35 ms·

I think that the adverse effects of allowing WFH pale in comparison to moving up and down the spectrum of strengths of companies within certain industries, to t

I think that the adverse effects of allowing WFH pale in comparison to moving up and down the spectrum of strengths of companies within certain industries, to the point that WFH/WFO seems like an irrelevant question unless you're currently at the top of your industry. Here's my example: I work in the space industry, and the difference between SpaceX and every other vehicle provider is insane. The speed, quality, and average performance of people working within SpaceX's culture cannot be matched by anyone else flying hardware right now. It's gotten to the point where spaceflight feels like an elaborate farce, or a welfare program for aerospace engineers, unless you're working on a SpaceX project. I'm almost embarrassed to collect a paycheck, and I'm considered a pretty decently high performer at my own company. So--if my company chooses to WFH or WFO, so what? Maybe we lose some competitive edge with WFH, but all the employees are happier and retention may improve a little bit. We're not going to compete with SpaceX. We don't have the intellect or experience necessary. My guess is that this is how it is across all industries. There are a handful of companies competing for the "top dog" spot, and at these companies, WFO/WFH is a relevant question. If WFH causes you to lose competitive edge, it's worth disallowing in favor of retaining only hustlers who are willing to go for the throat and win, and thus either make insane profits or redefine technological standards for the next decade. For most of the other companies within the industry, it doesn't matter. You're not the top dog, and your corporation doesn't have the DNA necessary to get there. By definition 50% of employees are worse than the median quality employee, and yet they're still employed; how many are at your company? You may as well allow WFH to keep your people happy. Sure, you can eke out another 5-30% performance increase by mandating them back to the office, and that's the equivalent of 0.001% performance increase at whatever company is currently truly dominating in your industry. Is it worth it? Life is short.

thfuran 2y ago
The notion that a 25% across the board performance increase isn't a huge deal just because supposedly there's some other company in the same industry that's better makes no sense.
- quacked 2y ago
  Sorry, I should have been more specific in my last paragraph. I was talking about individual employee performance, not an across-the-board increase in performance across all company metrics like gross profit, etc. A 25% across the board performance increase would be a huge deal. If you know someone at work that doesn't really make much of a difference, there's not rally a big difference between him at 100% capacity and him at 70% capacity. Either way, he's not affecting the company baseline that much. That's how I feel about most companies I've interacted with so far. From what I've seen, your average lifer at a subcontractor for NASA doing 30% better on his monthly performance is about the same as your average SpaceXer doing 0.001% better.
3np 2y ago
I find the fundamental argument flawed. Your employer is allegedly not competing with SpaceX in either case. Howver, you're still supposedly competing with other companies in your bracket? In that context, it could give a competitive advantage.
- quacked 2y ago
  Yes, it could, but my belief is that as long as the company isn't about to go out of business, it doesn't matter because the competitive advantage within our bracket is irrelevant when compared to the top of the entire league. In order to actually increase the size and profitability of the company to a hugely notable degree, they'd need a hell of a lot more changes than just WFH->WFO.

thfuran 2y ago

The notion that a 25% across the board performance increase isn't a huge deal just because supposedly there's some other company in the same industry that's better makes no sense.

quacked 2y ago
Sorry, I should have been more specific in my last paragraph. I was talking about individual employee performance, not an across-the-board increase in performance across all company metrics like gross profit, etc. A 25% across the board performance increase would be a huge deal. If you know someone at work that doesn't really make much of a difference, there's not rally a big difference between him at 100% capacity and him at 70% capacity. Either way, he's not affecting the company baseline that much. That's how I feel about most companies I've interacted with so far. From what I've seen, your average lifer at a subcontractor for NASA doing 30% better on his monthly performance is about the same as your average SpaceXer doing 0.001% better.

3np 2y ago

I find the fundamental argument flawed. Your employer is allegedly not competing with SpaceX in either case. Howver, you're still supposedly competing with other companies in your bracket? In that context, it could give a competitive advantage.

quacked 2y ago
Yes, it could, but my belief is that as long as the company isn't about to go out of business, it doesn't matter because the competitive advantage within our bracket is irrelevant when compared to the top of the entire league. In order to actually increase the size and profitability of the company to a hugely notable degree, they'd need a hell of a lot more changes than just WFH->WFO.