6 ms·

Sure you can. Why can't you? Its lack of imagination and inability for upper management leadership to even consider that the way they "always done things" may

Sure you can. Why can't you? Its lack of imagination and inability for upper management leadership to even consider that the way they "always done things" may no longer be the best way, and they need to evolve with the times. For instance, find a group of teams that work on a similar function, have some of the teams RTO, and have some WFH, and see if there is any tangible difference in the results and what they are. Thats off the top of my head. Never mind that there are actually more scientific approaches that can be used than what I've suggested, and there are researchers that are clamoring to do this as well.

changoplatanero 2y ago
> For instance, find a group of teams that work on a similar function, have some of the teams RTO, and have some WFH, and see if there is any tangible difference in the results and what they are. I'm not sure I buy this. In my mind the downsides to permanent working from home are these intangible things like team cohesion, speed of onboarding, effective cross functional collaboration, etc. Some of these issues wouldn't manifest themselves in a measurable way until more than a year later.
- no_wizard 2y ago
  Firstly, there are better more scientific ways than I what I proposed at thinking about it for maybe 30 seconds. Secondly, you're saying this >In my mind... There's still no objective metric being cited? >the downsides to permanent working from home are these intangible things like team cohesion, speed of onboarding, effective cross functional collaboration, etc. But we can prove these things can work well remotely. If they didn't, remote only companies would have such a higher bar to clear and that would be proven already. Gitlab did great in their IPO, and they're 100% remote. Zapier has grown strong and steady, 100% remote, Deel has grown quickly since 2019, also 100% remote etc. Clearly none of these businesses have issues collaborating. >Some of these issues wouldn't manifest themselves in a measurable way until more than a year later. So measure it as long as it takes. 1-2 years is a blip comparatively, and lots of companies already have internal data they could use to make this determination: look at employee performance and satisfaction rates before they worked from home and compare it to after they worked from home. Lots and lots of people worked at the same place before WFH became far more common, and after it became far more common. I imagine this is true at Amazon as anywhere else it would be. What I find entirely humorous about this is its executives that want hybrid / RTO by a large margin, and comparatively few employees want hybrid / RTO and prefer working from home. Do you think this would even be a conversation if it was the inverse?
  - dgfitz 2y ago
    I don't understand why CEOs and executives who lurk on here don't just come out and say what the deal is. I can only assume because that doesn't happen, they would rather not say, which in turn actually says volumes.
    - no_wizard 2y ago
      Forgive for not understanding, but what do you mean by 'because it doesn't happen'? The studies don't happen or something else? It would be nice for that group to chime in and actually engage in the conversation for once.
      - dgfitz 2y ago
        > I don't understand why CEOs and executives who lurk on here don't just come out and say what the deal is. I can only assume because that doesn't happen... Which part of that was unclear?
        no_wizard 2y ago
        Whats the "I can only assume because that doesn't happen..." what are you assuming doesn't happen? I think I might be overly dense, but I still don't follow.
        dgfitz 2y ago
        Why don’t CEOs just come out and actually say why RTO is such a priority. I thought that was clear. I suppose it was not. Thanks for your patience. Edit: to be clear I don’t believe any of the messsging so far. “Collaboration, water-cooler talks” etc. that’s all bullshit.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - paulcole 2y ago
      > I can only assume because that doesn't happen, they would rather not say, which in turn actually says volumes. If a CEO posted on here, “Here’s data that shows RTO was better for us” would that change anyone’s mind here? No, people who hate RTO would continue to hate it.
- ghaff 2y ago
  It depends a lot. I've worked with people in person quite a lot--some of which admittedly pre-dated current communication technologies. And some of which was certainly augmented by a fair number of face to face meetings that sort of fell off the table between COVID and tech budget cuts. But I'd say that, in general, some amount of meeting people locally (including going into an office if people you work with are actually there) is beneficial.
Ferret7446 2y ago
That's the same logical fallacy that makes people think that small scale UBI experimental results apply if rolled out to the entire society. There are systemic and emergent effects that are not accounted for, and the only way to actually do the science is to make a copy of society and only do the change for one of the copies. (which is obviously impossible, which is GP's point)

changoplatanero 2y ago

> For instance, find a group of teams that work on a similar function, have some of the teams RTO, and have some WFH, and see if there is any tangible difference in the results and what they are. I'm not sure I buy this. In my mind the downsides to permanent working from home are these intangible things like team cohesion, speed of onboarding, effective cross functional collaboration, etc. Some of these issues wouldn't manifest themselves in a measurable way until more than a year later.

no_wizard 2y ago
Firstly, there are better more scientific ways than I what I proposed at thinking about it for maybe 30 seconds. Secondly, you're saying this >In my mind... There's still no objective metric being cited? >the downsides to permanent working from home are these intangible things like team cohesion, speed of onboarding, effective cross functional collaboration, etc. But we can prove these things can work well remotely. If they didn't, remote only companies would have such a higher bar to clear and that would be proven already. Gitlab did great in their IPO, and they're 100% remote. Zapier has grown strong and steady, 100% remote, Deel has grown quickly since 2019, also 100% remote etc. Clearly none of these businesses have issues collaborating. >Some of these issues wouldn't manifest themselves in a measurable way until more than a year later. So measure it as long as it takes. 1-2 years is a blip comparatively, and lots of companies already have internal data they could use to make this determination: look at employee performance and satisfaction rates before they worked from home and compare it to after they worked from home. Lots and lots of people worked at the same place before WFH became far more common, and after it became far more common. I imagine this is true at Amazon as anywhere else it would be. What I find entirely humorous about this is its executives that want hybrid / RTO by a large margin, and comparatively few employees want hybrid / RTO and prefer working from home. Do you think this would even be a conversation if it was the inverse?
- dgfitz 2y ago
  I don't understand why CEOs and executives who lurk on here don't just come out and say what the deal is. I can only assume because that doesn't happen, they would rather not say, which in turn actually says volumes.
  - no_wizard 2y ago
    Forgive for not understanding, but what do you mean by 'because it doesn't happen'? The studies don't happen or something else? It would be nice for that group to chime in and actually engage in the conversation for once.
    - dgfitz 2y ago
      > I don't understand why CEOs and executives who lurk on here don't just come out and say what the deal is. I can only assume because that doesn't happen... Which part of that was unclear?
      - no_wizard 2y ago
        Whats the "I can only assume because that doesn't happen..." what are you assuming doesn't happen? I think I might be overly dense, but I still don't follow.
        dgfitz 2y ago
        Why don’t CEOs just come out and actually say why RTO is such a priority. I thought that was clear. I suppose it was not. Thanks for your patience. Edit: to be clear I don’t believe any of the messsging so far. “Collaboration, water-cooler talks” etc. that’s all bullshit.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - paulcole 2y ago
    > I can only assume because that doesn't happen, they would rather not say, which in turn actually says volumes. If a CEO posted on here, “Here’s data that shows RTO was better for us” would that change anyone’s mind here? No, people who hate RTO would continue to hate it.
ghaff 2y ago
It depends a lot. I've worked with people in person quite a lot--some of which admittedly pre-dated current communication technologies. And some of which was certainly augmented by a fair number of face to face meetings that sort of fell off the table between COVID and tech budget cuts. But I'd say that, in general, some amount of meeting people locally (including going into an office if people you work with are actually there) is beneficial.

Ferret7446 2y ago

That's the same logical fallacy that makes people think that small scale UBI experimental results apply if rolled out to the entire society. There are systemic and emergent effects that are not accounted for, and the only way to actually do the science is to make a copy of society and only do the change for one of the copies. (which is obviously impossible, which is GP's point)