6 ms·

The very fact that companies are doing everything they can to bring people back into the office refutes your comment. Do you really think if people were as/more

The very fact that companies are doing everything they can to bring people back into the office refutes your comment. Do you really think if people were as/more productive at home that companies would throw that increase in productivity away? It's so funny that half the comments on the topic are about how evil and money hungry companies are, but at the same time they're supposedly choosing to throw away free money? It's nonsensical. Just another political echo chamber social war.

belter 3y ago
Productive in the Office? You are surely joking?
TigeriusKirk 3y ago
>t. Do you really think if people were as/more productive at home that companies would throw that increase in productivity away? Yes, I do. Also, I don't think the vast majority of office-based companies have any idea what their actual productivity levels are.
munk-a 3y ago
Basically yes - I think that a fair number of companies would throw away that increase in productivity purely for a sense of control. Companies do dumb stuff all the time and I've personally worked under an "asses-in-chairs" style owner who assumed that if you went for a walk to get a coffee with a coworker while having a technical discussion your productivity was 0. A lot of people are dumb and there are no secret smart people at the tops of companies making smart decisions - companies are ruled by majority and the majority is usually quite easily influenced by marketing campaigns (i.e. the ones launched by commercial real estate holders who are currently losing money hand over fist). And, just for reference, companies are also evil primarily because they're dumb and petty and there is a constant struggle for fiefdoms within the budget. I think a fair number of people struggle with imposter's syndrome because they imagine that somewhere above them there's someone that is really really smart and has a plan - no such person exists, we're all just trying our best... and that "all" is all-inclusive - the person you remember who got D's in middle school is probably a middle manager somewhere.
- RestlessMind 3y ago
  > I think that a fair number of companies would throw away that increase in productivity purely for a sense of control. Citation needed. This seems like a really bogus claim which assumes decision makers don't know what's best for themselves.
  - munk-a 3y ago
    The asses-in-chairs owner I mentioned briefly had us discount time we spent on coffee breaks or on walks from our daily hours... exercise tends to encourage brain activity and for me specifically (I have ADHD) it has an extremely strong effect. Things slowed down for a while before senior management stepped in and said "Enjoy your coffee breaks and walks on the company time - be healthy!" This is absolutely an anecdote - but I'm not certain how else to source data around this.
  - orwin 3y ago
    [dead]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
26fingies 3y ago
You have to remember that companies are run by people and people have incentives that are not always aligned with the company. For example if you are a very wealthy person who runs a large company you need to put that money somewhere and that somewhere may be real estate. In fact it may be real estate in a city such as San Francisco. Prior to covid and work from home that was a very good place to keep your money, but today it’s a lot less good. Companies themselves may have significant real estate investments as well. There are more inputs to this than productivity (and real estate for that matter but it was the first example that came to mind)
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
j4yav 3y ago
I guess you've been lucky to never have a bad manager? I can think of plenty of times in my career that corporate leadership was short-sighted. From terrible managers who think their job is to ensure butts are in seats, to turf battles that make the company worse off, and so much more. Awful behavior, but nothing that provides being money-hungry and sociopathic at the same time.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
chasd00 3y ago
> Do you really think if people were as/more productive at home that companies would throw that increase in productivity away? I think the main reason is all those expensive office towers are now sitting empty and no one wants to buy them. I bet 75% of RTO is sunk cost fallacy trying to make use of all that leased empty space.
SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
I personally think yes, upper management will prioritize nonsensical behaviors that incentivize their own self aggregation over the betterment of the company. This is sort of mindset is also behind shit like “don’t hire women, I might be tempted to sexually assault them” rhetoric.
bit_logic 3y ago
We don't need to guess at this, companies like Amazon already admitted there's no data to support RTO: https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-andy-jassy-no-data-return-to-office-rto-aws-2023-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-andy-jassy-no-data-re... https://fortune.com/2023/08/03/amazon-svp-mike-hopkins-office-return/ https://fortune.com/2023/08/03/amazon-svp-mike-hopkins-offic...
- pandaman 3y ago
  Don't know about Amazon, for all I know about their disfunction they could be actually running the company without any performance statistics. But, say, Goldman definitely has these statistic since they pay bonuses based on them and it is pretty aggressive in RTO. I imagine Amazon has statistics too but they just don't want to publish them, afraid (rightfully so, IMHO) of what that will do to their stock price.
  - cristiancavalli 3y ago
    Disregarding data from one of the most profitable companies in the world just to ply an argument that makes no sense in the context and disqualifies based on an entirely fabricated and unmeasurable dimension — that’s called: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
    - pandaman 3y ago
      Sorry, I don't follow. The GP said that Amazon has no data and I argued that they probably have but don't want to publish it. But even if you are arguing against the GP your bringing up "No true Scotsman" makes no sense in this context.
      - cristiancavalli 3y ago
        Amazon has no data to prove that rto is effective and have admitted it was a gut feeling — thats a data point to the point further up the thread about “companies willing sacrifice productivity for control” So yes that is a data point: Amazon can’t find data saying their workforce was more effective in the office. You employ no true Scotsman by discarding g this data point and saying “they don’t matter because I suspect they are in productivity trouble” Which has no basis in reality as the CEO just admitted they could not find data to support that point — otherwise they would say “people are more productive in the office based on our studies.” Your refutation is a no true Scotsman under the sense of invalidly discarding the counter example given based on your suspicion which is actually disproved by the comments of the CEO himself. Also Goldman Sachs has maintained a buy position on Amazon for this entire time — so your suspiscion about Amazon being unstable and Goldman being stable doesn’t really hold water. Also their own studies find wfh increases productivity by 3%: https://www.gsam.com/content/gsam/us/en/advisors/market-insights/market-strategy/global-market-monitor/2023/market_monitor_090123.html https://www.gsam.com/content/gsam/us/en/advisors/market-insi... So yes just another indicating that companies will sacrifice productivity for control.
NeutralCrane 3y ago
There was recently some research showing that people working for only 4 days a week instead of 5 were equally/more productive, and yet you don’t see companies rushing to implement a 4 day work week. Your assumption is flawed on a number of levels, first and foremost due to the fact that it is based on the faulty premise that companies will always make optimal decisions based on perfect data, when the reality is: - in most cases the data on whether remote work is more or less productive is murky at best, non-existent at worst. For ever study showing and increase/decease in productivity there is a study showing the opposite. Most companies struggle to even define and measure productivity in the first place, outside the context of remote work. - productivity isn’t the sole axis of decision making. Some companies prioritize excellent benefits to retain talent in the belief the benefits of a happy talented workforce will outweigh the costs of providing it. Other companies are much less generous, happy to churn through less competitive employees to keep costs down. Similar disagreements on remote work exist, which is why there are many companies with no plans to mandate in office work - what company leadership prioritizes is not necessarily what is best for the business. I’m not sure how anyone, after 40 years of Jack Welch-style executives destroying long-term business value for short-term profits, would fail to recognize this. Company leadership will do what is in company leadership’s best interest, whether that’s cutting long-term profits for short term share price increases that are tied to personal compensation, exorbitant spending for unnecessary company amenities like private transportation, or dictating the workforce comes back into the office because they prefer to work that way. Note when outspoken critics of remote work like Elon Musk, personally, almost exclusively work remote.
jabradoodle 3y ago
What is political about the topic? Do you think most companies can reliability measure productivity? As an SWE I haven't seen it.

belter 3y ago

Productive in the Office? You are surely joking?

TigeriusKirk 3y ago

>t. Do you really think if people were as/more productive at home that companies would throw that increase in productivity away? Yes, I do. Also, I don't think the vast majority of office-based companies have any idea what their actual productivity levels are.

munk-a 3y ago

Basically yes - I think that a fair number of companies would throw away that increase in productivity purely for a sense of control. Companies do dumb stuff all the time and I've personally worked under an "asses-in-chairs" style owner who assumed that if you went for a walk to get a coffee with a coworker while having a technical discussion your productivity was 0. A lot of people are dumb and there are no secret smart people at the tops of companies making smart decisions - companies are ruled by majority and the majority is usually quite easily influenced by marketing campaigns (i.e. the ones launched by commercial real estate holders who are currently losing money hand over fist). And, just for reference, companies are also evil primarily because they're dumb and petty and there is a constant struggle for fiefdoms within the budget. I think a fair number of people struggle with imposter's syndrome because they imagine that somewhere above them there's someone that is really really smart and has a plan - no such person exists, we're all just trying our best... and that "all" is all-inclusive - the person you remember who got D's in middle school is probably a middle manager somewhere.

RestlessMind 3y ago
> I think that a fair number of companies would throw away that increase in productivity purely for a sense of control. Citation needed. This seems like a really bogus claim which assumes decision makers don't know what's best for themselves.
- munk-a 3y ago
  The asses-in-chairs owner I mentioned briefly had us discount time we spent on coffee breaks or on walks from our daily hours... exercise tends to encourage brain activity and for me specifically (I have ADHD) it has an extremely strong effect. Things slowed down for a while before senior management stepped in and said "Enjoy your coffee breaks and walks on the company time - be healthy!" This is absolutely an anecdote - but I'm not certain how else to source data around this.
- orwin 3y ago
  [dead]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

26fingies 3y ago

You have to remember that companies are run by people and people have incentives that are not always aligned with the company. For example if you are a very wealthy person who runs a large company you need to put that money somewhere and that somewhere may be real estate. In fact it may be real estate in a city such as San Francisco. Prior to covid and work from home that was a very good place to keep your money, but today it’s a lot less good. Companies themselves may have significant real estate investments as well. There are more inputs to this than productivity (and real estate for that matter but it was the first example that came to mind)

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

j4yav 3y ago

I guess you've been lucky to never have a bad manager? I can think of plenty of times in my career that corporate leadership was short-sighted. From terrible managers who think their job is to ensure butts are in seats, to turf battles that make the company worse off, and so much more. Awful behavior, but nothing that provides being money-hungry and sociopathic at the same time.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

chasd00 3y ago

> Do you really think if people were as/more productive at home that companies would throw that increase in productivity away? I think the main reason is all those expensive office towers are now sitting empty and no one wants to buy them. I bet 75% of RTO is sunk cost fallacy trying to make use of all that leased empty space.

SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago

I personally think yes, upper management will prioritize nonsensical behaviors that incentivize their own self aggregation over the betterment of the company. This is sort of mindset is also behind shit like “don’t hire women, I might be tempted to sexually assault them” rhetoric.

bit_logic 3y ago

We don't need to guess at this, companies like Amazon already admitted there's no data to support RTO: https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-andy-jassy-no-data-return-to-office-rto-aws-2023-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-andy-jassy-no-data-re... https://fortune.com/2023/08/03/amazon-svp-mike-hopkins-office-return/ https://fortune.com/2023/08/03/amazon-svp-mike-hopkins-offic...

pandaman 3y ago
Don't know about Amazon, for all I know about their disfunction they could be actually running the company without any performance statistics. But, say, Goldman definitely has these statistic since they pay bonuses based on them and it is pretty aggressive in RTO. I imagine Amazon has statistics too but they just don't want to publish them, afraid (rightfully so, IMHO) of what that will do to their stock price.
- cristiancavalli 3y ago
  Disregarding data from one of the most profitable companies in the world just to ply an argument that makes no sense in the context and disqualifies based on an entirely fabricated and unmeasurable dimension — that’s called: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
  - pandaman 3y ago
    Sorry, I don't follow. The GP said that Amazon has no data and I argued that they probably have but don't want to publish it. But even if you are arguing against the GP your bringing up "No true Scotsman" makes no sense in this context.
    - cristiancavalli 3y ago
      Amazon has no data to prove that rto is effective and have admitted it was a gut feeling — thats a data point to the point further up the thread about “companies willing sacrifice productivity for control” So yes that is a data point: Amazon can’t find data saying their workforce was more effective in the office. You employ no true Scotsman by discarding g this data point and saying “they don’t matter because I suspect they are in productivity trouble” Which has no basis in reality as the CEO just admitted they could not find data to support that point — otherwise they would say “people are more productive in the office based on our studies.” Your refutation is a no true Scotsman under the sense of invalidly discarding the counter example given based on your suspicion which is actually disproved by the comments of the CEO himself. Also Goldman Sachs has maintained a buy position on Amazon for this entire time — so your suspiscion about Amazon being unstable and Goldman being stable doesn’t really hold water. Also their own studies find wfh increases productivity by 3%: https://www.gsam.com/content/gsam/us/en/advisors/market-insights/market-strategy/global-market-monitor/2023/market_monitor_090123.html https://www.gsam.com/content/gsam/us/en/advisors/market-insi... So yes just another indicating that companies will sacrifice productivity for control.

NeutralCrane 3y ago

There was recently some research showing that people working for only 4 days a week instead of 5 were equally/more productive, and yet you don’t see companies rushing to implement a 4 day work week. Your assumption is flawed on a number of levels, first and foremost due to the fact that it is based on the faulty premise that companies will always make optimal decisions based on perfect data, when the reality is: - in most cases the data on whether remote work is more or less productive is murky at best, non-existent at worst. For ever study showing and increase/decease in productivity there is a study showing the opposite. Most companies struggle to even define and measure productivity in the first place, outside the context of remote work. - productivity isn’t the sole axis of decision making. Some companies prioritize excellent benefits to retain talent in the belief the benefits of a happy talented workforce will outweigh the costs of providing it. Other companies are much less generous, happy to churn through less competitive employees to keep costs down. Similar disagreements on remote work exist, which is why there are many companies with no plans to mandate in office work - what company leadership prioritizes is not necessarily what is best for the business. I’m not sure how anyone, after 40 years of Jack Welch-style executives destroying long-term business value for short-term profits, would fail to recognize this. Company leadership will do what is in company leadership’s best interest, whether that’s cutting long-term profits for short term share price increases that are tied to personal compensation, exorbitant spending for unnecessary company amenities like private transportation, or dictating the workforce comes back into the office because they prefer to work that way. Note when outspoken critics of remote work like Elon Musk, personally, almost exclusively work remote.

jabradoodle 3y ago

What is political about the topic? Do you think most companies can reliability measure productivity? As an SWE I haven't seen it.