Earlier quoted context omitted.
That argument works the other way around too, either way you are asking others to accommodate your preference. I think “let people choose” is the right idea at the “choose your job” or sometimes “choose your team” level.
It's perfectly reasonable to want a co-located team that you collaborate with/are social with/etc. But if that's not the situation at the team/company level, you need to either figure out some compromise approach (like getting a co-working space or even just picking up some non-work social activities) or move on to an environment more in keeping with your preferences. At some point, if a situation just isn't to your…
Google uses in-person office attendance as part of employee performance reviews
331–340 of 366 posts
Re: Google uses in-person office attendance as part of employee performance reviews
#332Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wall Street is pressuring everybody for Return to Office to shore up their collapsing commercial real estate holdings.
Not just wall street. All of the governments, and thus their budgets, where this real estate resides are completely dependent on property taxes and the overall commerce in the area which will collapse if people (and then secondary small businesses) just simply aren't there anymore.
Re: Google uses in-person office attendance as part of employee performance reviews
#333Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Not sure why this needs to be repeatedly brought up Not sure why you think a home office is going to solve marital problems or other issues that going into an office and being around other people might allow you to not focus on. Aside from that then we can add inability to get a home office made to the list of things that can affect whether or not remote work is a good solution
Cos definition of of "home office" for me is a place where I can work reasonably and with focus. Yes, even in "work office" that focus is not guaranteed, but even there martial problems or other issues will hit me. So yeah, still not sure why we need to bring this explicitly up again in discussion after discussion. You need a reasonable office to work, offices can suck - orthogonal to if home/remote/company. > add in…
Probably because the reality of remote working was set by the pandemic, which forced a huge number of people to switch to remote work. Remote workers with a proper home office suddenly were, and I think continue to be, a minority.
Re: Google uses in-person office attendance as part of employee performance reviews
#334Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Quick search on this thread didn't reveal the word "flame" (as in "flame war"), so I can´t resist: That's what the remote vs on-site debate is. About as interesting and ultimately inconclusive as Emacs vs Vi. Neither is universally better. It depends, _primarily_ on the people involved and their preferences You nailed it. Ideally, both employees and employers should have the freedom to choose whether to work onsite…
> both employees and employers should have the freedom to choose whether to work onsite or remotely, based on their preferences Not that I'm antsy to get back to the office, but that scenario is not an "everyone wins" scenario, it's just another version of remote work. Onsite is only onsite if everyone is onsite. If it's some people in the office and some people at home, the people in the office are just working remo…
Both employees and employers should have the freedom to choose whether to work fully onsite, fully remotely, or hybrid, based on their preferences.
Re: Google uses in-person office attendance as part of employee performance reviews
#335After going back and forth between in-person and remote jobs, my conclusion: * Remote work is much better if you know what you're building and "just" need to execute. * In-person is much better if you don't know what you need to build, are trying to "figure it out as you go along", and are relying on the implicit fast feedback loop of standing next to each other. Obvious, right? But I think what I've realize is the d…
> In-person is much better if you don't know what you need to build, are trying to "figure it out as you go along", and are relying on the implicit fast feedback loop of standing next to each other. true. > For large companies like FAANG, I actually think they mostly fall in bucket 2 Also true most fall in the "figure it out" bucket... But here's where it gets funny: just meet in-person you say? No, this is FAANG. Yo…
I don't think this is really that common. I spent a decade in MTV on a wide variety of teams. I had VCs with people in different locations a handful of times and I never had one by myself. And getting deep focus with those people was so valuable that it was easier to just go to NYC, MUC, or SYD once a quarter than it was to jump on a call.
Re: Google uses in-person office attendance as part of employee performance reviews
#336Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Quick search on this thread didn't reveal the word "flame" (as in "flame war"), so I can´t resist: That's what the remote vs on-site debate is. About as interesting and ultimately inconclusive as Emacs vs Vi. Neither is universally better. It depends, _primarily_ on the people involved and their preferences You nailed it. Ideally, both employees and employers should have the freedom to choose whether to work onsite…
> both employees and employers should have the freedom to choose whether to work onsite or remotely, based on their preferences Not that I'm antsy to get back to the office, but that scenario is not an "everyone wins" scenario, it's just another version of remote work. Onsite is only onsite if everyone is onsite. If it's some people in the office and some people at home, the people in the office are just working remo…
Also not an "everybody wins" situation, since then what you can work on is limited by where and how you work. But that's not what it's about in my mind. When people with different preferences want to collaborate it's about finding compromises. Personally, I started to place more value on who I work with than what I work on, so for me this flies. It's not as easy as it sounds to pull off though, since it requires people to accept that some of their colleagues work best in a way they personally find wildly unproductive. Takes quite a bit of trust.
Re: Google uses in-person office attendance as part of employee performance reviews
#337Does anyone know if the level of new hire training and onboarding is the same?
My experiences with onboarding is you generally sit with someone for a week, all day - and sometimes for two weeks.
Usually the productivity hit of doing this is swept under the rug. When working remote, are managers still designating mentors? In places where this happened unofficially, does that style of onboarding still happen?
Re: Google uses in-person office attendance as part of employee performance reviews
#338Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, but you could find and link to that thread instead of “citing it” from memory. As it is it remains conjecture. (Aside, this thread now has 300 comments after just 2 hours. HN’s purported slowdown in the WFH era feels grossly exaggerated.)
Yes, it's conjecture. I explicitly, outright said it was an unproven anecdote. Demanding citations when I'm explicitly giving a "feel" narrative is misplaced and not charitable. As to how many uniques you can expect from a front-page on HN, go ahead and search. Pre-2020 you can find countless people detailing 30,000+ uniques in the first few hours (my own, personal, direct experience was 50,000+). Now, if you average…
Aside, my personal anecdote is that this lack of decorum is why I rarely comment on HN anymore. So perhaps you are right.
Re: Google uses in-person office attendance as part of employee performance reviews
#339Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of that struggle has to do with what others point out already: the onboarding processes and documentation being of shoddy quality and relying on word-of-mouth to transfer knowledge and repeatedly check in. If you start raising future generations to be, you know, adults, instead of mentally stunting them into being eternal teens well into their 30s, and companies make an effort not to have a horrible onboarding…
It's hard to argue with better documentation and process. However, if I think back to my early time in the computer industry (admittedly with much more limited electronic communications and other tools), it's just really hard for me to visualize taking away the in-person face-to-face--including a lot of social and quasi-social activities. And with many travel budgets so squeezed at the moment (and COVID of course), y…
Once upon a time, it was considered the norm to find a job where you were, because you lived in a community that was part of your support system. Over the course of the last century, this norm eroded and was replaced with the norm of moving to wherever you got a job. More recently, the situation deteriorated even further, with the disappearance of the "job for life" assumptions that were prevalent in the mid-to-late 20th century, in favor of an expectation of changing jobs every 2-5 years—with a high chance every single time that you'd have to move.
One inevitable result of all this is the aforementioned splintering of local communities. Changing the employment norms so that a much higher percentage of people never need to move to work in person at a job would make it much easier to begin to restore local communities, and provide a much better chance of good socialization outside of work.
Now, there are caveats. This still relies on people not working too many hours, and while it would still help for the people who do work in person, and move in order to do so (those communities existing and being more prominent, and sustained by the people who stick around, makes it much easier for others to find them, too, even if they'll have to keep finding new ones every few years), it doesn't help them quite as much as the ones who can stay and grow their place in the community over many years.
Re: Google uses in-person office attendance as part of employee performance reviews
#340After going back and forth between in-person and remote jobs, my conclusion: * Remote work is much better if you know what you're building and "just" need to execute. * In-person is much better if you don't know what you need to build, are trying to "figure it out as you go along", and are relying on the implicit fast feedback loop of standing next to each other. Obvious, right? But I think what I've realize is the d…
Or in other words what business problem one is solving 0-1, 1-10 or 10-100. For first two remote is non-starter. Similarly, what career stage one is in? Young workers who are in 0-1, and to certain extent 1-10, remote really does not work.
She left there in 2011, after rising through the ranks to the level of division director.
They did almost all their business over email and Skype, because at the time, Skype was still the best voice/video conferencing software available without dedicated hardware.
If it was possible then for a small group of non-tech-focused people, it's certainly possible now, over a decade later and with an entire pandemic forcing the rapid improvement of all sorts of remote-work technology. That doesn't mean it's for everyone, but boldly stating that it's a "non-starter" is just unsupportable.