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

The damaging results of mandated return to office

entrepreneur.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 348 posts

Re: The damaging results of mandated return to office

#51

Post by RestlessMind »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #10
karaterobot wrote: post #5

We'll get a lot more hybrid offices: some people in the office, others at home. This is far from ideal, but it's what we'll get. Managers will get to keep some of their precious oversight—err, excuse me, serendipitous collaboration—but workers with any leverage will stay home if they want. Over time, we'll hit an equilibrium that is less WFH than today, but more than in 2019. > A late-stage SaaS startup decided to em…

> This is far from ideal, but it's what we'll get It's not ideal, but it's also almost no different than the teleconferencing with satellite offices that we had previously anyways. Just instead of calling other offices overseas or whatever, you're calling people at their homes or their own chosen offices.

Unless hybrid means all the employees are mandated to be in the office on the same days. And they can WFH or RTO on the remaining days. At least that's what I am seeing among my social circle.

Re: The damaging results of mandated return to office

#52

Post by ec109685 »

jeconst wrote: post #11

"Unispace finds that nearly half (42%) of companies that mandated office returns witnessed a higher level of employee attrition than they had anticipated. And almost a third (29%) of companies enforcing office returns are struggling with recruitment. Imagine that — nearly half!" Does this mean that 58% of companies that mandated a return underestimated attrition? And 71% are doing fine with recruitment?

Author wrote the book on hybrid and remote teams, so definitely has a vested interest in return to office failures: "Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams."

Re: The damaging results of mandated return to office

#53

Post by fbrncci »

Aerroon wrote: post #38
diego_moita wrote: post #19

I wish we stopped with the "companies should do this/should do that". Existing big companies are too comfortable and lazy for the remote work revolution. Remote work is a radical change in culture and work organization. It will take new companies with new workflows and organizational ideas to make it work well. We're not there yet. Managers don't understand yet how to do it, they need to read a lot of documentation (…

> Walkable, safe and cheap places with good internet have a lot to gain (e.g. Portugal, Thailand). Unsafe or expensive cities have a lot to loose (e.g. San Francisco). Won't this be a large obstacle for remote work? More expensive places are going to hold on to people tooth and nail. There are plenty of ways to do this, eg explicit regulation or tax complications. When Bulgarian truck drivers started outcompeting Fre…

There will be countries like Bulgaria, and there will be countries which will welcome it with open arms (and anything in between). I am here in Thailand as an expat, with my own business, working remotely for European clients. I am taxed at the Thai rate, and have a work permit, because there is no large Thai talent pool competing for the same business and opportunities I am. So far I am not seeing any dirty tricks, there are other countries competing for this exact type of expat too. "Dirty tricks" would drive them away to other countries.

Re: The damaging results of mandated return to office

#54

Post by jupp0r »

RestlessMind wrote: post #49
alistairSH wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except almost all white-collar offices (in the US at least) went remote during the first 2-3 years of COVID. Most did so successfully. Yet, many now want to return to traditional office work with little evidence that’s a better way to work.

> with little evidence that’s a better way to work. You are assuming that decision makers are dumb. I disagree with that. My null hypothesis is that they are smart, competent people and are doing the best decision according to data they are seeing.

You are assuming that they see high attrition of their best talent as something bad. Sometimes they don't seem to care if the numbers in Excel look good.

Re: The damaging results of mandated return to office

#55

Post by m348e912 »

I think a good solution is industries should standardize on pay differential between working at the office full time, vs hybrid, vs full time work from home.

Here is just an example: Looking at the same exact job. Office workers would make 20% more than the WFH employees and Hybrid workers would make 10% more than WFH employees.

Now employees have incentives to pursue jobs on both ends of the spectrum. Maybe the employee values the freedom of working from home, not having to endure the cost of commuting or living in a major metro area.

You could argue about the percentages, but basically a pay differential could be the thing that settles the WFH struggle.

Re: The damaging results of mandated return to office

#56

Post by malfist »

m348e912 wrote: post #55

I think a good solution is industries should standardize on pay differential between working at the office full time, vs hybrid, vs full time work from home. Here is just an example: Looking at the same exact job. Office workers would make 20% more than the WFH employees and Hybrid workers would make 10% more than WFH employees. Now employees have incentives to pursue jobs on both ends of the spectrum. Maybe the empl…

Why is the cost of my labor different if I'm in the office or not. I produce the same work, I should be compensated the same

Re: The damaging results of mandated return to office

#58

Post by lghh »

losteric wrote: post #35
lobstrosity420 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Walkable, safe and cheap places with good internet have a lot to gain (e.g. Portugal, Thailand) Why do the people living in those cities feel so strongly that this isn't the case[1]? How does the city administration deal with skyrocketing rents? [1] https://www.euronews.com/travel/2023/05/12/proto-gentrifies-...

Skyrocketing rent demonstrates the strong demand for such environments. Prices would fall if there were more competitive cities.

Or low supply.

Re: The damaging results of mandated return to office

#59

Post by BaseballPhysics »

RestlessMind wrote: post #49
alistairSH wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except almost all white-collar offices (in the US at least) went remote during the first 2-3 years of COVID. Most did so successfully. Yet, many now want to return to traditional office work with little evidence that’s a better way to work.

> with little evidence that’s a better way to work. You are assuming that decision makers are dumb. I disagree with that. My null hypothesis is that they are smart, competent people and are doing the best decision according to data they are seeing.

> My null hypothesis is that they are smart, competent people and are doing the best decision according to data they are seeing.

Speaking as a senior manager at a smallish software company (300 people), absolutely, decision makers are in my experience smart and competent.

But what they don't do is necessarily make decisions based on data.

I don't believe for a second that most RTO debates are based on meaningful measurement. As with a lot of corporate decisions, I suspect it's a lot of HIPPOs, fingers in the air, and herding behavior.

Re: The damaging results of mandated return to office

#60

Post by hosh »

Uehreka wrote: post #37
diego_moita wrote: post #19

I wish we stopped with the "companies should do this/should do that". Existing big companies are too comfortable and lazy for the remote work revolution. Remote work is a radical change in culture and work organization. It will take new companies with new workflows and organizational ideas to make it work well. We're not there yet. Managers don't understand yet how to do it, they need to read a lot of documentation (…

…what? Sorry to harsh the vibe, but that second paragraph reads like something out of 2014 when people were first reading REMOTE. At this point remote work is nothing new, and while many large companies don’t like it, many large companies are going along with it (and developing the culture, documentation, etc.) because it works well as a way to attract talent. And some startup founders are trying to go “full Musk” an…

Agreed. People have all sorts of reasons to work remote, and it is not always because of walkability:

- proximity to family and community support

- quality of schools for kids

- some people want to live out in the boonies, with a hobby farm or a real homestead

- shared cultural or political values

- some folks want to be nomadic, couch surfing or living out of a souped up van or rv

- some folks want to be able to stay with extended family for longer

- some folks want to cowork locally

- I know one guy who lives in a low cost of living area and reinvest the arbitrage back into his local community while still living comfortably

In my family’s case, I have been regularly going to the local indoor play gym so that my toddler can wear himself out. It’s too hot to play outside.

Also, flexibility != remote

There are remote work places which installs invasive software to monitor “butt-in-seat”, and you don’t really get flex time.

Post reply on HN