Defeated CEOs are now conceding hybrid working is here to stay
Defeated CEOs are now conceding hybrid working is here to stay
Last year, 62% said they expected a full-time return to the office, but KPMG's data shows they're backtracking.
You're viewing a single thread.
Which leads to the question, and its an honest question and I would benefit from the honest answer: If I can do the job hybrid, why can I not do the job remote? Is it because you needed me to move some paper boxes to the printer?
In my 20 years of working in the office and an additional 4 working 100% WFH, I'll throw my worthless internet opinion out there as to why: It comes down to the culture of the company.
Some companies see a real benefit from water tank conversations, face-to-face meetings, and the ability for managers to ask someone in person on a moment's notice to do things. There is also a lack of trust in the employees being able to perform correctly without physical oversight in many companies. Granted and aside from the trust issue, there is some truth to that, but can in fact be realigned with the exact same benefit by retooling communications. It's up to each company however to formulate the best course of action to remedy that and many sadly fail, resulting in RTO mandates.
Some companies see a real benefit from water tank conversations
There are real benefits to water cooler spontaneous talk. However, they don't overcome the detriments to having all your staff commute all the time on the off chance one will occur to produce a positive result.
face-to-face meetings, and the ability for managers to ask someone in person on a moment’s notice to do things.
These are largely dead in hybrid scenarios, because those that would be meeting face to face don't work in the office on the same day. So the practical result to hybrid is the worker loses productivity from the commute to come into the office for one or two days an sits at a desk alone all day in video meetings with their coworkers just like they'd do at home. The next day their coworker does the same while the original worker is WFH that day.
These are largely dead in hybrid scenarios, because those that would be meeting face to face don’t work in the office on the same day.
I work at an office that started hybrid after covid because enough employees quit when they went to full RTO. The IT department ended up with 2 days in and 3 days remote, but the 2 days are the same for everyone so that we are all in the office at the same time for the spontaneous conversations.
It works pretty well. 2 days to collaborate and keep up relationships, the other three days to get individually completed work done.
I am not op but I'm pretty sure they're speaking from the point of view of companies, not agreeing with their ideas
Yep, I get that. I'm responding to that point-of-view of those companies, and how I believe its in error. I have nothing against the poster or their comments.
Water tank conversations really fuck with remote workers because they are always missing something, but if you can manage to redirect all work talk to happen in whatever communication tool the company uses, everyone tends to work better in the end, as nobody misses anything. But the only way I've seen companies successfully do this is by adopting remote-first approaches - when people only go to the office like once a month if even that.
Do they know that it's much harder to unionize if you're remote?
The thing is, water cooler chats are impromptu, they are not planned. You meet your colleague, you talk about the weather, what's new in his life, and one thing leads to another, to maybe to talk about work and how to strategise to get something done.
These impromptu conversations happen on a whim, they happen organically. They cannot be forced.
Sometimes Alice needs coffee while Bob is using the microwave, and sometimes Bob and Alice do more than say hi, and sometimes that leads to a productive work conversation.
Carol and Dave do not need spontaneous small talk to be productive.
This makes Grace very angry. Carol and Dave are ordered to be more like Alice and Bob.
Carol and Dave do not understand this, and vent to their friend Frank. Frank says that he sees this happen a lot, and suggests that they come to work for his boss, Oscar, instead. Carol and Dave give their two weeks notice to Grace.
This makes Grace very angry. Alice and Bob agree that it is an outrage, then go back to discussing the previous night's sporting event.
Wendy is given Carol and Dave's workload and doesn't have time to join Alice and Bob at the water cooler. Wendy keeps falling further and further behind.
This makes Grace very angry. "No one wants to work anymore!"
Wendy has about had it with Grace's bullshit.
The point is not to force those talks to happen, the point is to make them not happen in a limited way. In an office what usually happens is people talking to other specific people about problems they are facing, by going to their desk or catching them on the coffee room. This should absolutely never happen. Any work talk should always be accessible to everyone involved. I don't mean the whole company, but if there's 5 people in a project, there should never be any private conversation between just two of them - even if others don't join the talk they should always know the conversation is happening.
Yes, I agree, it has to be fair for everyone. What I'm talking about is instinctive, primal behaviour that we can't control because we're social animals and when we meet we naturally have a discussion with the person we're talking to and we might end up talking about the project without taking into account our colleagues far away from the office.
We're still adapting to this new hybrid reality.
Coaching newbies doesn't work that well remotely, so you'll have to be at the office more for them to ask you questions, otherwise they're stuck in the simplest things for days.
This is evidence that you need to adjust your training methods.
Any evidence to back that up?
That's the line my CEO used, but we had plenty of hires join during COVID that have excelled while here, with lots of talented engineers that had to leave because they were forced to an office hundreds of miles away.
Personal experience. The juniors just out of school and interns are invariably stuck in something trivial that can often be solved with looking at their stuff for a few seconds. They don't dare to disturb you with any questions and need a lot of explaining. Doing all the explaining through the screen is a pain and you have to hound them with calls to get them to ask questions.
Experienced new hires don't have that issue. They can Google stuff, read a manual and know when to send a message for a blocking issue.
That's doesn't mean send everybody to the office. Just the new guy and the coach should be enough in most cases and reduce the presence as they hit their stride.
The juniors just out of school and interns are invariably stuck in something trivial that can often be solved with looking at their stuff for a few seconds.
If only there were a way to share your screen remotely...
Yeah sorry but that's not the same. Efficient teaching is very highly dependent on nonverbal cues to properly align yourself to the person you're teaching to. On top of that screen sharing software is clunky and necessarily has latency, which makes interrupting much more disruptive which is most detrimental when there needs to be a bidirectional high-throughput stream of information.
Efficient teaching is very highly dependent on nonverbal cues to properly align yourself to the person you’re teaching to.
I would say that is highly dependent on the type of learner you are.
My daughter is in online school right now. Her teachers usually can't see her because most of them don't require her to have her camera on. She often can't see them because she's doing screen sharing. She's getting better grades than she's ever had before.
On top of that screen sharing software is clunky and necessarily has latency
I don't know when the last time you used it was, but this is just not true anymore. It's as easy as clicking 'share screen' in Zoom or Google Meet and the latency is so low that it's essentially not noticeable.
I work 80 % remotely, I know what I'm talking about. MS Teams is by far the worst latency-wise, but even on the best software you can't get over the fact that there will be a 200-300 ms jitter buffer.
Ever had the "yeah I- so we - OK go ahea- sorry -"? That's what I'm talking about.
Good on your daughter if she learns well remotely, but literally everyone I've talked to who was in education during COVID had an awful experience. Although I suppose in the school system it doesn't matter as much since with 20-600 students per teacher there's not much back-and-forth going on anyway.
Remote work is great for focusing, it's great for async workflows (slack/discord/email/jira), it's great for solo work, but it's just plain inferior for certain highly collaborative workflows like 1-on-1 teaching. There's enough good reasons to work remotely that we don't have to lie about the rest.
Ever had the “yeah I- so we - OK go ahea- sorry -”? That’s what I’m talking about.
You mean the exact same thing that has happened with telephones since the 19th century?
I don't know how old you are, but I am guessing anyone here over 40 can tell you about how the training they were given was "read this book and get started" more than once.
Right, and last I checked people weren't remote working too much before the 21st century.
If your job doesn't want to train you properly that's on them, but assuming all parties involved are acting in good faith I will always go to the office to train a junior employee.
Right, and last I checked people weren’t remote working too much before the 21st century.
And yet, they still didn't need a person training them to do their jobs.
I will always go to the office to train a junior employee.
As I said, not everyone learns well that way and maybe you shouldn't assume they will.
And that's why you do stand-ups every day, which everybody loves to hate.
I thought this until I've actually done it a few times, and been that newbie at a remote first employer.
The difference in being on boarded at a company which embraces remote vs one that is still hedging, is massive.
It can be done well.
Yes the extroverts might get fidgety, but they can schedule a meeting or body doubling session or something. We introverts have had to adjust to office work for the last century; let's see y'all do a bit of that labour for another, better way to do info work now :p
When the company where I was managing a small team went full remote during COVID, I had 0 issues with my existing staff, but when I had to hire, that was definitely less than ideal for onboarding. We still made it work but it was nothing like the in-office onboardings from before. There are solutions though, you can do virtual sit-togethers, and if you're reactive to slack/etc you can be even more present for them than in-person, but it felt uneasy for sure the first times. Left all corporate behind now and running a one man business so don't need to care about this.
I think that might depend on who you're hiring though. That's the same line our boss told me when they pushed me back to the office. But in the time since then, we have hired several new staff who actually prefer to communicate digitally. They will email, teams, phone, or text me with questions before actually seeking me out in person.
There are some aituations for some roles where meeting in person is necessary for trust and connections to be established. Being in person lets a lot of people feel a better connection with teammates, because humans are animals and that is just how it works.
This is nit true for every role, and is mostly for roles that have to work with people whose primary jobs are interpersonal or connection making like executives and leadership.
It does not really apply to roles where deliverables are already spelled out and information exchangenis formalized and you don't need to convince someone to do something ad hoc. Plus some people do just fine doing all of those things remotely, but they have to work with people who don't.
for trust and connections to be established.
What is more trusting than a recorded Zoom meeting.
Oh, you mean you need me off the record to be made complicit in malfeasance.
Pass.
No, a lot of people just feel more trust from being in the same room with someone and getting a better feeling from being in proximity with the person. It has nothig to do with on and off the record. Do you really record all of your zoom calls to CYA?
Think of it like attending a concert in person compared to listening to an album, it is just a different experience in person. Not everyone gets that out of in person interactions, but a lot of people do.
It has nothig to do with on and off the record
It is exactly what it is though... you don't see that?
As someone who works hybrid and frequently has both in person and online meetings that are rarely if ever recorded, no I don't see that as the default expectation.
I can see that it could be, if the people I was interacting with were evil and untrustworthy, but that wouldn't be a job I would stick with for any length of time. What I have seen is that quite a few people just work better with others if they meet in person occasionally.
There is a reason that a lot of knowledge work has conferences to share knowledge in person.
Idk man...
Introverts thrive in non-social settings. Introverts tend to be good at technology.
Extroverts thrive in arenas, where they can set odds and smash opponents into submission.
It all sounds like a stern conviction of supporting the bullies, and preventing work from being done.
That is just putting everyone into extreme ends of social interaction when the vast, vast majority of people are somewhere in between. Even the most extroverted people I work with like some human interaction, just less than the more social people. I don't work with anyone in an IT setting who fits the extremes you are describing, although I have met them.
Way to ignore the point
Tax breaks from cities saying they have X employees working in city Y and they bought a bunch of commercial real estate that is worthless or needs to be converted to residential. They gambled and lost and now want to either say they didn't lose or subsidize their losses to employees & taxpayers.
