4 ms·

Lots of execs and managers believe that groups of people are more innovative and productive when they discuss things in-person. You may think they are wrong. Y

Lots of execs and managers believe that groups of people are more innovative and productive when they discuss things in-person. You may think they are wrong. You may not like that they believe this. But they really do believe that in-person is better for getting stuff done, and that's why they want it.

chandler767 3y ago
I'm concerned that execs and managers believe discussing thing in-person is more productive when there's lots of evidence that suggests wfh or hybrid is comparable or better. Two years ago there's wasn't enough data to know what would work long term. There is now.
- paulcole 3y ago
  A mistake a lot of people make is thinking that which is “better” or “more productive” matters in every situation. All that matters is what the current decision makers want to do — and of course that depends on their motivations. Unless you understand their motivations, how can you say what is “better”?
ipaddr 3y ago
Why does it happen in big orgs where most meetings are virtual meetings between different offices?
- lostdog 3y ago
  They still believe that being in-person with a handful of peers helps productivity. For example, you might not work directly with Karl, but he could still give some suggestions for using git that could be helpful.
dyeje 3y ago
I think this is the biggest factor, but also important to note that commercial leases tend to be long and very difficult / expensive to break.
- chandler767 3y ago
  …they’ve had years at this point to plan for that
  - dyeje 3y ago
    What is there to plan? If you signed a 10 year lease in 2019, it is what it is.
    - pxcse 3y ago
      I really don't get that reasoning. If a company accepts that remote work is better and in the end gets more done, then why care about the lease at all? Simply pay the rent for the remainder of the lease and file it under "bad decision". Really, what's the alternative? Force people to come back to the office just to justify the rent? If it's not in the best interest of the company? (remember we determined earlier one that the productivity is higher with people working remotely).
april7 3y ago
YMMV, but having worked at a remote-first big-tech company, then an in-person startup, then a big-tech remote-first company that bought our in-person startup, I feel a stark difference in engineering velocity. This doesn't mean that in-person is always better - but corporate leadership is hearing enough anecdotes such as mine to push for RTO again.
quietthrow 3y ago
+1. It’s really as simple as what lostdog mentioned. I will add that this will last a generation but no more. There are tons of companies make it work remotely note that these “old schoolers” once they are gone and replace buy gen z and gen z+1 will have a completely diff modus operandi. The only way this accelerates is the next google /apple / meta is a remote first company. This will unleash fully remote to the mainstream
bruce511 3y ago
I'm guessing most people on HN are employees, not employers. It's therefore not surprising that the "concensus" seems to revolve around "employee think". When I've responded in the past, with an employer point of view, I get down-voted. That's OK. You may not like what i have to say. Of course companies are different. There are many reasons for office work. Many of them bad. You may work for a company with many layers of useless management. I commiserate with you, and clearly my experience, and answer, isn't relevant to you. I can only speak to my situation. I only have a short commute, so I go into the office about 3 days a week. I usually work from home a couple days as well. When I'm in the office, people ask me questions. When I'm at home they don't. For me this is good, I'd like people to ask rather than waste time. Those who are never in the office never ask. Which brings me to the next observation. People in the office are growing faster than those at home. Or perhaps my perception is that those in the office are growing. Peoplecat home seem to "do their thing", which includes making the same mistakes, and taking longer to do things. Equally people at home are not challenged with questions, they are not pushed out of their comfort zones. They are not helping others along. All of this plays out when folk are being promoted. For some I can see their evolution. For others their stagnation. Long-term it'll be interesting to see if this progresses. For the record, we all come to the office on Wednesday, for the rest they're free to choose. Their has been un uptick in morale since we started coming back for that. I think some folk get very lonely and isolated being permanently at home. Ultimately full-remote is not actually ideal for either party, but YMMV depending on pretty much every other part of the business culture.
- codegeek 3y ago
  Do what works for you best as an employer. As an employer, it is not easy to have remote teams especially if you are not designed to work remotely. Junior folks need more in person collaboration as well in my experience. So it really depends and there is no one size fits all answer. Most proponents of remote work take an extreme position and that is a problem.

chandler767 3y ago

I'm concerned that execs and managers believe discussing thing in-person is more productive when there's lots of evidence that suggests wfh or hybrid is comparable or better. Two years ago there's wasn't enough data to know what would work long term. There is now.

paulcole 3y ago
A mistake a lot of people make is thinking that which is “better” or “more productive” matters in every situation. All that matters is what the current decision makers want to do — and of course that depends on their motivations. Unless you understand their motivations, how can you say what is “better”?

ipaddr 3y ago

Why does it happen in big orgs where most meetings are virtual meetings between different offices?

lostdog 3y ago
They still believe that being in-person with a handful of peers helps productivity. For example, you might not work directly with Karl, but he could still give some suggestions for using git that could be helpful.

dyeje 3y ago

I think this is the biggest factor, but also important to note that commercial leases tend to be long and very difficult / expensive to break.

chandler767 3y ago
…they’ve had years at this point to plan for that
- dyeje 3y ago
  What is there to plan? If you signed a 10 year lease in 2019, it is what it is.
  - pxcse 3y ago
    I really don't get that reasoning. If a company accepts that remote work is better and in the end gets more done, then why care about the lease at all? Simply pay the rent for the remainder of the lease and file it under "bad decision". Really, what's the alternative? Force people to come back to the office just to justify the rent? If it's not in the best interest of the company? (remember we determined earlier one that the productivity is higher with people working remotely).

april7 3y ago

YMMV, but having worked at a remote-first big-tech company, then an in-person startup, then a big-tech remote-first company that bought our in-person startup, I feel a stark difference in engineering velocity. This doesn't mean that in-person is always better - but corporate leadership is hearing enough anecdotes such as mine to push for RTO again.

quietthrow 3y ago

+1. It’s really as simple as what lostdog mentioned. I will add that this will last a generation but no more. There are tons of companies make it work remotely note that these “old schoolers” once they are gone and replace buy gen z and gen z+1 will have a completely diff modus operandi. The only way this accelerates is the next google /apple / meta is a remote first company. This will unleash fully remote to the mainstream

bruce511 3y ago

I'm guessing most people on HN are employees, not employers. It's therefore not surprising that the "concensus" seems to revolve around "employee think". When I've responded in the past, with an employer point of view, I get down-voted. That's OK. You may not like what i have to say. Of course companies are different. There are many reasons for office work. Many of them bad. You may work for a company with many layers of useless management. I commiserate with you, and clearly my experience, and answer, isn't relevant to you. I can only speak to my situation. I only have a short commute, so I go into the office about 3 days a week. I usually work from home a couple days as well. When I'm in the office, people ask me questions. When I'm at home they don't. For me this is good, I'd like people to ask rather than waste time. Those who are never in the office never ask. Which brings me to the next observation. People in the office are growing faster than those at home. Or perhaps my perception is that those in the office are growing. Peoplecat home seem to "do their thing", which includes making the same mistakes, and taking longer to do things. Equally people at home are not challenged with questions, they are not pushed out of their comfort zones. They are not helping others along. All of this plays out when folk are being promoted. For some I can see their evolution. For others their stagnation. Long-term it'll be interesting to see if this progresses. For the record, we all come to the office on Wednesday, for the rest they're free to choose. Their has been un uptick in morale since we started coming back for that. I think some folk get very lonely and isolated being permanently at home. Ultimately full-remote is not actually ideal for either party, but YMMV depending on pretty much every other part of the business culture.

codegeek 3y ago
Do what works for you best as an employer. As an employer, it is not easy to have remote teams especially if you are not designed to work remotely. Junior folks need more in person collaboration as well in my experience. So it really depends and there is no one size fits all answer. Most proponents of remote work take an extreme position and that is a problem.