7 ms·

I enjoyed the flexibility of WFH but I still prefer working with local teams in the office. There are pros and cons to both, but it's silly to assume everyone h

I enjoyed the flexibility of WFH but I still prefer working with local teams in the office. There are pros and cons to both, but it's silly to assume everyone has the same preference as you just because your preference is strongly held. This is my response to both your comment and TFA. There is less consensus on this topic than the very-vocal WFH crowd would have you believe. I know plenty of other talented engineers that feel similarly to me. They aren't dogmatic about it, but they prefer working with their teammates in the office.

ncallaway 3y ago
Sure, but RTO is about… forcing the preference for in person work on everyone.
- throwaway5959 3y ago
  RTO doesn’t really work if five people are back in the office.
  - Kye 3y ago
    Manufacturing buggy whips doesn't work if only five people own buggies. This is a problem for the buggy whip manufacturer to solve, not the people who bought a car or took the train. There's a third option beyond forcing everyone into boxes in the middle of nowhere (old and busted) and everyone working from home (new old hotness).
  - ncallaway 3y ago
    You see how that’s inherently about putting the preferences of the 5 people *above* the preferences of the rest of the office, yes?
    - throwaway5959 3y ago
      People are allowed to have different preferences and lifestyles than the majority. I’m not a CEO so it’s not my place to decide what a company does or doesn’t do.
      - ncallaway 3y ago
        Right, I think it’s fine for people to have differences and differing preferences. My point is that if 5/100 people want to work in the office and 95/100 don’t, that’s fine. If 5/100 want to work in an office with 100 people, and force the others to return against their wishes that’s * not* fine. They can have their preference, but it seems wrong to me for their preference to override the preference of others. > I’m not a CEO so it’s not my place to decide what a company does or doesn’t do. Funny, because I’m the owner of my company, but I don’t think employees should defer their decision making to a CEO. An employee can have an opinion, and even demand their preference. CEOs can’t actually make a unilateral decision on this. Labor absolutely gets a say. If the CEO says “RTO or you’re fired”, and 95/100 people say “okay, bye”, then that company won’t RTO.
        throwaway5959 3y ago
        I never said that employees shouldn’t have preferences (I explicitly stated otherwise in another comment) and shouldn’t have a say in the matter. I was just saying that ultimately the CEO makes the call on RTO (at least that’s what it seems to be at megacorps), whether it’s the right or wrong one isn’t my call.
        ncallaway 3y ago
        > I was just saying that ultimately the CEO makes the call on RTO (at least that’s what it seems to be at megacorps), whether it’s the right or wrong one isn’t my call. This is the part I was disagreeing with. The CEO does not make that call. The CEO and labor negotiation over that call. If you view it as just the CEO's decision, you've ceded a tremendous amount of power. But, actually, it's a shared decision between the CEO and the entire body of workers. If the body of workers all reject the CEO's decision, then...that decision will get reversed.
        throwaway5959 3y ago
        That’s a great point, thanks. I think we saw that play out at Grindr recently.
  - Aldo_MX 3y ago
    Well, remote really works if five people are back at the office. That's a point for remote.
    - layer8 3y ago
      It may not work for the five people in the office, because it’s not the environment they enjoyed if the 95 other people are not there. This is particularly true if teams are split that way. Nobody should be forced to anything, but that doesn’t mean that an arbitrary mix works.
afavour 3y ago
> silly to assume everyone has the same preference I don't see the OP assuming that. Not everyone enjoyed it but for those of use who did going back is not desirable.
- DiggyJohnson 3y ago
  > Once people enjoyed the flexibility they aren't going back. This was the line I was directly responding to.
  - afavour 3y ago
    I don’t read that as “everyone enjoyed the flexibility”, I read it as “the people who enjoyed the flexibility aren’t going back”
Spivak 3y ago
I don't know anyone that is advocating for forcing everyone to work from home but instead "office available for anyone who wants it." There's a mile wide difference between "my preference is to be vegetarian" where people will get out the stops to provide accommodations and "my preference is everyone must keep vegetarian."
- sokoloff 3y ago
  There are definitely companies (and individuals) who are making the decision that "the benefits of RTO emerge from/rely upon our entire workforce being mostly in the office". I don't personally hold that view, but I know people (including individual contributors) who do and, depending on why you think in-office work is good, it's an entirely reasonable view for some people and some companies to take.
  - Spivak 3y ago
    > the environmental benefits of vegetarianism emerge from/rely upon our entire population being mostly meatless. I understand the argument, I still don't think it's valid. Companies are made up of heterogeneous individuals with not only different preferences on how to work, but different work styles, different flexibility needs, different energy cycles. One of my current teammates has Crohn's and is a fantastic programmer but there's no way he could work 8 hrs in an office. For myself, I have really bad ADHD and working in the office means I will be completely dependent on stimulants instead of being able to work around it most days. You can't put the cat back in the bag that made the whole world collectively realize that for most jobs being in an office building wasn't the real requirement we all thought it was.
    - sokoloff 3y ago
      Some believe the benefits of RTO are closer to the ability of an entire team to eat from the same crock of chili at a potluck. There are discussions and topics that just work better in-person. If you think you have (or could arrange to have) 0% or 3% those types of conversations, you're fine to work fully remote. If you think you have 70% or 90% those types of conversations, you're logically going to want to RTO to whatever extent you're prioritizing company outcomes.
hypeit 3y ago
It's the "Return" part of RTO that people have a problem with. Have an office if you like, but don't expect me to go there. I work from home.
- ta1243 3y ago
  Most people who claim to like an office specifically like other people being at an office
  - listenallyall 3y ago
    Most people who claim to like work-from-home specifically rely on other people showing up at their workplaces -- restaurants, delivery drivers, grocery workers, cleaners, healthcare, dog walkers, etc.
    - cultureswitch 3y ago
      [flagged]
tedivm 3y ago
It's absolutely silly for the RTO people to force their preferences on everyone. The fact that RTO folks only consider it a win if everyone comes back, rather than trying to build out flexibile working conditions that make everyone happy, is the real problem. People who want an office to work in are just as valid as people who want to work from home. It's the people who want to force RTO on everyone that are real assholes.
- krisleipus 3y ago
  The thing is that there is no arrangement that works for everyone. Sure, those who just want a physical office space instead of their home will probably be ok collaborating remotely, but the others want to collaborate in person, and that requires everyone to be at the same place. Flexible conditions which make everyone happy is going to the office to spend large amount of time on video calls in cramped call booth - nothing too happy about that, whichever side of the debate you're on.
  - DiggyJohnson 3y ago
    I don't understand why this argument (which is a popular one) makes sense. It's symmetrical. RTO folks want their colleagues in the office. WFH folks don't want to not have to do this. It would be obviously absurd if I criticized WFH on the basis that its proponents are trying to force their preferences on others.
    - layer8 3y ago
      I think RTO folks tend to care more for everyone on the team to be in the office at least part of the time, whereas WFH folks tend to care less if their team colleagues are in the office or also WFH. So I don’t think it’s quite symmetrical. It’s better if the split is outside team boundaries, or between different companies.
  - intended 3y ago
    WFH works better for everyone. It reduces commute time. - This saves environmental and energy costs - It increases worker productivity because now they commute time is recovered - Commute time was not accounted for in contracts, and was a cost of doing business. It is no longer the case. A common complaint is that Coordination costs have increased. However Data is missing for this. Further, Coordination activities are achievable online. Competitive firms will adapt and thrive. Bad firms will and should die. Other benefits: - Less money is spent on rent, Especially in high rent locations. This means that more money is available for R&D, or to give to shareholders - Rent Money is now distributed across geographies - and will favor regions with lower costs of living. This spreads talent and wealth broadly, increasing chances for entrepreneurship and new businesses to flourish in those locations WFH was considered infeasible, but COVID provided hard evidence not only was it feasible, it was feasible at scale. The data has been updated, so our position has changed. Expanding the economic pie makes us all better off. WFH is probably one of the more interesting economic revolutions we will see in the developed world.
flashback2199 3y ago
From what I observed during the pandemic, I sincerely believe that the only reason remote work is worse than working in person is how little effort teams tend to put into making remote work equivalent to in person work. The biggest thing I saw throughout the entire pandemic on multiple teams was zero effort to create a culture of meet on camera for quick ad hoc, hey I have a quick question on this, ah cool thanks bye, it's always have a big fat meeting with lots of people or we're all just poking each other on chat with long reply latencies, which works very poorly. The only solution that was tried at my company was taking attendance, which is crazy, anyone who's gone to school, which is everybody, knows that taking attendance does zero to create collaboration, it just marks down whether you were there. Ass in seat? Check, we're done, mission accomplished. To me if you're taking attendance you've already lost because attendance is table stakes.
- The_Colonel 3y ago
  One of the problems associated with remote work is that synchronous communication is not guaranteed. People tend to work varying hours and even during their "work hours", they will make breaks to do various activities like household chores etc. So it tends to be more difficult to catch a co-worker for a quit chat. Then there's a feedback loop where you basically stop trying since it has such a low chance anyway.
  - flashback2199 3y ago
    To me, the work varying hours is part of the problem; if the remote work is expected to replace in office work, then similar hours have to be worked, in which case people need to be available throughout the work day. To head off negative reaction to this, I'm not saying that remote should always be similar hours, I mean remote work positions that otherwise would have been in office before the pandemic, if that makes sense. I just look at this situation and to me it looks like people are like, ohh noo, remote work isn't as good as in office work, well, yeah, you haven't even tried to make it anything like "in office work but thru a camera," you've almost allowed your domestic employees and contractors to work as if everyone's in different teams in different timezones, with all of the problems that come with that...
fnordpiglet 3y ago
I think the right model for management to adapt to is “let your workers work the way they work best.” It’s a false dichotomy that it’s either everyone in the office or everyone work at home. In my entire career of over 30 years most meetings were held with some remote person in some other location as most companies of size have many locations already. I don’t see a huge difference between that model and a “work how you work best” model, other than the knowledge the other people aren’t in a corporate supplied human Habitrail but are in their natural environment. Ultimately the argument is about control, extorting and coercing compliance under threat to some will. The alternative is a relaxing of control. In that model no one tells you to work in the office, and no one tells you to not. Instead of management exerting coercive control their job would become ensuring productivity given a lack of control. Tax advantages are part of the story, but the other part of the story is most managers aren’t very good at managing people. They’re in their job through some career twist, either under the delusion that management gives them scale of influence or because they don’t really like computers that much and went to CS for a career. The easier policy to enforce is the coercive one because it requires no thought, and it’s uniform in its application. The harder one for management is figuring out how to adapt to a changing environment and maximize productivity by understanding their people and how they work and smoothing the landscape for them. This challenge extends not just to the line managers but to the CEOs and everyone between. None of them are usually very good people managers. Often senior management are better at strategy and manipulation of the organization. They are perplexed by ambiguity, and when you’re used to being in control being perplexed is uncomfortable. And when you feel like you’re in charge you don’t have to feel uncomfortable alone, you can make it someone else’s problem. Layoffs, resignations, turmoil are all issues they are used to. But a changing work environment that fundamentally rethinks the structure of corporate engagement that’s focused on lack of control in exchange for productivity and reduced operating expenses and freeing up of capital? That’s scary stuff, and they don’t need to feel scared - it’s easier for them to make you feel scared. Anyway - tax agreements expire, leases lapse, cultures adapt, management learns new playbooks, and things change. In 5 years the cold hard dollars will win - eventually no board will accept hand waving culture arguments when confronted with an improved EPS, freeing of cash flow, and reduced capital commitments coupled with improved morale and productivity and the “Bring your own office” moment will be here. BYOD saves a few million a year, BYOO will save dump trucks of money. It will happen. Disclaimer, I just quit my cushy senior exec job at a mega cope over RTO and joined a forward late stage startup with a mixture of remote and in office “work the way you work best” structure.
dheera 3y ago
It's much more multi-faceted than this. I enjoy going to the office from time to time, and if you establish no rules, I'm pretty likely to go to the office about 2-3X per week and coordinate those days with others, because I'm also a social human being. I also enjoy being able to see my partner for a week here and there. Some have a "4 week work-from-anywhere policy", but if you're in an LDR you know 4 weeks per year is really not enough.
ScarZy 3y ago
I echo this sentiment completely. I do 2-3 days a week in my office and I am personally mentally better off for it. That said, personally is the key word. I manage a team. I love seeing employees together and aligning on things in person where possible - but totally understand if this does not suit their schedule that day or week. It often does not work with mine. It's the small human mistakes that are innocent and spontaneous - like inevitably spilling coffee on myself - that keep us humble. Some fit the remote world entirely never wanting to see the inside of an office again, some thrive off rubbing shoulders with colleagues. I found it difficult to not have social engagements outside of family during the darker periods of the COVID-19 pandemic. I also found myself working longer hours, not having solid disconnected time or neglecting my health physically and mentally. I believe we still have a lot to learn about how to work best remotely. Businesses should invest in making this as normal as possible - for example enforcing a work-from-desk policy for calls has helped normalise communication. I do worry slightly about those younger graduates coming into the industry now that have never had the experience of working in an office.
- iwonthecase 3y ago
  > I also found myself working longer hours, not having solid disconnected time To the frustration of my then boss, I noticed that I (and a lot of other coworkers) used RTO as a way to reduce our hours to ~40/week and not spend our nights and weekends with our work laptops open nearby.
  - cultureswitch 3y ago
    When one party stops goodwill arrangements to a contract, typically the other party follows suit.

ncallaway 3y ago

Sure, but RTO is about… forcing the preference for in person work on everyone.

throwaway5959 3y ago
RTO doesn’t really work if five people are back in the office.
- Kye 3y ago
  Manufacturing buggy whips doesn't work if only five people own buggies. This is a problem for the buggy whip manufacturer to solve, not the people who bought a car or took the train. There's a third option beyond forcing everyone into boxes in the middle of nowhere (old and busted) and everyone working from home (new old hotness).
- ncallaway 3y ago
  You see how that’s inherently about putting the preferences of the 5 people *above* the preferences of the rest of the office, yes?
  - throwaway5959 3y ago
    People are allowed to have different preferences and lifestyles than the majority. I’m not a CEO so it’s not my place to decide what a company does or doesn’t do.
    - ncallaway 3y ago
      Right, I think it’s fine for people to have differences and differing preferences. My point is that if 5/100 people want to work in the office and 95/100 don’t, that’s fine. If 5/100 want to work in an office with 100 people, and force the others to return against their wishes that’s * not* fine. They can have their preference, but it seems wrong to me for their preference to override the preference of others. > I’m not a CEO so it’s not my place to decide what a company does or doesn’t do. Funny, because I’m the owner of my company, but I don’t think employees should defer their decision making to a CEO. An employee can have an opinion, and even demand their preference. CEOs can’t actually make a unilateral decision on this. Labor absolutely gets a say. If the CEO says “RTO or you’re fired”, and 95/100 people say “okay, bye”, then that company won’t RTO.
      - throwaway5959 3y ago
        I never said that employees shouldn’t have preferences (I explicitly stated otherwise in another comment) and shouldn’t have a say in the matter. I was just saying that ultimately the CEO makes the call on RTO (at least that’s what it seems to be at megacorps), whether it’s the right or wrong one isn’t my call.
        ncallaway 3y ago
        > I was just saying that ultimately the CEO makes the call on RTO (at least that’s what it seems to be at megacorps), whether it’s the right or wrong one isn’t my call. This is the part I was disagreeing with. The CEO does not make that call. The CEO and labor negotiation over that call. If you view it as just the CEO's decision, you've ceded a tremendous amount of power. But, actually, it's a shared decision between the CEO and the entire body of workers. If the body of workers all reject the CEO's decision, then...that decision will get reversed.
        throwaway5959 3y ago
        That’s a great point, thanks. I think we saw that play out at Grindr recently.
- Aldo_MX 3y ago
  Well, remote really works if five people are back at the office. That's a point for remote.
  - layer8 3y ago
    It may not work for the five people in the office, because it’s not the environment they enjoyed if the 95 other people are not there. This is particularly true if teams are split that way. Nobody should be forced to anything, but that doesn’t mean that an arbitrary mix works.

afavour 3y ago

> silly to assume everyone has the same preference I don't see the OP assuming that. Not everyone enjoyed it but for those of use who did going back is not desirable.

DiggyJohnson 3y ago
> Once people enjoyed the flexibility they aren't going back. This was the line I was directly responding to.
- afavour 3y ago
  I don’t read that as “everyone enjoyed the flexibility”, I read it as “the people who enjoyed the flexibility aren’t going back”

Spivak 3y ago

I don't know anyone that is advocating for forcing everyone to work from home but instead "office available for anyone who wants it." There's a mile wide difference between "my preference is to be vegetarian" where people will get out the stops to provide accommodations and "my preference is everyone must keep vegetarian."

sokoloff 3y ago
There are definitely companies (and individuals) who are making the decision that "the benefits of RTO emerge from/rely upon our entire workforce being mostly in the office". I don't personally hold that view, but I know people (including individual contributors) who do and, depending on why you think in-office work is good, it's an entirely reasonable view for some people and some companies to take.
- Spivak 3y ago
  > the environmental benefits of vegetarianism emerge from/rely upon our entire population being mostly meatless. I understand the argument, I still don't think it's valid. Companies are made up of heterogeneous individuals with not only different preferences on how to work, but different work styles, different flexibility needs, different energy cycles. One of my current teammates has Crohn's and is a fantastic programmer but there's no way he could work 8 hrs in an office. For myself, I have really bad ADHD and working in the office means I will be completely dependent on stimulants instead of being able to work around it most days. You can't put the cat back in the bag that made the whole world collectively realize that for most jobs being in an office building wasn't the real requirement we all thought it was.
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    Some believe the benefits of RTO are closer to the ability of an entire team to eat from the same crock of chili at a potluck. There are discussions and topics that just work better in-person. If you think you have (or could arrange to have) 0% or 3% those types of conversations, you're fine to work fully remote. If you think you have 70% or 90% those types of conversations, you're logically going to want to RTO to whatever extent you're prioritizing company outcomes.

hypeit 3y ago

It's the "Return" part of RTO that people have a problem with. Have an office if you like, but don't expect me to go there. I work from home.

ta1243 3y ago
Most people who claim to like an office specifically like other people being at an office
- listenallyall 3y ago
  Most people who claim to like work-from-home specifically rely on other people showing up at their workplaces -- restaurants, delivery drivers, grocery workers, cleaners, healthcare, dog walkers, etc.
  - cultureswitch 3y ago
    [flagged]

tedivm 3y ago

It's absolutely silly for the RTO people to force their preferences on everyone. The fact that RTO folks only consider it a win if everyone comes back, rather than trying to build out flexibile working conditions that make everyone happy, is the real problem. People who want an office to work in are just as valid as people who want to work from home. It's the people who want to force RTO on everyone that are real assholes.

krisleipus 3y ago
The thing is that there is no arrangement that works for everyone. Sure, those who just want a physical office space instead of their home will probably be ok collaborating remotely, but the others want to collaborate in person, and that requires everyone to be at the same place. Flexible conditions which make everyone happy is going to the office to spend large amount of time on video calls in cramped call booth - nothing too happy about that, whichever side of the debate you're on.
- DiggyJohnson 3y ago
  I don't understand why this argument (which is a popular one) makes sense. It's symmetrical. RTO folks want their colleagues in the office. WFH folks don't want to not have to do this. It would be obviously absurd if I criticized WFH on the basis that its proponents are trying to force their preferences on others.
  - layer8 3y ago
    I think RTO folks tend to care more for everyone on the team to be in the office at least part of the time, whereas WFH folks tend to care less if their team colleagues are in the office or also WFH. So I don’t think it’s quite symmetrical. It’s better if the split is outside team boundaries, or between different companies.
- intended 3y ago
  WFH works better for everyone. It reduces commute time. - This saves environmental and energy costs - It increases worker productivity because now they commute time is recovered - Commute time was not accounted for in contracts, and was a cost of doing business. It is no longer the case. A common complaint is that Coordination costs have increased. However Data is missing for this. Further, Coordination activities are achievable online. Competitive firms will adapt and thrive. Bad firms will and should die. Other benefits: - Less money is spent on rent, Especially in high rent locations. This means that more money is available for R&D, or to give to shareholders - Rent Money is now distributed across geographies - and will favor regions with lower costs of living. This spreads talent and wealth broadly, increasing chances for entrepreneurship and new businesses to flourish in those locations WFH was considered infeasible, but COVID provided hard evidence not only was it feasible, it was feasible at scale. The data has been updated, so our position has changed. Expanding the economic pie makes us all better off. WFH is probably one of the more interesting economic revolutions we will see in the developed world.

flashback2199 3y ago

From what I observed during the pandemic, I sincerely believe that the only reason remote work is worse than working in person is how little effort teams tend to put into making remote work equivalent to in person work. The biggest thing I saw throughout the entire pandemic on multiple teams was zero effort to create a culture of meet on camera for quick ad hoc, hey I have a quick question on this, ah cool thanks bye, it's always have a big fat meeting with lots of people or we're all just poking each other on chat with long reply latencies, which works very poorly. The only solution that was tried at my company was taking attendance, which is crazy, anyone who's gone to school, which is everybody, knows that taking attendance does zero to create collaboration, it just marks down whether you were there. Ass in seat? Check, we're done, mission accomplished. To me if you're taking attendance you've already lost because attendance is table stakes.

The_Colonel 3y ago
One of the problems associated with remote work is that synchronous communication is not guaranteed. People tend to work varying hours and even during their "work hours", they will make breaks to do various activities like household chores etc. So it tends to be more difficult to catch a co-worker for a quit chat. Then there's a feedback loop where you basically stop trying since it has such a low chance anyway.
- flashback2199 3y ago
  To me, the work varying hours is part of the problem; if the remote work is expected to replace in office work, then similar hours have to be worked, in which case people need to be available throughout the work day. To head off negative reaction to this, I'm not saying that remote should always be similar hours, I mean remote work positions that otherwise would have been in office before the pandemic, if that makes sense. I just look at this situation and to me it looks like people are like, ohh noo, remote work isn't as good as in office work, well, yeah, you haven't even tried to make it anything like "in office work but thru a camera," you've almost allowed your domestic employees and contractors to work as if everyone's in different teams in different timezones, with all of the problems that come with that...

fnordpiglet 3y ago

I think the right model for management to adapt to is “let your workers work the way they work best.” It’s a false dichotomy that it’s either everyone in the office or everyone work at home. In my entire career of over 30 years most meetings were held with some remote person in some other location as most companies of size have many locations already. I don’t see a huge difference between that model and a “work how you work best” model, other than the knowledge the other people aren’t in a corporate supplied human Habitrail but are in their natural environment. Ultimately the argument is about control, extorting and coercing compliance under threat to some will. The alternative is a relaxing of control. In that model no one tells you to work in the office, and no one tells you to not. Instead of management exerting coercive control their job would become ensuring productivity given a lack of control. Tax advantages are part of the story, but the other part of the story is most managers aren’t very good at managing people. They’re in their job through some career twist, either under the delusion that management gives them scale of influence or because they don’t really like computers that much and went to CS for a career. The easier policy to enforce is the coercive one because it requires no thought, and it’s uniform in its application. The harder one for management is figuring out how to adapt to a changing environment and maximize productivity by understanding their people and how they work and smoothing the landscape for them. This challenge extends not just to the line managers but to the CEOs and everyone between. None of them are usually very good people managers. Often senior management are better at strategy and manipulation of the organization. They are perplexed by ambiguity, and when you’re used to being in control being perplexed is uncomfortable. And when you feel like you’re in charge you don’t have to feel uncomfortable alone, you can make it someone else’s problem. Layoffs, resignations, turmoil are all issues they are used to. But a changing work environment that fundamentally rethinks the structure of corporate engagement that’s focused on lack of control in exchange for productivity and reduced operating expenses and freeing up of capital? That’s scary stuff, and they don’t need to feel scared - it’s easier for them to make you feel scared. Anyway - tax agreements expire, leases lapse, cultures adapt, management learns new playbooks, and things change. In 5 years the cold hard dollars will win - eventually no board will accept hand waving culture arguments when confronted with an improved EPS, freeing of cash flow, and reduced capital commitments coupled with improved morale and productivity and the “Bring your own office” moment will be here. BYOD saves a few million a year, BYOO will save dump trucks of money. It will happen. Disclaimer, I just quit my cushy senior exec job at a mega cope over RTO and joined a forward late stage startup with a mixture of remote and in office “work the way you work best” structure.

dheera 3y ago

It's much more multi-faceted than this. I enjoy going to the office from time to time, and if you establish no rules, I'm pretty likely to go to the office about 2-3X per week and coordinate those days with others, because I'm also a social human being. I also enjoy being able to see my partner for a week here and there. Some have a "4 week work-from-anywhere policy", but if you're in an LDR you know 4 weeks per year is really not enough.

ScarZy 3y ago

I echo this sentiment completely. I do 2-3 days a week in my office and I am personally mentally better off for it. That said, personally is the key word. I manage a team. I love seeing employees together and aligning on things in person where possible - but totally understand if this does not suit their schedule that day or week. It often does not work with mine. It's the small human mistakes that are innocent and spontaneous - like inevitably spilling coffee on myself - that keep us humble. Some fit the remote world entirely never wanting to see the inside of an office again, some thrive off rubbing shoulders with colleagues. I found it difficult to not have social engagements outside of family during the darker periods of the COVID-19 pandemic. I also found myself working longer hours, not having solid disconnected time or neglecting my health physically and mentally. I believe we still have a lot to learn about how to work best remotely. Businesses should invest in making this as normal as possible - for example enforcing a work-from-desk policy for calls has helped normalise communication. I do worry slightly about those younger graduates coming into the industry now that have never had the experience of working in an office.

iwonthecase 3y ago
> I also found myself working longer hours, not having solid disconnected time To the frustration of my then boss, I noticed that I (and a lot of other coworkers) used RTO as a way to reduce our hours to ~40/week and not spend our nights and weekends with our work laptops open nearby.
- cultureswitch 3y ago
  When one party stops goodwill arrangements to a contract, typically the other party follows suit.