Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google's push to bring employees back to offices, some say they'll rather quit

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 298 posts

Re: Google's push to bring employees back to offices, some say they'll rather quit

#171

Post by qshaman »

artembugara wrote: post #38
spoonjim wrote: post #20

Google doesn’t care if most employees quit, they are replaceable. The few that they do care about, they will arrange unofficial exemptions for.

1. I'd assume that a cost to replace 1 SE employee at google is close to USD 1,000,000 2. It's hard as never before to hire someone to from from the office (US tech giants are hiring many H1Bs) So, I disagree. It can become a long-term crisis.

Nah, people say they will quit , but they wont, there are people who do want to go back to the office, and will die to work at Google, also very competent (not as much as people here that love working from home, I'm sure). Also most tech companies will go back, MSFT, Amazon, ... You can go to FB tho, but then you will be working for FB, if you care only about the money, then is fine I guess, at least personally is not a place I would love to be in.

Re: Google's push to bring employees back to offices, some say they'll rather quit

#172

Post by danaris »

mox1 wrote: post #51
Someone1234 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say that like senior management typically makes decisions based on data and facts, rather than the reality where they just shoot from the hip using their "gut." By the same logic implied here, we cannot trust senior management to know what they're doing. PS - Also Google's measures of productivity are terrible, that's why they keep starting/killing new projects ever other week, and killed their golden goose in th…

Can't trust the senior managers of one of the largest revenue generating companies on the plant? With probably the highest Revenue per employee ever in the history of modern business (if not highest, up there). I dunno, seems like they are doing ok at their jobs....

Statistically speaking, I wouldn't trust the senior managers of any company to genuinely know what measures will improve their business over the long term. Even leaving aside the depressingly large percentage who are fundamentally incompetent at managing (eg, the ones who think "yell louder and louder until people do what you demand" is an effective management style), a huge number of management at all levels are indoctrinated to believe that the next quarter's numbers, and hence the stock price, are the #1 priority at all times.

And even among those who are genuinely trying to see that the business does well for years to come, rather than the next three months and then who cares, even among the ones of them who are genuinely decent at managing a product, far too few understand the positive relationship between how you treat your employees and what you get out of them.

Because we've spent decades in this country being sold the idea that good management means forcing workers to work more hours, under tighter control, because "workers" are stupid, lazy, and/or malicious, and it is "managers" who really know how to do things right, by the very definition of their jobs.

Re: Google's push to bring employees back to offices, some say they'll rather quit

#173

Post by ryan_j_naughton »

kyle-rb wrote: post #145
lhorie wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a blog post posted here recently from someone who saw Google as a "family" and drank a lot of koolaid, as well as stories of high levels of entitlement. I wonder if there's a similar phenomenon going on where people assume that companies pampering them is a given and that they can get anything they want by complaining enough. What they might find instead is the shock that "grass is greener on the other side…

What grass though? This subset of employees seem to value working remotely above free food or massages or whatever other in-office perks. Work-from-home as a perk has a negative cost, so it's not crazy to think that companies might start offering it.

>Work-from-home as a perk has a negative cost

Negative cost but also negative revenue / productivity loss if not done properly.

Most data appears to show the hybrid model is the best for productivity. WFH several days a week, enabling focus and limiting distractions. Work from the office a couple days a week to enable coordination, connection, innovation, and alignment.

This forced experiment in 100% WFH was clearly bad for productivity. The reason tech companies provided so many perks in the past wasn't simply as a recruitment technique. A lot of it was to create an environment where workers worked longer hours and thus the firm got more productivity out of each worker. The cost-benefit analysis clearly supported that before. A caterer's salary is far lower than an engineer's.

Re: Google's push to bring employees back to offices, some say they'll rather quit

#174

Post by coolspot »

MattGaiser wrote: post #98
notdonspaulding wrote: post #14

What people say they will do when there's no cost associated with an action and what people will actually do once a cost IS associated with the same action are frequently 2 different things. Bob Lutz, in his self-aggrandizing book "Gutz", describes the initial phase of an automobile design project where a survey is conducted asking respondents whether they would prefer a vehicle with heated cupholders. It turned out…

Should have tried chilled cupholders.

Funny you say that - my Audi has both.

Like couldn’t decide which one to implement, so they made both.

Re: Google's push to bring employees back to offices, some say they'll rather quit

#175

Post by CarelessExpert »

spoonjim wrote: post #112
CarelessExpert wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “Productivity” is not something a person can measure themselves. And management can ? Please, tell me how. Give me metrics and methods for measurement that can effectively capture productivity. What's the KPI for "strong corporate culture" or "innovation"? Because if we can't rely on individual experiences, then clearly the only other option is systemic measurements, so please, tell me how!

Not everything can be numerically measured. By what metric is Macbeth better than the Da Vinci Code? Also, not all measurements should be shared. Let’s say that they have data showing that new hire productivity and skill growth is much lower when senior engineers are WFH. They’re not going to share that data when forcing senior engineers to be in the office, since it could foment resentment of junior staff.

> Not everything can be numerically measured.

So then why shouldn't we trust individual experiences? What's the evidence that those reports are not reliable while management perceptions are if this stuff isn't measurable?

> Let’s say that they have data showing that new hire productivity and skill growth is much lower when senior engineers are WFH. They’re not going to share that data when forcing senior engineers to be in the office, since it could foment resentment of junior staff.

They're already fomenting resentment by making a decision to force people back to work without any evidence to justify it.

That's somehow better?

BTW, I'm not saying they're wrong! They might be completely right. But to disregard individual experience while trusting management is measuring the right things is, frankly, pretty naive. The reality is management is as much about personal beliefs, gut instinct, and good ol' fashion tradition as anything else.

I suspect it's far more likely that management at Google simply doesn't like the idea of fully remote employees, not based on any specific data points, but simply because that's their preference. But assuming that's true, it's better to simply admit that then to make pseudo-scientific arguments to justify those preexisting beliefs.

Re: Google's push to bring employees back to offices, some say they'll rather quit

#176

Post by NeverFade »

lhorie wrote: post #103
notdonspaulding wrote: post #14

What people say they will do when there's no cost associated with an action and what people will actually do once a cost IS associated with the same action are frequently 2 different things. Bob Lutz, in his self-aggrandizing book "Gutz", describes the initial phase of an automobile design project where a survey is conducted asking respondents whether they would prefer a vehicle with heated cupholders. It turned out…

There was a blog post posted here recently from someone who saw Google as a "family" and drank a lot of koolaid, as well as stories of high levels of entitlement. I wonder if there's a similar phenomenon going on where people assume that companies pampering them is a given and that they can get anything they want by complaining enough. What they might find instead is the shock that "grass is greener on the other side…

How are these employees "pampered"? They found they enjoy working from home, so they prefer to keep doing that, and if Google doesn't oblige them, they'll start shopping among the many companies that currently do. The free market at work.

Re: Google's push to bring employees back to offices, some say they'll rather quit

#177

Post by mLuby »

KoftaBob wrote: post #72

One of the most low-value words in a headline or statement is "some". If you take any scenario and ask a large enough group of people their opinions, there's going to inevitably be an arbitrary number (that can then be qualified as some) that will have the reactionary view that makes for an eye catching headline. Put simply, "some" is just vague enough to allow these article writers to get a clickbait headline from a…

Exactly right. Similar is "over 30% of group says or does controversial thing" (meaning the significant majority don't).

Also not a fan of practice of quoting a controversial phrase in the headline to get both the shock value and editorial deniability.

> Apple charged of 'anti-competitive' app policies

> World's glaciers melting at 'accelerating rate'

> Man Utd fans 'disgusted' by ESL plans

They literally found one person to say the words.

Re: Google's push to bring employees back to offices, some say they'll rather quit

#178

Post by dont__panic »

Uberphallus wrote: post #68
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nearly everyone I've spoken to has reported that WFH productivity has been equal, if not better than pre-pandemic. Certainly not the case for everyone. Many people are struggling to be productive at home, alone. Jobs that require more coordination are also at risk of slowing down. WFH is great for some, but it’s not a panacea.

Exactly. I've lived both experiences: it was perfect for me when my son, few months old, was sleeping the most part of the day. But once a kid switches to 1 nap per day, it's impossible to have a schedule to have any kind of focused work. Day care here have long waiting lists and they've been closed for half of the pandemic anyway.

Wouldn't daycare present just as much of an issue if you started working from an office?

Re: Google's push to bring employees back to offices, some say they'll rather quit

#179

Post by intergalplan »

MattGaiser wrote: post #152
andor wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If engineers acted rationally, we would not have so many technology fads.

I would argue that is rational for the engineers who become less employable if they aren't doing the latest stuff and creating new libraries. The interests of engineers are often extremely detached from whether development is cost effective and maintainable by others.

This rational behavior in the face of stupid incentives is the same reason the rational set of management-sorts may not bother to make sure their facts & figures actually demonstrate what they claim they do, even when they know they probably don't. The extra effort wouldn't help them get the answer they're looking for, anyway, and might even harm their chances if they're honest about the level of uncertainty.

The part that's stupid is everyone, even the ones who know better, pretending a bunch of bad statistics and such aren't bad, but if the suits in the room are nodding along you damn well better not point that out. People succeeding in the management track either actually are bad at understanding these things, or (plenty often) do understand but also know to STFU about it.

Re: Google's push to bring employees back to offices, some say they'll rather quit

#180

Post by Hamuko »

elite_hackers3 wrote: post #92
sriram_sun wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GOOG folks, FB is recruiting stressing on "remote". Call a recruiter today!

But then you’d have to work for Facebook… cringe

"Why choose the lesser evil?"
Post reply on HN