5 ms·

Why are companies so hellbent on asking their workers to waste hours in commute? WFH hurts people with “soft” skills the most. MBA types.

by lvl102 3y ago

wildrhythms 3y ago
It's the tax breaks: >Of the billions in tax incentives granted to US companies every year by cities and states, many agreements require workers to come into the office some of the time, or at least live in the region. For companies receiving these incentives, relaxing in-office attendance could be costly. >The contracts were crafted in a pre-pandemic era, at a time when commutes to the office were a given. Now governments are deciding whether to crack down or rewrite the rules entirely. In some states and cities, policy changes have already been proposed to account for the new reality of hybrid work. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-02-21/another-threat-to-work-from-home-tax-breaks https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-02-21/another-t...
- pluc 3y ago
  That makes some sense. Massive amount of people converging on a downtown area does things to the local economy.. especially if that economy was adapted to cater 80% to them and 20% to tourists
- _cenw 3y ago
  Maybe that's a small part, but even if you look internationally, 87% of CEOs in the 2023 CEO KPMG poll want return to the fiefdo-- office. https://kpmg.com/xx/en/home/media/press-releases/2023/09/ceo-outlook.html https://kpmg.com/xx/en/home/media/press-releases/2023/09/ceo...
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    Do similar tax breaks not exist outside the US? Seems like a sensible thing for the municipality to provide and for businesses to accept, in general.
    - _cenw 3y ago
      At least none I'm aware of that are bound to occupancy.
- ghaff 3y ago
  Existing tax incentives are probably one of the legit reasons why some companies are concerned about wide-scale WFH though I tend to agree with a sibling comment that it's probably also not a major factor. It's reasonable for cities to be concerned. Empty offices take a lot of supporting businesses with them. And, absent a need to go into an office, a lot of people will (and have) decide that the tradeoffs of urban life aren't for them--especially when their favorite restaurants or coffeeshops go out of business and friends move out. In the US, many cities have had significant downcycles before. There's no law of nature that it can't happen again.
  - datavirtue 3y ago
    Force people into the office so small businesses don't close? Sounds like communism.
rr808 3y ago
I think its the unknown. Are big corporations with lots of WFH employees successful in the long term? The reality is no one really knows so its a risk. Maybe it'll turn out fine, maybe it'll increase productivity, maybe the company will slowly die as the culture crumbles. There is a lot of arguments going on but realistically no one has ever tried it.
- etskinner 3y ago
  There are plenty of companies who have tried it, and succeeded
  - ghaff 3y ago
    Mostly smaller companies that built and hired remote from the beginning or at least early on.
  - rr808 3y ago
    Name one. I mean a real corporate with >10k employees.
- away271828 3y ago
  I know there are a lot of people here who are determined to insist that remote work is an unalloyed good. And that any effort to get people to come into an office is a plot by commercial real estate-owning MBAs. But things really aren't that simple. I work for a company that was pretty remote-friendly before and is quite heavily remote now to the point of closing down some major offices (mostly big suburban ones, not urban--which are mostly fairly small). I think most people would agree that things have mostly gone "OK" but that forming new relationships has been harder, onboarding and mentoring new people has been more difficult, etc.--as well as softer things around engagement, connection, etc. I've effectively worked mostly remote for many years but it's not all goodness.
  - sheepscreek 3y ago
    Like all things in life, there is a trade-off when we choose remote work over on-site work, or the other way around. I’ll share my personal experience below. I’ll reframe the argument to “can a company be 100% remote (where possible) without affecting profitability and productivity?” Anecdotally, I think the answer is yes. Culture does take a hit. Can be harder for more inexperienced team members to quickly integrate. It also takes longer to develop bonds with colleagues and “enjoy” work in the same way as being in-office. In other words, working remotely takes all the fun out of office work. But in return, you gain an unthinkable level of flexibility. This is a big deal for anyone who likes to travel/live outside the city/has a family. So to leaders who say remote work isn’t the same quality, etc. - that’s pure BS. What they really want is to get 8+ hrs from you. They belong to the school of thought “if we can keep our employees in the campus longer, more work gets done”. That might be true to a degree. Remote work removes most serendipitous moments from work. You won’t accidentally bump into a colleague from a previous team, brainstorm crazy ideas together in your lunch break and create something magical. Which means innovation needs to be more intentional. The culture has to evolve and promote some free learning time and non-roadmap/exploratory work (such as a hackathon). Anyway, this has been my personal experience working in both styles on both sides (engineer + leader). I don’t believe everyone will agree with me, and that’s fine. However it is safe to generalize that a significant % of people have been very successful at remote work, and aren’t buying the pseudo reasons against it.
beernet 3y ago
Reads like you're implying superior soft skills for MBAs, and the other way round. If SWEs really thought this type of way, this statement would explain more about SWEs than MBAs, oh well
candiddevmike 3y ago
I like the "privilege for me, none for thee" theory: executives have typically always worked wherever. Suddenly giving that privilege to others upsets the natural order. The people under you aren't supposed to be your equals. You as an executive are supposed to jet around the country/world into offices full of smiling faces who will worship the ground you walk on.
- datavirtue 3y ago
  This. Management should be screened phsycologically for toxic self-centered tendencies and treatment provided.
benreesman 3y ago
In a law firm, the most senior partner is a lawyer (and usually bills out among the highest). In a hospital, the head of surgery is a surgeon (and usually one of the best). In a fabrication shop, the boss is a pro with the materials. Software is, AFAIK, the only wildly demanding field where senior leaders who can’t even remotely do the thing is considered normal.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  > Software is, AFAIK, the only wildly demanding field where senior leaders who can’t even remotely do the thing is considered normal. For what it's worth: just because you're the top dog in your field that doesn't mean you're a good manager. We should actually insist on rolling out separate management and career tracks because either require completely different skillsets.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    15 minutes of research would probably get you the names of highly successful technical people who spectacularly flamed out in a senior management role and incredibly successful CEOs of technical companies who lacked pretty much any hands-on technical experience.
  - kuchenbecker 3y ago
    Many companies do but the IC track gets hard just as the management track starts. At my company, a Director and a Principal eng are same level, but Principal eng are people with industry renown. There are twice as many Directors than PENG, but you can keep climbing to SR Director, VP, SVP.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  The leaders of hospitals almost always have MBA's, not MDs. Every medical department answers to the business analysts.
  - smarmgoblin 3y ago
    I was gonna make a comment saying “yeah but those MBAs aren’t dictating minutiae about how they complete their tasks (in the way software CEOs are assured we work better in an open-office shared desk hours from our homes)” But actually there’s a ton of micromanagement in medicine too. It’s equally insane there though and transparently driven by profit motives over patient wellbeing.
brucethemoose2 3y ago
I think its literally a meme. Executives at different companies do communicate with each other, and recieve a similar "news feed." And in that pseudo social group, bringing workers back in became a popular self perpetuating topic. Its a thing others are doing, so they should do it too. There are many other factors, but it has to be more than practicality and ego when Meta and Zoom are bringing employees in. Peer pressure is a great way to make smart humans do irrational things.
EFreethought 3y ago
If MBAs have any skills at all, they seem hell-bent on convincing the rest of the world otherwise.

Why are companies so hellbent on asking their workers to waste hours in commute? WFH hurts people with “soft” skills the most. MBA types.

by lvl102 3y ago

Why are companies so hellbent on asking their workers to waste hours in commute? WFH hurts people with “soft” skills the most. MBA types.

wildrhythms 3y ago

It's the tax breaks: >Of the billions in tax incentives granted to US companies every year by cities and states, many agreements require workers to come into the office some of the time, or at least live in the region. For companies receiving these incentives, relaxing in-office attendance could be costly. >The contracts were crafted in a pre-pandemic era, at a time when commutes to the office were a given. Now governments are deciding whether to crack down or rewrite the rules entirely. In some states and cities, policy changes have already been proposed to account for the new reality of hybrid work. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-02-21/another-threat-to-work-from-home-tax-breaks https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-02-21/another-t...

pluc 3y ago
That makes some sense. Massive amount of people converging on a downtown area does things to the local economy.. especially if that economy was adapted to cater 80% to them and 20% to tourists
_cenw 3y ago
Maybe that's a small part, but even if you look internationally, 87% of CEOs in the 2023 CEO KPMG poll want return to the fiefdo-- office. https://kpmg.com/xx/en/home/media/press-releases/2023/09/ceo-outlook.html https://kpmg.com/xx/en/home/media/press-releases/2023/09/ceo...
- ethanbond 3y ago
  Do similar tax breaks not exist outside the US? Seems like a sensible thing for the municipality to provide and for businesses to accept, in general.
  - _cenw 3y ago
    At least none I'm aware of that are bound to occupancy.
ghaff 3y ago
Existing tax incentives are probably one of the legit reasons why some companies are concerned about wide-scale WFH though I tend to agree with a sibling comment that it's probably also not a major factor. It's reasonable for cities to be concerned. Empty offices take a lot of supporting businesses with them. And, absent a need to go into an office, a lot of people will (and have) decide that the tradeoffs of urban life aren't for them--especially when their favorite restaurants or coffeeshops go out of business and friends move out. In the US, many cities have had significant downcycles before. There's no law of nature that it can't happen again.
- datavirtue 3y ago
  Force people into the office so small businesses don't close? Sounds like communism.

rr808 3y ago

I think its the unknown. Are big corporations with lots of WFH employees successful in the long term? The reality is no one really knows so its a risk. Maybe it'll turn out fine, maybe it'll increase productivity, maybe the company will slowly die as the culture crumbles. There is a lot of arguments going on but realistically no one has ever tried it.

etskinner 3y ago
There are plenty of companies who have tried it, and succeeded
- ghaff 3y ago
  Mostly smaller companies that built and hired remote from the beginning or at least early on.
- rr808 3y ago
  Name one. I mean a real corporate with >10k employees.
away271828 3y ago
I know there are a lot of people here who are determined to insist that remote work is an unalloyed good. And that any effort to get people to come into an office is a plot by commercial real estate-owning MBAs. But things really aren't that simple. I work for a company that was pretty remote-friendly before and is quite heavily remote now to the point of closing down some major offices (mostly big suburban ones, not urban--which are mostly fairly small). I think most people would agree that things have mostly gone "OK" but that forming new relationships has been harder, onboarding and mentoring new people has been more difficult, etc.--as well as softer things around engagement, connection, etc. I've effectively worked mostly remote for many years but it's not all goodness.
- sheepscreek 3y ago
  Like all things in life, there is a trade-off when we choose remote work over on-site work, or the other way around. I’ll share my personal experience below. I’ll reframe the argument to “can a company be 100% remote (where possible) without affecting profitability and productivity?” Anecdotally, I think the answer is yes. Culture does take a hit. Can be harder for more inexperienced team members to quickly integrate. It also takes longer to develop bonds with colleagues and “enjoy” work in the same way as being in-office. In other words, working remotely takes all the fun out of office work. But in return, you gain an unthinkable level of flexibility. This is a big deal for anyone who likes to travel/live outside the city/has a family. So to leaders who say remote work isn’t the same quality, etc. - that’s pure BS. What they really want is to get 8+ hrs from you. They belong to the school of thought “if we can keep our employees in the campus longer, more work gets done”. That might be true to a degree. Remote work removes most serendipitous moments from work. You won’t accidentally bump into a colleague from a previous team, brainstorm crazy ideas together in your lunch break and create something magical. Which means innovation needs to be more intentional. The culture has to evolve and promote some free learning time and non-roadmap/exploratory work (such as a hackathon). Anyway, this has been my personal experience working in both styles on both sides (engineer + leader). I don’t believe everyone will agree with me, and that’s fine. However it is safe to generalize that a significant % of people have been very successful at remote work, and aren’t buying the pseudo reasons against it.

beernet 3y ago

Reads like you're implying superior soft skills for MBAs, and the other way round. If SWEs really thought this type of way, this statement would explain more about SWEs than MBAs, oh well

candiddevmike 3y ago

I like the "privilege for me, none for thee" theory: executives have typically always worked wherever. Suddenly giving that privilege to others upsets the natural order. The people under you aren't supposed to be your equals. You as an executive are supposed to jet around the country/world into offices full of smiling faces who will worship the ground you walk on.

datavirtue 3y ago
This. Management should be screened phsycologically for toxic self-centered tendencies and treatment provided.

benreesman 3y ago

In a law firm, the most senior partner is a lawyer (and usually bills out among the highest). In a hospital, the head of surgery is a surgeon (and usually one of the best). In a fabrication shop, the boss is a pro with the materials. Software is, AFAIK, the only wildly demanding field where senior leaders who can’t even remotely do the thing is considered normal.

mschuster91 3y ago
> Software is, AFAIK, the only wildly demanding field where senior leaders who can’t even remotely do the thing is considered normal. For what it's worth: just because you're the top dog in your field that doesn't mean you're a good manager. We should actually insist on rolling out separate management and career tracks because either require completely different skillsets.
- ghaff 3y ago
  15 minutes of research would probably get you the names of highly successful technical people who spectacularly flamed out in a senior management role and incredibly successful CEOs of technical companies who lacked pretty much any hands-on technical experience.
- kuchenbecker 3y ago
  Many companies do but the IC track gets hard just as the management track starts. At my company, a Director and a Principal eng are same level, but Principal eng are people with industry renown. There are twice as many Directors than PENG, but you can keep climbing to SR Director, VP, SVP.
HDThoreaun 3y ago
The leaders of hospitals almost always have MBA's, not MDs. Every medical department answers to the business analysts.
- smarmgoblin 3y ago
  I was gonna make a comment saying “yeah but those MBAs aren’t dictating minutiae about how they complete their tasks (in the way software CEOs are assured we work better in an open-office shared desk hours from our homes)” But actually there’s a ton of micromanagement in medicine too. It’s equally insane there though and transparently driven by profit motives over patient wellbeing.

brucethemoose2 3y ago

I think its literally a meme. Executives at different companies do communicate with each other, and recieve a similar "news feed." And in that pseudo social group, bringing workers back in became a popular self perpetuating topic. Its a thing others are doing, so they should do it too. There are many other factors, but it has to be more than practicality and ego when Meta and Zoom are bringing employees in. Peer pressure is a great way to make smart humans do irrational things.

EFreethought 3y ago

If MBAs have any skills at all, they seem hell-bent on convincing the rest of the world otherwise.