
  >I've never seen in my entire career things as absurd as someone working 7 other jobs while pretending to work for us. I'm sure I don't understand. You were paying someone for 40 hours a week and getting ~5. Why was this not apparent to their management? Or, if it was, why was nothing done about it? The problem that your organization pays someone for 8x the output they're getting is definitely a problem, but if your management's only solution to this problem is to force the entire workforce to commute to an office, I think the bigger problem that should be addressed is that your management sucks.
1letterunixname 3y ago
Ass-in-seat mentality is a product of the arrogance of asshats. In other news: office workers should unionize, or at least work together to demand WfH.

smsm42 3y ago

I get their fears about people slacking off WFH, but if they think that I will slack off WFH, but would work like a miner's horse because they are "supervising" me, these poor bastards are so deluded it's not even funny. There's no way they could supervise anybody to that extent, purely on numbers even. Nah, if somebody is prone to slack off because they failed to motivate and engage him, that'd happen in the office in the same way.

sharts 3y ago

These very same employers will never take a pay cut for said “passion” that they have for their product (which they probably don’t even use much either). They want to only pay others per keyboard keystroke but can’t accept that often the most efficient/productive workers don’t need to be busy. They spend a lot of their time thinking so that they can generate more impact with fewer keystrokes. Treat people like adults and, surprisingly, get adult results. Set strategic goals, not daily quotas for minutia work.

atleastoptimal 3y ago
There are two issues in the psychology of employers that keep them from doing this. 1. They care more about control than doing the right thing. 2. They don't get satisfaction from improvements that don't come directly from their doing Very stringent quotas, asinine team building activities, and of course, mandatory in-office policies construct a narrative for the company that no good thing that happens is from anywhere but the top-down. They can look at improvements in the bottom line and concoct a much more salient narrative that they were responsible for it; that their employees were nannied and hand-held to success. It's much more satisfying for an egomaniac to reckon with this conclusion than the still gratifying albeit less viscerally satisfying one that granting workers respect and independence will merit the best outcomes.
- nine_zeros 3y ago
  Astute observations. +1

kneebonian 3y ago

> 90% of jobs aren't people's "passions" I'd also like to add that even if you are in a field and doing work you are "passionate" about you'll spend between 25-75% of your time doing boring administrative bull hockey that no one is passionate about. Whether it's feeling out a time sheet, or watching HR videos on harassing coworkers.

zer8k 3y ago
My passion for my job is limited regardless of salary. I am not going to break my back for someone who makes me jump through arbitrary hoops for everything. Want that promotion? Here's yet another 3 things this review cycle we want to see changed. Just do the work of the title before you're awarded the title! No problem! Take unpaid pagerduty shifts that are forced upon you to resolve problems we wouldn't have if we allowed developers time to do anything! I work because I have to. There's nothing to be passionate about. Employers are just mad because it takes a little more talent to do as little as possible when remote. If you're smart, optimizing your work to exactly the requisite sprint points (maybe a little more occasionally to show "initiative"), making the appearance of availability, etc will net you the same effect as zoning out at 2pm and staring at your monitor for the next 3 hours when in office. Even better if you learn to exploit PM's miraculous ability to expand into any time available for work. Now you can reduce your sprint obligation commensurate to the amount of time the PM needed you to "plan". Employers never realized often the smartest most talented employees were mentally checking out way before clocking out. The physical appearance of "work" was enough to trick these morons. I made this realization when I realized how Cxx's, sales, etc view engineers. Just "pie in the sky" dreamers who want "perfect" everything. After making a VP particularly mad at one company (for formally criticizing his dogshit work during an audit as the source of a sev0) I got a reaming that included these exact words. It didn't take long after that to make the connection between engineering and labor, the solid titanium ceiling to progress, and the subsequent solution.

troupe 3y ago

I find it funny that when people were required to be home, employers talked about what great productivity they were getting with people at home. Then when it isn't required anymore, they want everyone back in the office for...productivity. My guess is that most employers really have no way to measure if an employee is being productive or not so managers are just reporting what makes them look good...and now we are back to where managers will look better with lots of people running around the office.

mkl95 3y ago
> My guess is that most employers really have no way to measure if an employee is being productive or not so managers are just reporting what makes them look good...and now we are back to where managers will look better with lots of people running around the office. My guess is that CEOs and VCs have some obscure reason to force people back into the office. Perhaps related to real estate, especially considering how hard to sell it is and how much higher the interest rates are. Middle management will typically eat up whatever narrative C-level feeds them.
- rabuse 3y ago
  I honestly think it's mostly a huge ego boost to flex with. "Look at how GIANT our new billion dollar HQ is, and look at all of these people working for ME!"
  - nine_zeros 3y ago
    > I honestly think it's mostly a huge ego boost to flex with. "Look at how GIANT our new billion dollar HQ is, and look at all of these people working for ME!" This may sound like a joke but having gleaming, globally distributed offices is absolutely is a matter of great pride and ego for the C-Suite. They absolutely fantasize about how they are jet setting from one office to another and how all the employees roll a red carpet for them.
    - AtlasBarfed 3y ago

mkl95 3y ago

> Lots of employers like to delude themselves that their company is some big important, cutting-edge enterprise that's making a real impact in the world. Pretty much. The only time I've considered going back to in-person work since the pandemic was for a FAANG. If you think your employees want to go back to the office, you are either a big tech company or you are deluded

flangola7 3y ago
Realistically most FAANG employees are not doing anything that will be written down in history either. For example, whichever division at Microsoft is responsible for Teams.
- skirmish 3y ago
  It's a common joke at Google: thousands of PhDs moving fields from one protobuf into another. Can confirm, did some of that personally before transferring into a more interesting area.
okaram 3y ago
Actually, I work for one of the FAANGs. The vast majority of employees don't one to go back to the office either. What makes it even worse is the one-size-fits-all mandate, with strict enforcement, like you didn't come in to the office Monday, so you have to come on Tuesday.

ecshafer 3y ago

"Hybrid" is just in office work with a fancy name. A company I worked for pushed heavy for RTO and said "Its part time Hybrid". But we already had 1+ days (at managers discretion) WFH a week before covid hit. Hybrid was In office Tuesday through Thursday with remote Monday and Friday. This was actually less flexible than 1 or maybe more as you need it WFH that we had it prior.

johnnyanmac 3y ago
YMMV. two of the companies I worked at mid-post pandemic were truly hybrid when they opened back up. Some people never ever came in and a few came in everyday. Others still were very far away so it was never an option. But I've also heard of old co-workers at later jobs where hybrid was just flowery words and really meant "mandatory remote time and mandatory office".

water9 3y ago

Acting like all humans will work equally as hard when they are supervised vs unsupervised is completely naïve

fyrn_ 3y ago
That only makes sense if the employees in question don't produce anything measurable
- _gabe_ 3y ago
  What’s the difference between producing something measurable that gets scrapped before ever hitting prod regardless of the several months spent working on it and not producing anything measurable at all? Unfortunately, these are the thoughts I’m left with, especially now that my current job is deprecating the years of effort some other guys spent building the last system.
atleastoptimal 3y ago
It's also naïve to assume that the work people do when supervised is always valuable and not optimizing for the appearance of work, rather than work itself.
- deprecative 3y ago
  It's also naive to assume that optimizing for productivity is some goal we should work toward when zero reward structures are in place for it. The thing to optimize for is just enough productivity.
  - imbnwa 3y ago
    Particularly when pay increases in this craft are largely found by job hopping until you possibly land a FAANG job or approximate
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    > when zero reward structures are in place for it. we used to have them. Pension is long dead, however. Hell, promotions and raises are arguably dead as well in certain industries. It's practically common knowledge that it's easier for tech jobs to change jobs for a 20% raise than to ask the current company for a 5% raise. And then that company you left after 2 years proceeds to pay someone a 20% raise in order to ramp up someone doing your same job. Companies need to reward tenure and actually budget for employee bonuses if they don't want to keep doing this. But from what I've read, they don't care and HR may even be incentivize to do this song and dance: https://old.reddit.com/r/datascience/comments/uo589a/why_are_companies_willing_to_spend_so_much_on/i8cut6w/ https://old.reddit.com/r/datascience/comments/uo589a/why_are... or if you want a TL;DR for the TL;DR: >HR / recruiting "wins" when hiring, and does not "lose" when employees leave. Their incentives are in most cases at the fastest possible rotation of people.

ryanSrich 3y ago

> One thing that is however funny is the guilt tripping used by employers who have this straw-man version of a lazy WFH employee Which is also a hilarious self-own on the part of the company because they: 1.) hired the person 2.) have such a shitty remote work structure that the same employee is somehow more productive in the office All of these companies that aren’t remote first, or were forced into remote because of the pandemic have put in roughly 0% effort to make remote actually work. It’s not like you can just pick up the office culture and move it to slack. You have to actually make an effort to build the process, tools, and workflows that allow employees to be effective remote workers.

judge2020 3y ago

> employers who have a delusion that their workplace is important enough that people need to sacrifice a large portion of their lives just for the opportunity to be there in person. Being in the office only works with others in the office, so it's a balancing act between this (likely minority) group of both people managers and employees that want RTO, and the group that excels when working in their own curated, controlled environment.

paulcole 3y ago
What about the group that thinks they excel when working in their own curated, controlled environment? Companies can probably get more out of average and below average people easily by forcing them into an office. That’s good enough for some companies to get by. And I say this as an average person who would get more done if I didn’t work remotely.
- mikhailfranco 3y ago
  Upvote for a brave comment. I was triggered by the word Excel in conjunction with average and below average, but that's just me. Also saddened by the phrase get by. Move, if you can, and are also saddened by that phrase.

marcosdumay 3y ago

It's a small point, but we bounce ideas around just fine on my fully remote workplace.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

throwaway72957 3y ago

We have a generous hybrid work policy: you can WFH, but you may be required to attend on-site sessions and meetings, for example if we're doing architecture brainstorms or design reviews. We've not found this to work well over zoom. Overall, this works out to a day or two a month, but most people choose to come in at least 1 day a week for various reasons (mostly social). We casually observed there seemed to be a split in employee WFH performance, with most performing as expected or better when WFH, but a minority performing MUCH worse. That is, significantly less than 50% of the productivity they have while in the office. We've had casual one-to-one meetings with those individuals, and while a few will sort themselves out, most just flat out deny a difference. So we resorted to adding some very basic anonymised monitoring tools to a random subset of staff laptops (hence throwaway account). What we found was that the majority are indistinguishable which days they are working from home and which days they are in the office, but a minority basically do no work when WFH. By this I mean, behaviour such as their laptop is idle for 20 minutes then active for a few seconds. As it's anonymised we can't be sure, but I'm guessing those are the staff we've identified as having a problem. I wouldn't be surprised if they had a second job. The problem is: what to do about it? We're in the UK so just firing people without cause isn't an option. HR are saying it would be unfair, humiliating and potentially constructive dismissal if we forced the problem staff into the office but not everyone else. There's also a lot of valid discomfort and GDPR-related fear around the idea of installing heavy surveillance tools on laptops to collect evidence, and a concern that it will make for a hostile work environment. Even if we just used it very selectively on staff suspected to be breaking their contract, they would undoubtedly tell their colleagues which would lead to discontent. But without that evidence, it's very difficult to legally justify sacking someone. The HR people are trying to force us back to the office because these issues are too challenging to deal with, but we (the tech team management) are trying to find a way to deal with staff who are taking the piss without upsetting everyone else in the process. What's the play here? Genuinely looking for a good solution as, like many others, I personally enjoy WFH and don't want to have to give it up.

WillDaSilva 3y ago
Why not have the managers of the underperforming employees be straightforward with them? Tell them that, as far as the manager/company is concerned, they're underperforming (no need to single out the WFH aspect here if you don't want to). They may deny that their performance while working from home is different from their performance in the office, but the manager can dismiss that. It's unpleasant, but better than resorting to surveillance software, and better than making things worse for everyone just to help out this minority who underperform while working from home. Once they've been notified that they're underperforming, try to help them out. If they can't be helped, fire them with well-documented cause (their history of poor performance).

avereveard 3y ago

For me it's not even about the office I quite like there it's quiet compared to home, but the one hour commute back and forth heavily impact my quality of life

Alupis 3y ago

There's a lot of nuance that isn't discussed in the WFH circles. I don't believe the cynical claims some offer of VC's losing out on real estate deals, or mid-level managers needing to boost their butts-in-seats numbers or whatever. For some, perhaps, but on average? What percentage of long-distance relationships work out long-term? Do you become more or less close with friends after they move out of town? Do you still "know" them the same as you did when you regularly met in person for lunch or drinks? Is it awkward when you do see each other in person that one visit a year? Human beings are social creatures - yes, even we introverts need interaction. A pure voice-only relationship can feel close, but it's not the same thing. Current technology like Zoom and similar is just not a good replacement for in-person interactions. How many times have you spoken right over someone on a Zoom call or Discord server? The social queues are erased, and things become awkward and less productive. Creativity (which applies even in engineering) is diminished when you have to use online whiteboards and planning tools vs. a real physical whiteboard with everyone holding their own pen and bouncing ideas around in real-time. To use Zoom et al effectively, the pace of thought and contribution are greatly diminished into a sort of per-turn dance. WFH is fantastic when you have a head-down, concentration-demanding task that is very clearly defined. For most other things, it's actually harder to get work done. WFH is simply not a replacement for team cohesivity. There is a great deal lost when you do not meet in person with the people you work with on a regular basis - we can't just sweep that under the rug because we'd prefer to sit in our home office. We have to acknowledge the real tradeoffs - the loss of the "team". That's not the say WFH doesn't work. Some people make an entire career working from home after all. It is simply an acknowledgement that WFH isn't as beneficial in all situations as you might believe.

mfitton 3y ago
I think you're right about this, but there are companies that are putting distributed teams back into open offices just so that... they can sit in zoom meetings with their team. But now, they're less likely to have ad-hoc collaborations over Zoom because it's a pain in the neck to find a conference room and feels borderline disrespectful to one's neighbors to carry on a long call when they're trying to focus. It's all situational. I agree with you that in-person collaboration is beneficial, but bringing people to the office doesn't necessarily do that without restructuring teams that were built on a distributed basis, which can be super disruptive and lose a lot of organizational context.

tester457 3y ago

> Claiming that WFH is bad because you can't bounce ideas off other employees and get into the real world-changing "deep work" is silly Ironically it's easier to get into deep work at home because you don't have to worry about coworkers bouncing ideas on you.

denkmoon 3y ago

If my boss implied that I'm some lazy git taking advantage of WFH he could find a new employee. It's just insulting. Maybe others are, but don't make unfounded accusations.

placesalt 3y ago

> 90% of jobs aren't people's "passions" and have no chance at becoming some big world changing venture. Lots of employers like to delude themselves that their company is some big important, cutting-edge enterprise that's making a real impact in the world. They're not completely to blame; the hordes of people who claim their 'passion' is analyzing widget sales or what have you share some of it. Going along with what are essentially lies about motivations to fit in with the perceived trends of the crowd is understandable (people want to get and keep jobs), but still immoral. And, n=1, but in my experience, it isn't actually necessary.

Sai_ 3y ago

You're missing the fact that work/job _is_ life changing for someone who needs it to put food on the table. Just because no one is inventing anti-cancer medication every other week doesn't mean that person's internal world is not improved by having a job.

atleastoptimal 3y ago
> food on the table That point has nothing to do with WFH. If you get paid you can afford food, regardless of where you work. In fact WFH is better because you can save up to 2 hours a day not commuting and instead can spend it on cooking, grocery shopping, food prep, gardening, or any other food on the table related task.
- Sai_ 3y ago
  The comment I was replying to was premised on most of our work being essentially meaningless in the grander scheme of things. That’s false. You can’t eat if you don’t have UBI or a job.

GMoromisato 3y ago

Complete tangent: I wonder if it's uniquely American to believe that people can/should only be passionate about jobs that are world-changing. Or maybe it's just very common in the tech-world and HN. I'm absolutely guilty of this. I'm a software engineer, and I feel proud of having worked on products that millions of people use. Steve Jobs's challenge to "put a dent in the universe" is axiomatic for many of us. Yet I know that in other countries (e.g., Japan) there is a belief that any job, no matter how humble, is worth doing well and that passion for excellence is a virtue inside us and is not conditional on the perceived pecking order of the job. If we had such an attitude, maybe it would be easier to feel fulfilled--if you're holding out for changing the world before you can be happy, you're (statistically) going to die miserable. On the other hand, maybe a culture in which we give 110% to meaningless jobs is just another chain for the rich and powerful to keep us productive. I honestly don't know.

eulgro 3y ago
I find it very difficult to find meaning in a large portion of the jobs available today. Most workers are just another cog in the wheel. The system is so large that one cannot directly appreciate the effects of their work, or even know whether they are positive at all. This contrasts with say, a subsistance farmer who produces food for their family and lives in a small community where every product of their labor has a known and appreciable impact. In that case, the equivalent goal of "changing the world" is "helping the community", which is much more attainable.
- newaccount74 3y ago
  At some point you have to just like your job. No amount of "you are changing the world" feeling is going to keep you motivated for a job you hate. I get joy from figuring out how to solve a tricky UX issue, or from finally discovering the root cause of a difficult bug. The work itself can be fulfilling, regardless of any potential deeper meaning.
- mgrund 3y ago
  > I find it very difficult to find meaning in a large portion of the jobs available today. Most workers are just another cog in the wheel. The system is so large that one cannot directly appreciate the effects of their work, or even know whether they are positive at all. My experience is that the same job also has a large range for meaningfulness depending on how well leadership manages to facilitate it.

re-thc 3y ago

> One thing that is however funny is the guilt tripping used by employers who have this straw-man version of a lazy WFH employee, and more so, employers who have a delusion that their workplace is important enough that people need to sacrifice a large portion of their lives just for the opportunity to be there in person. If only it's all the "employers" fault. I've seen plenty of employees post on social media about how their office is "alive" again and feeling the "vibes" of their team with photos sharing them and their co-workers in-office. It's the pro-office crowd in general that wants to crush everyone. Some employers are guilt-tripped or forced to support these loud people. They would complain that it's lonely and no 1 is coming to the office with them.

joj123 3y ago

My cynical take is that HR teams don't know how to manage or engage remote teams. Instead of picking up that skill, they are forcing a return to office.

godelski 3y ago

> Claiming that WFH is bad because you can't bounce ideas off other employees and get into the real world-changing "deep work" What is a bigger hindrance to this to me is an open office plan. Being distracted by watching everyone walk around, no one respecting my headphones being on, walking over to me for a "quick question" that disrupts my flow and ends up being 60 minutes of work which I get no credit for but they do. At least over slack I can not respond to messages, though the ping is still disruptive. What helps create deep work is a fucking door which I can communicate to people that I am in the zone and do not bother me unless you really need me. The truth is that people are just justifying their previous decisions. They made open offices because it is "cheaper" (short term, but arguable long term) and have to come up with a reason that it is "better" other than cost. The same shit happens with WFH because they are still paying for office space. This is crazy since silicon valley was known for crazy perks like laundry and free food and all that but still wouldn't give you an office with a door. But now all that is going away as all their stocks are still going up. The reason those companies got big in the first place is that they realized that there were diminishing returns on financial compensation and that giving other perks actually boosted performance, created loyalty, and keeps people happy. So why stop doing something that is working? (gotta get those stock prices up somehow, right? And a quarterly level, not long term)

magicalhippo 3y ago
> a "quick question" that disrupts my flow and ends up being 60 minutes of work which I get no credit for but they do I ask which project this is for and log my hour on that. At least my boss sees I'm not slacking, and if it happens a lot can take action. Perhaps the other person needs more guidance or maybe was a poor fit for that project.

hintymad 3y ago

> this straw-man version of a lazy WFH employee I thought performance management was all about managing results. So, I don't quite understand how "lazy WFH employee" could be a management headache.

johnnyanmac 3y ago

>Lots of employers like to delude themselves that their company is some big important, cutting-edge enterprise that's making a real impact in the world. to be fair, the center of talk on this site are usually in fact the cutting-edge enterprise that is making a real impact on the world (whether that impact is positive or negative is arguable). >employers smart enough to have founded/run those kinds of companies usually are smart enough to see the merits of a hybrid policy. so far, I believe Google and Microsoft and Facebook haven't. Twitter sure hasn't but that's honestly the least of their problems.

didibus 3y ago

I've also found it's all just a matter of processes. For example, open source is often all online, and it creates innovation all the time. People bounce off ideas on forums, on issues, often with a high level of thought going into it all. Great exchanges can happen in written form. But I think a lot of companies that went remote just had no clue how to organize processes, discussions, and decision making for a remote environment.

coldtea 3y ago

>I understand the merits of WFH and in-person work. One thing that is however funny is the guilt tripping used by employers who have this straw-man version of a lazy WFH employee, and more so, employers who have a delusion that their workplace is important enough that people need to sacrifice a large portion of their lives just for the opportunity to be there in person. Also the acceptance of that by employees who have no personal life or live for office drama, and are anti-WFH. God forbid people miss the wondeful brainstorming opportunities of BS meeting -that-could-have-been-an-email, or the wonderful backstabbing and gossip watercooler camaraderie.

nonameiguess 3y ago

This is particularly amusing to me as I sit in bed, right now, at 6 AM on a Saturday morning, having just figured out how to do something and done it in an isolated staging environment, after bouncing ideas of a co-worker in another time zone who happened to also be online and thinking about it right now. And if the idea of working on a Saturday morning at 6 AM sounds toxic, I also logged off at 2 PM yesterday to spend the afternoon with my wife, who'd come home early from her office, and went to sleep by 8 PM, so it's not like I'm hustle culturing it working 80 hour weeks. I just happen to like early mornings. So suck it, dumbass CEOs.

whywhywhywhy 3y ago

> this straw-man version of a lazy WFH employee It's not a straw-man, I've seen behavior in the past year that I've never seen in my entire career things as absurd as someone working 7 other jobs while pretending to work for us. Frankly it isn't worth the risk or waste of time or money anymore. Thankfully just by saying you need to be in the office a few days a week will weed out 90% of timewasters. >employers who have a delusion that their workplace is important enough that people need to sacrifice a large portion of their lives just for the opportunity to be there in person. Employers don't owe you a living, you're welcome to go work somewhere that's fine with you not showing up.

n4r9 3y ago
> someone working 7 other jobs while pretending to work for us... Thankfully just by saying you need to be in the office a few days a week will weed out 90% of timewasters Either they're not producing enough output to warrant their salary - in which case you have good grounds to fire them regardless - or they're perfectly productive - in which case why does it matter? The biggest issue many managers have is that they have no idea how to measure employee output, separately from time spent at the desk imor in meetings.
- atleastoptimal 3y ago
  Many employers feel very insecure when their employees don't spend the majority of their waking hours fixated on their job.
  - tekknik 3y ago
    Probably because they believe salaried pay means 24/7 access to your talents.
i_am_jl 3y ago
>I've never seen in my entire career things as absurd as someone working 7 other jobs while pretending to work for us. I'm sure I don't understand. You were paying someone for 40 hours a week and getting ~5. Why was this not apparent to their management? Or, if it was, why was nothing done about it? The problem that your organization pays someone for 8x the output they're getting is definitely a problem, but if your management's only solution to this problem is to force the entire workforce to commute to an office, I think the bigger problem that should be addressed is that your management sucks.

1letterunixname 3y ago

Ass-in-seat mentality is a product of the arrogance of asshats. In other news: office workers should unionize, or at least work together to demand WfH.