3 ms·

It's easy to paint a conspiracy picture. Most boards are not in commercial real estate and certainly not enough to force CEOs to act against the interest of the

by tootie 2y ago

It's easy to paint a conspiracy picture. Most boards are not in commercial real estate and certainly not enough to force CEOs to act against the interest of their company. They're doing this because they believe in it. Lots of people just believe wrong things despite evidence.

benterix 2y ago
Yeah, I mean it's obvious - the fact that some CEOS have vested interests in commercial real estate doesn't mean that all do, it doesn't pass basic logic test. Most are doing what the rest are doing, whether it makes sense or not. What is clear, though, is that the moment you really try to enforce RTO, people start looking for new jobs, especially seniors.
datavirtue 2y ago
Employees are willing to give up serdipitous in-office collaboration while CEOs, who are struggling to navigate any of this, refuse to accept that this aspect of work life is going away. I want the old in-office comraderie and collaboration but I'm not willing to give up WFH benefits. My company went so far as to remodel huge new office for me. I thought it be great but then a four day onsite rule popped out of nowhere that applies to people with offices. I'm seriously considering leaving.
- chii 2y ago
  > I want the old in-office comraderie and collaboration but I'm not willing to give up WFH benefits. there is such a thing as hybrid. Having an office available for use, and schedule meetups deliberately in the office, and do it regularly (but not all the time - for example, once a fortnight is a good cadence imho). The days you do meet in the office, you will do an all day "workshop", rather than regularly scheduled work - bounce ideas, talk about stuff, etc. Face to face discussions can be done there, and it's more productive. And in exchange, you remove things like "status meetings" etc, to make time. A project manager or really, anybody, will need to come into the office on those scheduled days in office and chat in person, if they want a status update!
- mwigdahl 2y ago
  Just tell them they can give the office to someone else!
nevdka 2y ago
Pre-covid, the real estate conspiracy was that management was pushing for smaller and more crowded open offices so that they would spend less.
btbuildem 2y ago
I did some digging on this where I work, because I thought I was starting to taste tinfoil. Six out of eight of the board members are involved with companies located not just in the same state but clustered around the same area. Three of these companies have buildings in the same business park. All these companies have inflicted similar RTO mandates on their employees. I went through our financial statements -- commercial leases were set to expire this year, they've renewed them for another thirteen (!) years and committed $100M to office space improvements. They've frozen hiring, they're cutting costs wherever they can, but they found it reasonable to dump $25M each quarter on leasing costs? Whenever something like this is "difficult to comprehend" as the article obediently avoids scratching the surface, my first guess is that someone's making money off it. Is it board members with real-estate investments? Is it organized crime? Is it Blackrock and Vanguard (majority shareholders btw)? At this point, why not all three?
dr-detroit 2y ago
[dead]
ClumsyPilot 2y ago
> Most boards are not in commercial real estate Most institutional shareholders are. When business interest align no conspiracy is required.
whoknowsidont 2y ago
You do not need a formal conspiracy when interests converge.
- spacephysics 2y ago
  George Carlin said it best
3lit3krew 2y ago
It's easy and effective. What company or outfit do you work for, I can vet the board members or superior officers or agency supervisors for you. I have access to lots of data on lots of people. EDIT: I'm completely serious, persona.
EPWN3D 2y ago
Yeah, the whole commercial real estate thing is overblown. I think it's simpler: executive-level positions attract people who don't get very much fulfillment from their home lives. They get paid enough to have double-shift coverage on children, or they don't have children at all. Since they don't have to be home as much, they aren't. They don't mind the commute because they get to drive a fancy car, park in a reserved spot, and are usually on the road before the traffic starts. They get all their jollies from being in an office, talking to other people with the same lifestyle, and they can't imagine why anyone wouldn't want to be in an office (aside from malice or laziness). And they derive their energy from seeing all the activity -- people going to meetings, milling about, etc. They see that stuff and conclude that yes, problems are being solved, innovation is happening, and that gets them excited. It's all just vibes. No one actually doing the math on this stuff has seen a slam-dunk case for draconian in-office policies.

by tootie 2y ago

benterix 2y ago

Yeah, I mean it's obvious - the fact that some CEOS have vested interests in commercial real estate doesn't mean that all do, it doesn't pass basic logic test. Most are doing what the rest are doing, whether it makes sense or not. What is clear, though, is that the moment you really try to enforce RTO, people start looking for new jobs, especially seniors.

datavirtue 2y ago

Employees are willing to give up serdipitous in-office collaboration while CEOs, who are struggling to navigate any of this, refuse to accept that this aspect of work life is going away. I want the old in-office comraderie and collaboration but I'm not willing to give up WFH benefits. My company went so far as to remodel huge new office for me. I thought it be great but then a four day onsite rule popped out of nowhere that applies to people with offices. I'm seriously considering leaving.

chii 2y ago
> I want the old in-office comraderie and collaboration but I'm not willing to give up WFH benefits. there is such a thing as hybrid. Having an office available for use, and schedule meetups deliberately in the office, and do it regularly (but not all the time - for example, once a fortnight is a good cadence imho). The days you do meet in the office, you will do an all day "workshop", rather than regularly scheduled work - bounce ideas, talk about stuff, etc. Face to face discussions can be done there, and it's more productive. And in exchange, you remove things like "status meetings" etc, to make time. A project manager or really, anybody, will need to come into the office on those scheduled days in office and chat in person, if they want a status update!
mwigdahl 2y ago
Just tell them they can give the office to someone else!

nevdka 2y ago

Pre-covid, the real estate conspiracy was that management was pushing for smaller and more crowded open offices so that they would spend less.

btbuildem 2y ago

I did some digging on this where I work, because I thought I was starting to taste tinfoil. Six out of eight of the board members are involved with companies located not just in the same state but clustered around the same area. Three of these companies have buildings in the same business park. All these companies have inflicted similar RTO mandates on their employees. I went through our financial statements -- commercial leases were set to expire this year, they've renewed them for another thirteen (!) years and committed $100M to office space improvements. They've frozen hiring, they're cutting costs wherever they can, but they found it reasonable to dump $25M each quarter on leasing costs? Whenever something like this is "difficult to comprehend" as the article obediently avoids scratching the surface, my first guess is that someone's making money off it. Is it board members with real-estate investments? Is it organized crime? Is it Blackrock and Vanguard (majority shareholders btw)? At this point, why not all three?

dr-detroit 2y ago

[dead]

ClumsyPilot 2y ago

> Most boards are not in commercial real estate Most institutional shareholders are. When business interest align no conspiracy is required.

whoknowsidont 2y ago

You do not need a formal conspiracy when interests converge.

spacephysics 2y ago
George Carlin said it best

3lit3krew 2y ago

It's easy and effective. What company or outfit do you work for, I can vet the board members or superior officers or agency supervisors for you. I have access to lots of data on lots of people. EDIT: I'm completely serious, persona.

EPWN3D 2y ago

Yeah, the whole commercial real estate thing is overblown. I think it's simpler: executive-level positions attract people who don't get very much fulfillment from their home lives. They get paid enough to have double-shift coverage on children, or they don't have children at all. Since they don't have to be home as much, they aren't. They don't mind the commute because they get to drive a fancy car, park in a reserved spot, and are usually on the road before the traffic starts. They get all their jollies from being in an office, talking to other people with the same lifestyle, and they can't imagine why anyone wouldn't want to be in an office (aside from malice or laziness). And they derive their energy from seeing all the activity -- people going to meetings, milling about, etc. They see that stuff and conclude that yes, problems are being solved, innovation is happening, and that gets them excited. It's all just vibes. No one actually doing the math on this stuff has seen a slam-dunk case for draconian in-office policies.