3 ms·

The debate about whether WFH is good/bad works/doesn't is pretty much had already yes. But I never found it very interesting. The key insight at this point rea

The debate about whether WFH is good/bad works/doesn't is pretty much had already yes. But I never found it very interesting. The key insight at this point really is that employees, I think, mostly don't care whether WHF is more or less effective, or whether companies function better or worse with WFH. They are going to work from home regardless. So they'll end up at companies that either believe that "it works". And after that, there is a second insight that follows from that: it becomes self fulfilling. If enough people refuse to work in an office then companies that force office work are going to recruit from an ever shrinking talent pool. Eventually they'll be less effective even if they would function much better given the same employees or salary budgets as the companies with WFH.

benterix 3y ago
> mostly don't care While I agree with you in general, I believe there is a substantial group who knows that in their particular case the company will be as effective or even more effective if they WFH. Why? Because they worked in (usually) open-plan offices before and they work in their own spaces now and they can estimate how much time was spend on work and non-work activities. For example, I communicate on Slack quite often, we have huddles as needed - but only when needed. If someone like, they can have smalltalk on dedicated channels and socialize as mach as they want - but only with the ones who explicitly choose to do so. In other terms, you control your time and the execution of your tasks much better.