3 ms·

"I have a worry about X that I can't justify in any way" isn't a good basis for forcing people into a decision that (as the GP mentions) has dozens of obvious,

by lsy 3y ago

"I have a worry about X that I can't justify in any way" isn't a good basis for forcing people into a decision that (as the GP mentions) has dozens of obvious, immediate, and measurable benefits in the other direction. The simplest explanation for why "leaders" are fighting for RTO is not that office work was, improbably, a perfect global maximum for productivity, innovation, esprit de corps, or whatever, but merely that office work is how things used to be done and a lot of people got used to it both organizationally and economically. From that perspective, I think the burden of proof is completely on those who are fighting for a return to status quo to argue why workers (and society at large!) should be willing to trade all of the obvious benefits of remote work for these supposed intangibles.

IshKebab 3y ago
He's not saying it can't be justified; he's saying it can't be measured. Big difference. Anyway I think you're both wrong about this. The reason for RTO is two-fold: * Working in an office is much better for higher ups because their job is much more talking to people than doing "actual work". If you're spending literally all day in meetings it is worth the commute to avoid Zoom. If you're only spending 1-2 hours in meetings it definitely isn't. * They have a fear that people will do no work if they're at home. Honestly I think it's completely unfounded, and it's just as easy to do no work at work. But it's a real fear. Actually I think hn_throway_99 has a point about them being worried about disinvestment too. But it's mostly the fact that WFH is way worse for management than it is for the bottom rung.
jkic47 3y ago
I think that's an oversimplification of the argument being made. For people early in their careers, face time on site can be invaluable. They get to learn from people who get things done, and emulate them (or not). On-site, they learn from both positive and negative examples. This is simply less effective through meetings only. The counterpoint also ignores human behavior. The person getting promoted is likely to be the person who shows up every day and visibly contributes when compared head-to-head against an equivalently performing employee WFH. First time people managers will likely be expected to manage people where their boss can keep an eye on them before entrusting them with remote teams. This could create a career choke point. the advantages you mention are real, but WFH is poor career advice unless you can compete on price with low-cost foreign workers who are just as remote as the person I am paying a US salary to

by lsy 3y ago

IshKebab 3y ago

He's not saying it can't be justified; he's saying it can't be measured. Big difference. Anyway I think you're both wrong about this. The reason for RTO is two-fold: * Working in an office is much better for higher ups because their job is much more talking to people than doing "actual work". If you're spending literally all day in meetings it is worth the commute to avoid Zoom. If you're only spending 1-2 hours in meetings it definitely isn't. * They have a fear that people will do no work if they're at home. Honestly I think it's completely unfounded, and it's just as easy to do no work at work. But it's a real fear. Actually I think hn_throway_99 has a point about them being worried about disinvestment too. But it's mostly the fact that WFH is way worse for management than it is for the bottom rung.

jkic47 3y ago

I think that's an oversimplification of the argument being made. For people early in their careers, face time on site can be invaluable. They get to learn from people who get things done, and emulate them (or not). On-site, they learn from both positive and negative examples. This is simply less effective through meetings only. The counterpoint also ignores human behavior. The person getting promoted is likely to be the person who shows up every day and visibly contributes when compared head-to-head against an equivalently performing employee WFH. First time people managers will likely be expected to manage people where their boss can keep an eye on them before entrusting them with remote teams. This could create a career choke point. the advantages you mention are real, but WFH is poor career advice unless you can compete on price with low-cost foreign workers who are just as remote as the person I am paying a US salary to