21–30 of 156 posts
Remote vs office is just smoke and mirrors. A company with a good product will thrive no matter the policy. Making a big deal of returning your cattle to the farm is just to soothe investors when you have a subpar product
A different way to say it is "If you found a gold mine, you can afford to do things others can't".
99% of companies don't sit on gold mines like Nvidia.
For us, "remote work" isn't even a topic of conversation anymore, it's just the way things are. Yes there are some types of collaboration that aren't quite the same or require a little more effort, but we've largely navigated around those things.
I often think about the contrast between my experience and what I hear has been a year of absolute hand-wringing on the part of our largest competitor who is adamant about return to office. They've had fits and starts, unhappiness at every level over the policy, and it all seems futile.
I expect the arc of time this will play out across will be long, but I'm optimistic that our flexibility gives us a major hiring and retention advantage. Our competitor on the other hand just looks like they are distracting and handicapping themself.
Why are companies so hellbent on asking their workers to waste hours in commute? WFH hurts people with “soft” skills the most. MBA types.
Software is, AFAIK, the only wildly demanding field where senior leaders who can’t even remotely do the thing is considered normal.
Remote vs office is just smoke and mirrors. A company with a good product will thrive no matter the policy. Making a big deal of returning your cattle to the farm is just to soothe investors when you have a subpar product
I like to compare it to releasing films in theaters vs streaming. The former has a large industry that has relied on it for decades, as well a subset of consumers that love it. The latter is more convenient for other consumers, as well as being embraced by some companies. Shareholders naturally want to take advantage of whichever is more profitable, which often is a mixture of the two.
Why are companies so hellbent on asking their workers to waste hours in commute? WFH hurts people with “soft” skills the most. MBA types.
I think its the unknown. Are big corporations with lots of WFH employees successful in the long term? The reality is no one really knows so its a risk. Maybe it'll turn out fine, maybe it'll increase productivity, maybe the company will slowly die as the culture crumbles. There is a lot of arguments going on but realistically no one has ever tried it.
But things really aren't that simple. I work for a company that was pretty remote-friendly before and is quite heavily remote now to the point of closing down some major offices (mostly big suburban ones, not urban--which are mostly fairly small).
I think most people would agree that things have mostly gone "OK" but that forming new relationships has been harder, onboarding and mentoring new people has been more difficult, etc.--as well as softer things around engagement, connection, etc.
I've effectively worked mostly remote for many years but it's not all goodness.
Why are companies so hellbent on asking their workers to waste hours in commute? WFH hurts people with “soft” skills the most. MBA types.
Executives at different companies do communicate with each other, and recieve a similar "news feed." And in that pseudo social group, bringing workers back in became a popular self perpetuating topic. Its a thing others are doing, so they should do it too.
There are many other factors, but it has to be more than practicality and ego when Meta and Zoom are bringing employees in. Peer pressure is a great way to make smart humans do irrational things.
Why are companies so hellbent on asking their workers to waste hours in commute? WFH hurts people with “soft” skills the most. MBA types.
In a law firm, the most senior partner is a lawyer (and usually bills out among the highest). In a hospital, the head of surgery is a surgeon (and usually one of the best). In a fabrication shop, the boss is a pro with the materials. Software is, AFAIK, the only wildly demanding field where senior leaders who can’t even remotely do the thing is considered normal.
For what it's worth: just because you're the top dog in your field that doesn't mean you're a good manager.
We should actually insist on rolling out separate management and career tracks because either require completely different skillsets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like to compare it to releasing films in theaters vs streaming. The former has a large industry that has relied on it for decades, as well a subset of consumers that love it. The latter is more convenient for other consumers, as well as being embraced by some companies. Shareholders naturally want to take advantage of whichever is more profitable, which often is a mixture of the two.
That is an interesting comparison, since streaming is bankrupting all the media companies and will likely change movie studios for the worst.
Had media companies maintained their exclusivity on people’s screen time, then they would be in an even better position. But the supply of content exploded, from video games to YouTube to TikTok and Instagram and even forums like this one.
More supply relative to demand means lower prices.
Remote vs office is just smoke and mirrors. A company with a good product will thrive no matter the policy. Making a big deal of returning your cattle to the farm is just to soothe investors when you have a subpar product