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

Google uses in-person office attendance as part of employee performance reviews

fortune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 366 posts

Re: Google uses in-person office attendance as part of employee performance reviews

#351

Post by acjohnson55 »

tdeck wrote: post #80
acjohnson55 wrote: post #17

I never cease to be amazed the extent to which companies are trying to squeeze the remote work genie back into the bottle. They're desperate to find ways to make that expensive office space seem justified. "See, look! The people are using it. They love it." (Just out of frame, guns are pointed at the workers.)

Not only trying, but largely succeeding. I haven't seen one instance where these decisions have been reversed due to pushback.

I'm pretty sure compliance rate with the policies isn't great. People who like being in the office down to people with small WFH preference just go along. Prime with stronger WFH preference probably simply ignore the policy.

Re: Google uses in-person office attendance as part of employee performance reviews

#352

Post by zeroonetwothree »

72f988bf wrote: post #94
extr wrote: post #20

After 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…

Sure this happens but it’s not like it’s everyone. For example right now 80% of the people I collaborate with are in the same office as me. So it’s still noticeably better to come in the office.

The downside is it’s hard to get actual coding down because of all the “collaboration”. So my ideal would be 1-2 days in office to meet and then 3-4 days to code ins peace at home.

Re: Google uses in-person office attendance as part of employee performance reviews

#353

Post by x86x87 »

pandaman wrote: post #350
x86x87 wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's true. This whole office/in office/rto has to do with people being dishonest about why the rto needs to happen and being stuck romanticising the good old days. There is huge overhead to in person work and the benefits are wildly oversold. IMHO a professional software developer in a company with good management/clear direction will thrive in a remote work scenario.

If this is true then there is no need to worry: companies with thriving WFH developers will surely overcome the stuck in the old ways ones. Not only their developers have same or greater performance due to constant thriving but their expenses will be much less so they will be able to offer better compensation and steal the talent from the in-office dinosaurs.

This is going to happen in the medium/long term.

The only reason big corporations have a chance of pulling this off is the overall state of the economy. Once we see recovery their RTO antics will fail if the shift is not completely done.

Re: Google uses in-person office attendance as part of employee performance reviews

#354

Post by pandaman »

x86x87 wrote: post #353
pandaman wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this is true then there is no need to worry: companies with thriving WFH developers will surely overcome the stuck in the old ways ones. Not only their developers have same or greater performance due to constant thriving but their expenses will be much less so they will be able to offer better compensation and steal the talent from the in-office dinosaurs.

This is going to happen in the medium/long term. The only reason big corporations have a chance of pulling this off is the overall state of the economy. Once we see recovery their RTO antics will fail if the shift is not completely done.

We will see. Has not happened in the past so I see a little reason to happen in the future.

Re: Google uses in-person office attendance as part of employee performance reviews

#355

Post by astura »

laurentlb wrote: post #280
deelowe wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people who are already remote will continue like this My understanding is that everyone has to get approval even people who are currently remote. For those who are near an office, they are being told to expect to be asked to come in frequently.

Many people applied for fully remote work last year and got a contract with it (often with a different compensation). They already got the approval. What changes is that new approvals will be "by exception only".

But those people are still working at will.

Re: Google uses in-person office attendance as part of employee performance reviews

#356

Post by laurentlb »

astura wrote: post #355
laurentlb wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people applied for fully remote work last year and got a contract with it (often with a different compensation). They already got the approval. What changes is that new approvals will be "by exception only".

But those people are still working at will.

In most countries, no.

(not everything is in the US)

Re: Google uses in-person office attendance as part of employee performance reviews

#357

Post by blitzar »

fallenasleep wrote: post #150
blitzar wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we all going to just drive somewhere, sit at a desk and have a zoom call with our co-workers that are working from home that day, then drive home?

Yes? I did this at my last company and it ruled. I could have been fully remote, but I wanted to be in the office most days because I liked the routine and liked talking to the people who did want to come in. And my commute was short. I would have to zoom most people on my team for meetings anyway because they live all over the world. (This is, btw, a good thing: it means we had people working on the project 24/7, ea…

When a workplace or organisation is capable of 3 day office / 2 day remote working - it is (or should) be capable of fully remote working.

Pretending that there is a functional business requirement for 6 of the 10 person team to be doing the morning call from their office desks as opposed to their home desks is dishonest at best.

Embrace the reality and the benefits you yourself see and create working spaces that are better than someones sitting alone in a spare bedroom.

Re: Google uses in-person office attendance as part of employee performance reviews

#358

Post by sulam »

wildrhythms wrote: post #204
sulam wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google pays by where you live, as determined by your work location. If people move back, they get a bump assuming they took a cut in the first place.

This is not true. My understanding was that some 'office regions' are paid less than remote workers in the same state. https://archive.is/FQsXB

I did not say people are paid the same based on the state they live in. They are paid based on where they live. Some regions are paid less than others, even within a state.

Re: Google uses in-person office attendance as part of employee performance reviews

#359

Post by microtherion »

72f988bf wrote: post #94
extr wrote: post #20

After 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…

Even FAANGs do not apply perfect hashing to distribute teams across their office locations (well, for all I know, Google does, but the one I work at doesn‘t). And often it already helps if some of the team is co-located.

Re: Google uses in-person office attendance as part of employee performance reviews

#360

Post by ekianjo »

simonswords82 wrote: post #194
ekianjo wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It might be useful to "all be in the room" when brainstorming. Really? what does it bring that you can't do remotely? I can hardly think of a problem where "being in the same room" is a requirement to have a productive discussion

I'm pro work from anywhere so long as shit gets done but... Picking up on social cues. Bouncing ideas around using a whiteboard. Speaking quickly without that ever so slight lag on Zoom which means you struggle to get a word in without potentially talking over somebody. Having food or drinks before or afterwards to unwind and build relationships and kick things around informally. There's lots more.

> Having food or drinks before or afterwards

That's not work. That should NEVER be part of work, even.

Post reply on HN