3 ms·

I think framing the WFH argument in terms of productivity is a bad idea. It’s difficult to win that argument and it might not even be true. Instead, call it a

I think framing the WFH argument in terms of productivity is a bad idea. It’s difficult to win that argument and it might not even be true. Instead, call it a benefit, like paid vacation or health insurance. Nobody argues that employers contributing to an employees 401(k) plan is good for productivity. They do it to attract and retain talent.

purple-leafy 2y ago
I think though, that for hybrid or work from home to win in the shared mindset - productivity has to be accounted for. It feels like employers that switch to RTO office mandates do so on a “hunch” that WFH is less productive. At least that’s what my company is doing. They have not shared any stats that hybrid work has affected outcomes. Yes the company was down in outcomes for 2 quarters, but that’s mostly related to consumers not spending + inflation + economic instability. Because the board need a more tangible boogeyman to point to, they blame the “lazy work from home ethic”. But I’m yet to see ANY evidence that hybrid work decreases productivity or outcomes. In fact, I strongly believe, and could probably produce evidence, that Hybrid work ensures better workplace outcomes on average in a vacuum. Employee agency -> less stress, more loyalty -> better outcomes
- rgblambda 2y ago
  Think it was the FT that reported, there's no data indicating RTO improves productivity. It is being done either on a hunch or as a form of stealth layoff.
ozim 2y ago
Benefit for the employee can be cut off any time. Benefit for the company will go on forever. I will stay on the ground where WFH is benefit for the company. That is what I believe and I want everyone to believe and I do not care what any kind of research will say. Just if employees will force it in that way it will be.
- rgblambda 2y ago
  Consistency and stability is a benefit to the company, but execs still periodically fuck that up for no reason with random reorgs. Though I agree that framing WFH as a productivity gain makes RTO in the name of productivity harder to sell.
- azemetre 2y ago
  Benefits can be enshrined in law, you should see what European countries have legislated at the benefit of workers some time.
  - ipaddr 2y ago
    But they won't and it will be limited if anything makes it into law.
- criddell 2y ago
  > Benefit for the company will go on forever. I'm not sure about that. Companies are still made of people and people aren't always rational or even good at their jobs. Managers might prefer butts in seats because it's easier for them. Or maybe they fall for the sunk cost fallacy and want people in the office because the office space is expensive.
brailsafe 2y ago
It's not difficult to win at all, if I'm more productive at home, I'm more productive at home, and a smart employer would enable me to choose that. If I'm not, I'd like to have an external space, perhaps the office, to go to and be productive. A stupid employer would ignore their employees and just decide that the office is a universal good. Now, if you're saying that it's a difficult argument to win with an existing employer who's mandated RTO (rather than a difficult argument to win in general), I'd agree, but I'd say that's true for nearly any argument at any sufficiently traditional, large, or bureaucratic company, about anything. The same place where it'd be difficult to argue for WFM is the same place where it'd be difficult to argue for better pay, dimmer lights, a change in ambient room temperature, less meetings, different duties, less overtime, the use of a mac vs windows pc, a different chair, or any other kind of benefit package, because these decisions get made and then applied without consulting anyone lower in the org chart until those people leave the company and come back asking for them as terms. That's the nature of those hierarchical structures, it's what allows mass layoffs it's what takes agency away from people, nearly by definition.
theshackleford 2y ago
> and it might not even be true. And even if it is, it rarely matters. During my time as an executive, the CEO of the company pushed for a return to the office despite widespread success with remote work during COVID. He personally disliked WFH, even though productivity data from every team showed improvements, and employee surveys were overwhelmingly in favor of continuing remote work. A small minority preferred the office, which was understandable, but the overall results were clear: WFH was beneficial. Despite this, the CEO disregarded the data and announced that employees wanted to return, citing a need for in-person collaboration and productivity improvements—claims that directly contradicted the evidence that had been gathered. His decision was based on personal bias and gut instinct rather than the facts. This led to significant fallout. As executives like myself left, key engineers followed, resulting in a mass exodus of talent and customers. Within two years, the company was a shell of its former self and was ultimately sold off for a fraction of its value to some shit kicker PE firm. Also funny, was that the CEO had always hated WFH, even prior to Covid, even though he himself was always happy to exercise it personally. Even whilst doing WFH himself though, his opinion of anyone else WFH had always been that any of them claiming to actually work was "full of shit" and "taking the piss" and in fact doing absolutely nothing. This of course did not apply to him because he was an executive and executives are different.
kortilla 2y ago
The point is that it isn’t a benefit if it’s productive for the company to. It’s like calling “allowed to use a computer” a benefit.

purple-leafy 2y ago

I think though, that for hybrid or work from home to win in the shared mindset - productivity has to be accounted for. It feels like employers that switch to RTO office mandates do so on a “hunch” that WFH is less productive. At least that’s what my company is doing. They have not shared any stats that hybrid work has affected outcomes. Yes the company was down in outcomes for 2 quarters, but that’s mostly related to consumers not spending + inflation + economic instability. Because the board need a more tangible boogeyman to point to, they blame the “lazy work from home ethic”. But I’m yet to see ANY evidence that hybrid work decreases productivity or outcomes. In fact, I strongly believe, and could probably produce evidence, that Hybrid work ensures better workplace outcomes on average in a vacuum. Employee agency -> less stress, more loyalty -> better outcomes

rgblambda 2y ago
Think it was the FT that reported, there's no data indicating RTO improves productivity. It is being done either on a hunch or as a form of stealth layoff.

ozim 2y ago

Benefit for the employee can be cut off any time. Benefit for the company will go on forever. I will stay on the ground where WFH is benefit for the company. That is what I believe and I want everyone to believe and I do not care what any kind of research will say. Just if employees will force it in that way it will be.

rgblambda 2y ago
Consistency and stability is a benefit to the company, but execs still periodically fuck that up for no reason with random reorgs. Though I agree that framing WFH as a productivity gain makes RTO in the name of productivity harder to sell.
azemetre 2y ago
Benefits can be enshrined in law, you should see what European countries have legislated at the benefit of workers some time.
- ipaddr 2y ago
  But they won't and it will be limited if anything makes it into law.
criddell 2y ago
> Benefit for the company will go on forever. I'm not sure about that. Companies are still made of people and people aren't always rational or even good at their jobs. Managers might prefer butts in seats because it's easier for them. Or maybe they fall for the sunk cost fallacy and want people in the office because the office space is expensive.

brailsafe 2y ago

It's not difficult to win at all, if I'm more productive at home, I'm more productive at home, and a smart employer would enable me to choose that. If I'm not, I'd like to have an external space, perhaps the office, to go to and be productive. A stupid employer would ignore their employees and just decide that the office is a universal good. Now, if you're saying that it's a difficult argument to win with an existing employer who's mandated RTO (rather than a difficult argument to win in general), I'd agree, but I'd say that's true for nearly any argument at any sufficiently traditional, large, or bureaucratic company, about anything. The same place where it'd be difficult to argue for WFM is the same place where it'd be difficult to argue for better pay, dimmer lights, a change in ambient room temperature, less meetings, different duties, less overtime, the use of a mac vs windows pc, a different chair, or any other kind of benefit package, because these decisions get made and then applied without consulting anyone lower in the org chart until those people leave the company and come back asking for them as terms. That's the nature of those hierarchical structures, it's what allows mass layoffs it's what takes agency away from people, nearly by definition.

theshackleford 2y ago

> and it might not even be true. And even if it is, it rarely matters. During my time as an executive, the CEO of the company pushed for a return to the office despite widespread success with remote work during COVID. He personally disliked WFH, even though productivity data from every team showed improvements, and employee surveys were overwhelmingly in favor of continuing remote work. A small minority preferred the office, which was understandable, but the overall results were clear: WFH was beneficial. Despite this, the CEO disregarded the data and announced that employees wanted to return, citing a need for in-person collaboration and productivity improvements—claims that directly contradicted the evidence that had been gathered. His decision was based on personal bias and gut instinct rather than the facts. This led to significant fallout. As executives like myself left, key engineers followed, resulting in a mass exodus of talent and customers. Within two years, the company was a shell of its former self and was ultimately sold off for a fraction of its value to some shit kicker PE firm. Also funny, was that the CEO had always hated WFH, even prior to Covid, even though he himself was always happy to exercise it personally. Even whilst doing WFH himself though, his opinion of anyone else WFH had always been that any of them claiming to actually work was "full of shit" and "taking the piss" and in fact doing absolutely nothing. This of course did not apply to him because he was an executive and executives are different.

kortilla 2y ago

The point is that it isn’t a benefit if it’s productive for the company to. It’s like calling “allowed to use a computer” a benefit.