4 ms·

> Can anyone break down why these companies want/need people to come back to the office at all? as far as I know, and from everything ive seen, office workers c

> Can anyone break down why these companies want/need people to come back to the office at all? as far as I know, and from everything ive seen, office workers can do this stuff anywhere (even in our shops waiting room.) meetings are all on zoom and VPN is a thing. As an IC whose manager is nowhere to be seen in the office: I find these questions puzzling. Do folks here notice zero difference when their coworkers are present at their office vs. when they aren't? Claiming you "can" do this stuff anywhere feels similar to claiming you "can" fulfil your body's nutritional needs through drinking Soylet every day. Just because you might be able to that (and maybe you prefer to do it personally) that doesn't mean it's enjoyable or a good idea for everyone.

dd82 3y ago
There's a difference between being remote friendly and remote first. the former is "yeah, you can work from home, but you're going to miss out on alot if you're not at the office" the latter is "we consciously make sure to integrate everyone in collaboration, regardless of location and have tooling/procedures for collaboration" If you're asking this question, it might be that you're in a remote friendly environment with explicit lack of communication or collaboration support
- dataflow 3y ago
  No, not every conversation is a "collaboration". Do you dial into Zoom during lunch and coffee too? When you grab a coworker passing by do you start a Zoom call to make sure the whole team can spectate your random conversation?
  - dd82 3y ago
    No, but you also make sure to bring it up in slack or whatever to fill in your other teammates when the material is relevant and useful. Or just because?
    - dataflow 3y ago
      That's... not how it works for any human being. The whole point of a conversation is that you can engage in it while it's happening. You make a point in the middle when it's relevant, and someone replies with something else they feel is relevant. When you've already had a 30+-minute conversation over lunch, no human is going to remember it and copy to Slack, no remote worker is going to go through and respond point-by-point as if they'd been there in person, and no human who has already invested that time and energy in the conversation is going to re-start the conversation at every juncture just to explore alternative directions it could've gone in person. What actually happens in the best case is you give a few sentences of summary if you believe it might impact your coworkers' work, and then schedule a meeting if there's more to discuss. Which (ignoring the fact that even the best people don't always do this) is great, except you could be entirely wrong about whether there was anything beneficial for any coworker to hear. That junior engineer on the team might've been able to overhear how you fixed a problem that was second-nature to you, but now they don't. That dude who just returned to work might've been able to tell you they were interested in picking up the work you were overloaded with, but now they don't. That team lead on the adjacent team you would've grabbed during lunch with might've told you they were planning to handle the larger problem next quarter, but now they don't. etc...
      - dd82 3y ago
        that's where communication and collaboration strategies and procedures exist. It can be really easy to have them be mindless things, rather than mindful things. You can use your medium of communication, whether text, ad-hoc calls, or so on. No need to schedule meetings unless both parties are booked for ad-hoc chats With some examples * Hey, I was chatting with X a bit ago, couple things came up about service A and B. Got some time for a quick call? * Hey, I can use a sanity check with this brainstorming session, got any time free? Oh, is Junior X available too? Not saying your points aren't valid. But the same things would also happen if I were at my desk and you were off talking somewhere. How would you get me into the conversation? The big difference is mindfulness, I think. Remote communication requires more mindfulness about team and communication, whereas in office you can be really lazy about that. At the end of the day, its about communication and collaboration, and making sure loops are closed. Reasons for unclosed loops exist, regardless which environment you're in
tremon 3y ago
that doesn't mean it's enjoyable or a good idea for everyone. > Return-to-Office Mandates The topic under discussion is employers mandating things for everyone, isn't it?
- dataflow 3y ago
  Yes, and the point is there's nothing here that will be good for everyone. If you let people ditch the office then those who would benefit from being in person fail to do so. If you force everyone to be in then those who want to be alone will be unhappy. Your preference might be the latter, and that's totally understandable, but that's a very distinct argument from "the latter is inherently better" or "I don't understand the benefits of the former".
quickslowdown 3y ago
> Just because you might be able to that (and maybe you prefer to do it personally) that doesn't mean it's enjoyable or a good idea for everyone. The inverse of this that's always frustratingly missing from this point of view is going to an office. Just because you might be able to/enjoy to do that, doesn't mean it's enjoyable or a good idea for everyone. People talking about wanting to stay remote for the most part have some line about RTO people being more than welcome to do so, if that's what they want. But RTO people want EVERYONE back to the office to fulfill their want for social interaction, and their inability to be effective remotely. Both options need to be available. The stigma for working remote needs to die. The people who choose to work remote need to recognize the tradeoff and work harder to stay in the loop and on task. People in the office need to shut up about wanting EVERYONE back, and need to stop making claims that it's "better." No one size fits all, the world would be a better place if people just minded their own business and stopped looking at their neighbor, who might want to stay working remote. Managers need to hire people they trust so the temptation to micromanage isn't there.

dd82 3y ago

There's a difference between being remote friendly and remote first. the former is "yeah, you can work from home, but you're going to miss out on alot if you're not at the office" the latter is "we consciously make sure to integrate everyone in collaboration, regardless of location and have tooling/procedures for collaboration" If you're asking this question, it might be that you're in a remote friendly environment with explicit lack of communication or collaboration support

dataflow 3y ago
No, not every conversation is a "collaboration". Do you dial into Zoom during lunch and coffee too? When you grab a coworker passing by do you start a Zoom call to make sure the whole team can spectate your random conversation?
- dd82 3y ago
  No, but you also make sure to bring it up in slack or whatever to fill in your other teammates when the material is relevant and useful. Or just because?
  - dataflow 3y ago
    That's... not how it works for any human being. The whole point of a conversation is that you can engage in it while it's happening. You make a point in the middle when it's relevant, and someone replies with something else they feel is relevant. When you've already had a 30+-minute conversation over lunch, no human is going to remember it and copy to Slack, no remote worker is going to go through and respond point-by-point as if they'd been there in person, and no human who has already invested that time and energy in the conversation is going to re-start the conversation at every juncture just to explore alternative directions it could've gone in person. What actually happens in the best case is you give a few sentences of summary if you believe it might impact your coworkers' work, and then schedule a meeting if there's more to discuss. Which (ignoring the fact that even the best people don't always do this) is great, except you could be entirely wrong about whether there was anything beneficial for any coworker to hear. That junior engineer on the team might've been able to overhear how you fixed a problem that was second-nature to you, but now they don't. That dude who just returned to work might've been able to tell you they were interested in picking up the work you were overloaded with, but now they don't. That team lead on the adjacent team you would've grabbed during lunch with might've told you they were planning to handle the larger problem next quarter, but now they don't. etc...
    - dd82 3y ago
      that's where communication and collaboration strategies and procedures exist. It can be really easy to have them be mindless things, rather than mindful things. You can use your medium of communication, whether text, ad-hoc calls, or so on. No need to schedule meetings unless both parties are booked for ad-hoc chats With some examples * Hey, I was chatting with X a bit ago, couple things came up about service A and B. Got some time for a quick call? * Hey, I can use a sanity check with this brainstorming session, got any time free? Oh, is Junior X available too? Not saying your points aren't valid. But the same things would also happen if I were at my desk and you were off talking somewhere. How would you get me into the conversation? The big difference is mindfulness, I think. Remote communication requires more mindfulness about team and communication, whereas in office you can be really lazy about that. At the end of the day, its about communication and collaboration, and making sure loops are closed. Reasons for unclosed loops exist, regardless which environment you're in

tremon 3y ago

that doesn't mean it's enjoyable or a good idea for everyone. > Return-to-Office Mandates The topic under discussion is employers mandating things for everyone, isn't it?

dataflow 3y ago
Yes, and the point is there's nothing here that will be good for everyone. If you let people ditch the office then those who would benefit from being in person fail to do so. If you force everyone to be in then those who want to be alone will be unhappy. Your preference might be the latter, and that's totally understandable, but that's a very distinct argument from "the latter is inherently better" or "I don't understand the benefits of the former".

quickslowdown 3y ago

> Just because you might be able to that (and maybe you prefer to do it personally) that doesn't mean it's enjoyable or a good idea for everyone. The inverse of this that's always frustratingly missing from this point of view is going to an office. Just because you might be able to/enjoy to do that, doesn't mean it's enjoyable or a good idea for everyone. People talking about wanting to stay remote for the most part have some line about RTO people being more than welcome to do so, if that's what they want. But RTO people want EVERYONE back to the office to fulfill their want for social interaction, and their inability to be effective remotely. Both options need to be available. The stigma for working remote needs to die. The people who choose to work remote need to recognize the tradeoff and work harder to stay in the loop and on task. People in the office need to shut up about wanting EVERYONE back, and need to stop making claims that it's "better." No one size fits all, the world would be a better place if people just minded their own business and stopped looking at their neighbor, who might want to stay working remote. Managers need to hire people they trust so the temptation to micromanage isn't there.