5 ms·

> 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 differenc

> 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.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
- jacobr1 2y ago
  >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. Converting an in-person culture to a remote culture can be hard and many companies haven't done a good job. A functioning team can go remote, but over team, many companies are starting to see where it falls down. For example, you don't have a culture of writing things down and decisions are made it meetings, or informal conversations. Tons of a context gets lost. Also discussions must be serialized. Most "planning" sucks over remote meetings because of this. Things like breakout rooms help parallelize discussion - but companies that are async first can run rings around the "marathon meeting" type cultures. Working in person smooths over many of the inefficiencies and minor disconnects this causes. And onboarding and training new people is much harder remotely ... if you don't actually have an onboarding process. In person, people can somewhat onboard by "learning through osmosis" and the natural connections of just meeting people, building report, helping them out. A few zoom training sessions and then getting tossed in the deep end is going to work for some people, not for others and then will bring an organizational toll over time. Companies like GitLab have remote-first ways to approach this ... but without similar investment, things will degrade. And third, it is that is much harder to gain visibility and micromanage a remote team. If you don't have good async processes, written culture, or metrics, managers can get in the trap of "not knowing what everyone is doing," not being sure if they are on track for success or failure. Plenty of ways to avoid this, but plenty of things are much harder without approaching them from a remote-first mindset. Interpersonal issues on the team: old playbook, take them out to lunch for coffee for an informal conversation. New playbook, avoid or have an awkward conversation over a 30 minute 1:1 zoom, where you could be being recorded so nothing of consequence is said. Checkin on sales to see if the quarter is on track: walk down the sales area and assess the vibe. Tons of a excitement and backslapping and gongs, no worries; everyone looking glum, I need a have a deep conversation with the regional manager. New playbook: review salesforce data that you know is bullshit and are frustrated you can't figure out why things aren't like they used to be. Is it because all the new hires we brought on don't seem to be productive? Did remote kill everyone's mojo? Are my middle managers able to hold their team to account?
  - no_wizard 2y ago
    >Converting an in-person culture to a remote culture can be hard and many companies haven't done a good job. The crux of it seems to be an inability to adapt then. Excuses or no excuse, that is the problem. Why are rewarding companies that aren't adapting? >And onboarding and training new people is much harder remotely ... if you don't actually have an onboarding process. you hit the nail on the head here. This means investing in your employees and taking training / onboarding seriously. Companies got too used to this being done by osmosis and effectively not having to pay for it. Again, seems like failure to adapt is at fault. >And third, it is that is much harder to gain visibility and micromanage a remote team. Last thing in the world any good worker wants its to be micromanaged. To be honest, I ask, why do we want this? >New playbook, avoid or have an awkward conversation over a 30 minute 1:1 zoom, where you could be being recorded so nothing of consequence is said. If you can't say anything on the record of consequence I suspect whatever it is you're saying shouldn't be said at all. How is this bad? What on earth could be said before that can't be said now? >New playbook: review salesforce data that you know is bullshit and are frustrated you can't figure out why things aren't like they used to be. Is it because all the new hires we brought on don't seem to be productive? Did remote kill everyone's mojo? Are my middle managers able to hold their team to account? you're measuring the wrong thing or otherwise not going about this productively to begin with. It seems like there is a lot of ineffective management going on here. Good vibes are meaningless, they simply make someone feel better perhaps, but you really think because some sales people are having a good time it means sales are good? I don't think I'd rely on that, feels like a recipe for bad surprises. Also, you could just talk to people, like before. There's no rule against talking to people who work from home. These examples all seem outdated on both sides, and not realistic to me. Seems like asking management to adapt is the real sin. Yet these same management types decry so much about everyone else getting accommodated. I remember a time when people said 'businesses adapt or die'. Yet changing tides of the workforce, businesses don't want to adapt, and are leveraging any power dynamic they have over labor to make sure they don't have to.
- paulcole 2y ago
  > Gitlab did great in their IPO, and they're 100% remote. Gitlab is down 47% all time since their IPO.
  - no_wizard 2y ago
    Everyone until very recently was down some N% from their high. I don't think this speaks to bad fundamentals in Gitlabs business. Also, they did have a good IPO, people cashed out at a good number all told. I don't think its mutually exclusive
    - paulcole 2y ago
      I mean you’re the one who brought them up to bolster your argument in favor of remote work. Do you think it speaks to good fundamentals in Gitlabs business? Or is it mostly irrelevant and tells us nothing useful?
      - no_wizard 2y ago
        It speaks to a company having a successful exit which most would deem a massive success
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.

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.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
jacobr1 2y ago
>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. Converting an in-person culture to a remote culture can be hard and many companies haven't done a good job. A functioning team can go remote, but over team, many companies are starting to see where it falls down. For example, you don't have a culture of writing things down and decisions are made it meetings, or informal conversations. Tons of a context gets lost. Also discussions must be serialized. Most "planning" sucks over remote meetings because of this. Things like breakout rooms help parallelize discussion - but companies that are async first can run rings around the "marathon meeting" type cultures. Working in person smooths over many of the inefficiencies and minor disconnects this causes. And onboarding and training new people is much harder remotely ... if you don't actually have an onboarding process. In person, people can somewhat onboard by "learning through osmosis" and the natural connections of just meeting people, building report, helping them out. A few zoom training sessions and then getting tossed in the deep end is going to work for some people, not for others and then will bring an organizational toll over time. Companies like GitLab have remote-first ways to approach this ... but without similar investment, things will degrade. And third, it is that is much harder to gain visibility and micromanage a remote team. If you don't have good async processes, written culture, or metrics, managers can get in the trap of "not knowing what everyone is doing," not being sure if they are on track for success or failure. Plenty of ways to avoid this, but plenty of things are much harder without approaching them from a remote-first mindset. Interpersonal issues on the team: old playbook, take them out to lunch for coffee for an informal conversation. New playbook, avoid or have an awkward conversation over a 30 minute 1:1 zoom, where you could be being recorded so nothing of consequence is said. Checkin on sales to see if the quarter is on track: walk down the sales area and assess the vibe. Tons of a excitement and backslapping and gongs, no worries; everyone looking glum, I need a have a deep conversation with the regional manager. New playbook: review salesforce data that you know is bullshit and are frustrated you can't figure out why things aren't like they used to be. Is it because all the new hires we brought on don't seem to be productive? Did remote kill everyone's mojo? Are my middle managers able to hold their team to account?
- no_wizard 2y ago
  >Converting an in-person culture to a remote culture can be hard and many companies haven't done a good job. The crux of it seems to be an inability to adapt then. Excuses or no excuse, that is the problem. Why are rewarding companies that aren't adapting? >And onboarding and training new people is much harder remotely ... if you don't actually have an onboarding process. you hit the nail on the head here. This means investing in your employees and taking training / onboarding seriously. Companies got too used to this being done by osmosis and effectively not having to pay for it. Again, seems like failure to adapt is at fault. >And third, it is that is much harder to gain visibility and micromanage a remote team. Last thing in the world any good worker wants its to be micromanaged. To be honest, I ask, why do we want this? >New playbook, avoid or have an awkward conversation over a 30 minute 1:1 zoom, where you could be being recorded so nothing of consequence is said. If you can't say anything on the record of consequence I suspect whatever it is you're saying shouldn't be said at all. How is this bad? What on earth could be said before that can't be said now? >New playbook: review salesforce data that you know is bullshit and are frustrated you can't figure out why things aren't like they used to be. Is it because all the new hires we brought on don't seem to be productive? Did remote kill everyone's mojo? Are my middle managers able to hold their team to account? you're measuring the wrong thing or otherwise not going about this productively to begin with. It seems like there is a lot of ineffective management going on here. Good vibes are meaningless, they simply make someone feel better perhaps, but you really think because some sales people are having a good time it means sales are good? I don't think I'd rely on that, feels like a recipe for bad surprises. Also, you could just talk to people, like before. There's no rule against talking to people who work from home. These examples all seem outdated on both sides, and not realistic to me. Seems like asking management to adapt is the real sin. Yet these same management types decry so much about everyone else getting accommodated. I remember a time when people said 'businesses adapt or die'. Yet changing tides of the workforce, businesses don't want to adapt, and are leveraging any power dynamic they have over labor to make sure they don't have to.
paulcole 2y ago
> Gitlab did great in their IPO, and they're 100% remote. Gitlab is down 47% all time since their IPO.
- no_wizard 2y ago
  Everyone until very recently was down some N% from their high. I don't think this speaks to bad fundamentals in Gitlabs business. Also, they did have a good IPO, people cashed out at a good number all told. I don't think its mutually exclusive
  - paulcole 2y ago
    I mean you’re the one who brought them up to bolster your argument in favor of remote work. Do you think it speaks to good fundamentals in Gitlabs business? Or is it mostly irrelevant and tells us nothing useful?
    - no_wizard 2y ago
      It speaks to a company having a successful exit which most would deem a massive success

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.