5 ms·

Considering the opposition to working from home from some parts of (USA) society, I have trouble seeing this get widely adopted. At least in the short to medium

Considering the opposition to working from home from some parts of (USA) society, I have trouble seeing this get widely adopted. At least in the short to medium term. The anti-WFH people appear to fall into 3 camps: landlords and property owners, middle management who believe people are not as productive or efficient at home. And, as pointed out in a reply, there's also the group who believe that face to face communication is more agile and fosters more innovation. Perhaps one question to ask is: who will lose money and/or power due to this move? Somewhat offtopic: How has WFH been treated in European media? Has it been much the same as the USA?

savanaly 3y ago
I'm not even in the anti-WFH camp, but notice you've selectively omitted the most sympathetic camp (what is this argument tactic called? Strawmanning?). People who think teams will be more agile and innovative when they can have impromptu face-to-face conversations. I personally think that's true, but not a big enough deal to make me favor RTO. But it's not good to summarize an issue in such a way that the other side sounds like greedy bastards and yours sounds eminently reasonable.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
  > what is this argument tactic called? Strawmanning? Yeah, think like how you challenge yourself in deliberate practice. Putting up a "straw man" to fight doesn't really help one learn to fight.
  - ska 3y ago
    Hence the idea of Steelmanning.
- darreninthenet 3y ago
  Hasn't it been disproven now though? My employer at the time during lockdown saw productivity and collaboration increase, and they are a mostly agile approach organisation. And there are many companies large and small with mostly or fully remote teams delivering complex projects every day as we speak. Whilst I'm sure there are edge cases where that face to face actually is essential, the idea that for teams to be agile, innovative and collaborative they must physically sit near each other has been shown to be unnecessary...?
  - ska 3y ago
    > Hasn't it been disproven now though? No, it hasn't. And there isn't much serious work being done on it afaics, but lots of anectdata and politics. I think it is clear that it is possible to build productive fully remote teams, for at least some applications. It's not clear if it's optimal, or how broadly it applies in terms of applications or people.
  - wharvle 3y ago
    People exist who basically can’t think in writing, on their own. They need someone actively working with them, in conversation, to put their thoughts together coherently—and, sometimes, for them to be able to understand others, as no amount of carefully and thoughtfully composed prose will get ideas into their heads without misunderstanding. IME they’re well-represented in management and other leadership. Not the majority, but there are lots of them. Some make it all the way to the top. I get why such folks might hate WFH, especially if they believe that their personal difficulties are more common than they are, so others must not be able to function as remote workers, either, and especially that people couldn’t possibly efficiently come up with and refine ideas under remote work.
- bloopernova 3y ago
  I've updated my comment with your suggestion. I completely forgot about the face to face is better folks, sorry about that. Edited to add: I also changed the language a little bit to be more neutral.
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  This groups doesn't seem to exist on any noticeable size. Otherwise, why does every place insists on destroying face-to-face interaction by adopting open-plan offices where any chat is disruptive?
avgcorrection 3y ago
> rent-seeking landlords, Mostly superfluous verb.
- bloopernova 3y ago
  True, removed.
TrackerFF 3y ago
I'm from Norway, the response here is pretty much: Left: "Sounds like great idea, we must conduct trials!" Center: "It sounds interesting, but we need more data blablablah" Right: "A four-day week will never work, and people must put away that ridiculous idea. We (Norwegians) already work too little compared to the rest of Europe." We oscillate between center-left and center-right every 4/8 years, so I'm not sure I have high hopes for this becoming a thing anytime soon. The (political) right here is especially prone to knee-jerk reactions when it comes to anything related to labor and commerce, no mater what research says.
sakjur 3y ago
Suggesting a fourth category, in which I consider myself and know I have plenty of friends and colleagues: When you don’t have the space at home for a proper office, so you end up with something that is ergonomically suboptimal and makes a mental shift between ‘home’ and ‘work’ harder. When I’m already balancing my effort carefully to not end up spending more energy than I can recover week by week, asking for WFH without also cutting work days is something I find draining. The “it’s great, but not for me”-crowd. Forcing people into the office or out of the office is the employer drastically changing the terms of the employment, and should at least be done over an extended period of time or in consultation with the affected employees (not including exceptional circumstances such as when it was part of the temporary efforts to dampen the pandemic).
JambalayaJim 3y ago
I am very much in the “anti-WFH” camp, in the sense that I would never work for a company that is primarily remote. I would gladly sign up for a 4 day work week. In fact, a 4 day in-office hybrid model would be perfect. As long as the work place policy involves no meetings or messages on that single remote day.

savanaly 3y ago

I'm not even in the anti-WFH camp, but notice you've selectively omitted the most sympathetic camp (what is this argument tactic called? Strawmanning?). People who think teams will be more agile and innovative when they can have impromptu face-to-face conversations. I personally think that's true, but not a big enough deal to make me favor RTO. But it's not good to summarize an issue in such a way that the other side sounds like greedy bastards and yours sounds eminently reasonable.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
> what is this argument tactic called? Strawmanning? Yeah, think like how you challenge yourself in deliberate practice. Putting up a "straw man" to fight doesn't really help one learn to fight.
- ska 3y ago
  Hence the idea of Steelmanning.
darreninthenet 3y ago
Hasn't it been disproven now though? My employer at the time during lockdown saw productivity and collaboration increase, and they are a mostly agile approach organisation. And there are many companies large and small with mostly or fully remote teams delivering complex projects every day as we speak. Whilst I'm sure there are edge cases where that face to face actually is essential, the idea that for teams to be agile, innovative and collaborative they must physically sit near each other has been shown to be unnecessary...?
- ska 3y ago
  > Hasn't it been disproven now though? No, it hasn't. And there isn't much serious work being done on it afaics, but lots of anectdata and politics. I think it is clear that it is possible to build productive fully remote teams, for at least some applications. It's not clear if it's optimal, or how broadly it applies in terms of applications or people.
- wharvle 3y ago
  People exist who basically can’t think in writing, on their own. They need someone actively working with them, in conversation, to put their thoughts together coherently—and, sometimes, for them to be able to understand others, as no amount of carefully and thoughtfully composed prose will get ideas into their heads without misunderstanding. IME they’re well-represented in management and other leadership. Not the majority, but there are lots of them. Some make it all the way to the top. I get why such folks might hate WFH, especially if they believe that their personal difficulties are more common than they are, so others must not be able to function as remote workers, either, and especially that people couldn’t possibly efficiently come up with and refine ideas under remote work.
bloopernova 3y ago
I've updated my comment with your suggestion. I completely forgot about the face to face is better folks, sorry about that. Edited to add: I also changed the language a little bit to be more neutral.
marcosdumay 3y ago
This groups doesn't seem to exist on any noticeable size. Otherwise, why does every place insists on destroying face-to-face interaction by adopting open-plan offices where any chat is disruptive?

avgcorrection 3y ago

> rent-seeking landlords, Mostly superfluous verb.

bloopernova 3y ago
True, removed.

TrackerFF 3y ago

I'm from Norway, the response here is pretty much: Left: "Sounds like great idea, we must conduct trials!" Center: "It sounds interesting, but we need more data blablablah" Right: "A four-day week will never work, and people must put away that ridiculous idea. We (Norwegians) already work too little compared to the rest of Europe." We oscillate between center-left and center-right every 4/8 years, so I'm not sure I have high hopes for this becoming a thing anytime soon. The (political) right here is especially prone to knee-jerk reactions when it comes to anything related to labor and commerce, no mater what research says.

sakjur 3y ago

Suggesting a fourth category, in which I consider myself and know I have plenty of friends and colleagues: When you don’t have the space at home for a proper office, so you end up with something that is ergonomically suboptimal and makes a mental shift between ‘home’ and ‘work’ harder. When I’m already balancing my effort carefully to not end up spending more energy than I can recover week by week, asking for WFH without also cutting work days is something I find draining. The “it’s great, but not for me”-crowd. Forcing people into the office or out of the office is the employer drastically changing the terms of the employment, and should at least be done over an extended period of time or in consultation with the affected employees (not including exceptional circumstances such as when it was part of the temporary efforts to dampen the pandemic).

JambalayaJim 3y ago

I am very much in the “anti-WFH” camp, in the sense that I would never work for a company that is primarily remote. I would gladly sign up for a 4 day work week. In fact, a 4 day in-office hybrid model would be perfect. As long as the work place policy involves no meetings or messages on that single remote day.