3 ms·

Thats where things fall apart though. Your opinion will be formed on the fact you get more done in the office. I get less done in the office. I'm orders of mag

by esskay 2y ago

Thats where things fall apart though. Your opinion will be formed on the fact you get more done in the office. I get less done in the office. I'm orders of magnitude more productive at home. So my opinion is formed on that basis. Theres absolutely no need to force a single option. Where I work we went for an approach of "the office is there, its open, you've got a key, if you want to use it, use it. If you don't then dont." That as far as I can see is the fairest approach. Those that prefer being in the office can do so, those that prefer being at home can do so. Theres no loser there, except perhaps anyone with a bizarre view of "well I'm in the office so you should be too" but those people are crazy nutjobs.

dave4420 2y ago
When I work in an office, I’m more productive when the other people on my team are also in my office. If management make me come into the office and expect me to work with people who are working remotely or from a different office, I will bitch about it.
ike2792 2y ago
The general problem is that the value of the office tends to be directly proportional to how many people are present. I led hybrid and cross-site teams before COVID, and if even one person wasn't in the office everything had to be handled the same way you would if everyone was remote. The value of being in an office is in-person whiteboarding sessions, impromptu conversations, team bonding, and similar things that aren't as valuable if most/all of a given team isn't present. Conversely, the value of being remote is lost if many people are in an office having those side conversations and the remote people end up feeling like second class citizens. It presents a difficult problem b/c both sides have a point: without nearly everyone committing to being in the office (at least on certain days) or full-time remote, you lose the full value of either setup.
- esskay 2y ago
  Fair point, but what's the solution? In my eyes it can't be force everyone back to the office, or force everyone to be remote, that feels like an incredibly lazy and devisive solution.
  - ike2792 2y ago
    You probably leave it up to individual teams at the lowest reasonable level. Maybe there's a UI team that does a lot of whiteboard-based designing that chooses to be in the office certain days a week as a team. A different UI team prefers web-based design tooling so they agree to WFH. In some cases whole companies are fully onsite b/c of hardware requirements (e.g. Tesla) or fully remote (e.g. many smaller SaaS companies) based on what the company does. I honestly don't know what the long-term solution is outside of a lot of variation and individual/team/company choice. Within a given company any change should probably be gradual (e.g. start only hiring in geographic areas around your offices if you eventually want to go full/mostly onsite, offer to pay relocation to people who move close to an office). Senior execs love knee-jerk, emotional decisions to impress shareholders though so I doubt it will work out that way.

by esskay 2y ago

dave4420 2y ago

When I work in an office, I’m more productive when the other people on my team are also in my office. If management make me come into the office and expect me to work with people who are working remotely or from a different office, I will bitch about it.

ike2792 2y ago

The general problem is that the value of the office tends to be directly proportional to how many people are present. I led hybrid and cross-site teams before COVID, and if even one person wasn't in the office everything had to be handled the same way you would if everyone was remote. The value of being in an office is in-person whiteboarding sessions, impromptu conversations, team bonding, and similar things that aren't as valuable if most/all of a given team isn't present. Conversely, the value of being remote is lost if many people are in an office having those side conversations and the remote people end up feeling like second class citizens. It presents a difficult problem b/c both sides have a point: without nearly everyone committing to being in the office (at least on certain days) or full-time remote, you lose the full value of either setup.

esskay 2y ago
Fair point, but what's the solution? In my eyes it can't be force everyone back to the office, or force everyone to be remote, that feels like an incredibly lazy and devisive solution.
- ike2792 2y ago
  You probably leave it up to individual teams at the lowest reasonable level. Maybe there's a UI team that does a lot of whiteboard-based designing that chooses to be in the office certain days a week as a team. A different UI team prefers web-based design tooling so they agree to WFH. In some cases whole companies are fully onsite b/c of hardware requirements (e.g. Tesla) or fully remote (e.g. many smaller SaaS companies) based on what the company does. I honestly don't know what the long-term solution is outside of a lot of variation and individual/team/company choice. Within a given company any change should probably be gradual (e.g. start only hiring in geographic areas around your offices if you eventually want to go full/mostly onsite, offer to pay relocation to people who move close to an office). Senior execs love knee-jerk, emotional decisions to impress shareholders though so I doubt it will work out that way.