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

Return to Office Enters the Desperation Phase

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 116 posts

Re: Return to Office Enters the Desperation Phase

#101

Post by esarbe »

Zetice wrote: post #45
esarbe wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really wondering what kind of downsides you see to WFH; to me, there are only upsides: - no commute - being at home with the people you love and miss - not getting distracted by office drama - simplified work/life integration As a company we're using WFH as a selling point for engineers - they love it.

- Encourages less communication on team - Harder to join team for new members - Harder to learn field for novices - Lack of unit cohesion through informal interactions - Lack of access to equipment and tools necessary to complete job effectively - Lower social interaction - Risk of underworking - Risk of overworking - Unending distractions The list goes on... The interactions that take place when humans are next to o…

Most of the things you list there are not necessarily tied to WFH but to failures implementing it. Other I don't know where you get them from, like "Unending distractions"; that's specifically one thing I love about WFH, since I don't have the constant bustle and noise of the office. Then there other points that are universal like "Lack of access to equipment and tools necessary to complete job effectively". Sure, if workers doesn't have access to equipment and tools necessary, they cannot work - how is that different from a worker in the office that has lack of access to equipment and tools necessary?

> WFH can breed all of the nasty "snake pit" attitudes and behaviors a lot more easily when everyone (or even someone) is remote and therefore less interconnected.

That's not how social conflicts arise.

It seems to me that there's no evident connection between the points you list and your - in my opinion - quite premature and unjustified conclusion that "WFH failed".

Re: Return to Office Enters the Desperation Phase

#102

Post by illiac786 »

helij wrote: post #78
uxp100 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rather not rehash this discussion, but just a reminder that some people feel exactly opposite. In person disruption is really no big deal for me, but slack is a tool that destroys all productivity.

Notifications on Slack can be turned off.

Another mental burden to remember to turn off slack notification, and notifications of this other Collab tool whenever I do not want to be interrupted.

Also, at least for me, it's not black and white when I need quiet time. I might jot down something, brings another idea and suddenly I have a new idea to fix a problem which has been nagging at me for months and off I go for 10 hours.

I won't think about turning off notification until there is one - by then my mental flow has been disturbed.

But I do love home office, I just want to outline that managing notifications is not without friction.

Re: Return to Office Enters the Desperation Phase

#103

Post by nness »

kcplate wrote: post #99
nness wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't recall a WFH article that didn't just boil down to a CEO or adjacent just "vibing" things weren't working.

Yes, but can you actually prove them wrong with real data? Everybody I know advocating WFH (including myself FWIW) tend to use words that amount to their own “vibes” that they are more personally productive but I rarely hear people moving beyond feelings and anecdotes about their personal productivity and into real data that shows benefits to the organization far beyond the individual. Until WFH advocates can do that…

I would argue the best indicator is that, after all this time, productivity has not dropped, businesses are not failing, unemployment has not sharply risen, etc. Everyone is making record profits.

(but it would be a hard case to prove, at macro-level, given all the other recent factors which would also impact those metrics.)

... I guess I've not heard of any businesses failing specifically because of WFH.

Re: Return to Office Enters the Desperation Phase

#104

Post by kcplate »

nness wrote: post #103
kcplate wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but can you actually prove them wrong with real data? Everybody I know advocating WFH (including myself FWIW) tend to use words that amount to their own “vibes” that they are more personally productive but I rarely hear people moving beyond feelings and anecdotes about their personal productivity and into real data that shows benefits to the organization far beyond the individual. Until WFH advocates can do that…

I would argue the best indicator is that, after all this time, productivity has not dropped, businesses are not failing, unemployment has not sharply risen, etc. Everyone is making record profits. (but it would be a hard case to prove, at macro-level, given all the other recent factors which would also impact those metrics.) ... I guess I've not heard of any businesses failing specifically because of WFH.

> I guess I've not heard of any businesses failing specifically because of WFH

Sure, but that is an argument to a baseline not a benefit. Easily countered by “How many businesses failed pre-pandemic because they were not work from home?”

Without real hard data showing a direct benefit, we cant argue WFH over in office from a position of strength.

Re: Return to Office Enters the Desperation Phase

#105

Post by Zetice »

000ooo000 wrote: post #96
Zetice wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- Encourages less communication on team - Harder to join team for new members - Harder to learn field for novices - Lack of unit cohesion through informal interactions - Lack of access to equipment and tools necessary to complete job effectively - Lower social interaction - Risk of underworking - Risk of overworking - Unending distractions The list goes on... The interactions that take place when humans are next to o…

You keep saying that "the WFH experiment failed" which is disingenuous; you are attempting to lend the credibility of science to your own speculation. You also claim that it failed as a 'universal' approach to work, which is an obvious strawman. WFH was thrust on a good portion of the world by necessity. It was cobbled together at the last minute so that business could continue, with the typical amount of investment…

WFH cannot be done on teams that need cohesion, which is nearly all teams.

Study after study demonstrates in person interaction is superior to remote interaction when it comes to rapport, bonding, emotional safety, and every other critical aspect necessary for building and maintaining a team.

The people who think WFH is fine are the people who aren’t responsible for keeping a team functioning, and the people who are demanding a return to work are. There’s a reason for that, and no it’s not because they’re evil or out to get you.

Re: Return to Office Enters the Desperation Phase

#106

Post by Zetice »

bwat49 wrote: post #93
Zetice wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- Encourages less communication on team - Harder to join team for new members - Harder to learn field for novices - Lack of unit cohesion through informal interactions - Lack of access to equipment and tools necessary to complete job effectively - Lower social interaction - Risk of underworking - Risk of overworking - Unending distractions The list goes on... The interactions that take place when humans are next to o…

> - Unending distractions I think this bullet point belongs under cons of working in the office. I have FAR less distractions working from home.

Your home distractions are unrelated to your job, whereas what you call “work distractions” are in fact not distractions at all, but a critical part of working on a team.

Re: Return to Office Enters the Desperation Phase

#107

Post by Zetice »

esarbe wrote: post #101
Zetice wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- Encourages less communication on team - Harder to join team for new members - Harder to learn field for novices - Lack of unit cohesion through informal interactions - Lack of access to equipment and tools necessary to complete job effectively - Lower social interaction - Risk of underworking - Risk of overworking - Unending distractions The list goes on... The interactions that take place when humans are next to o…

Most of the things you list there are not necessarily tied to WFH but to failures implementing it. Other I don't know where you get them from, like "Unending distractions"; that's specifically one thing I love about WFH, since I don't have the constant bustle and noise of the office. Then there other points that are universal like "Lack of access to equipment and tools necessary to complete job effectively". Sure, if…

If you can’t see how unit cohesion is relevant to your job, then there’s nothing I can say that will snap you back into reality.

That’s on the same level as flat eartherism or antivax, so if those are the kinds of positions you want to support, that’s on you.

Re: Return to Office Enters the Desperation Phase

#108

Post by esarbe »

Zetice wrote: post #107
esarbe wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the things you list there are not necessarily tied to WFH but to failures implementing it. Other I don't know where you get them from, like "Unending distractions"; that's specifically one thing I love about WFH, since I don't have the constant bustle and noise of the office. Then there other points that are universal like "Lack of access to equipment and tools necessary to complete job effectively". Sure, if…

If you can’t see how unit cohesion is relevant to your job, then there’s nothing I can say that will snap you back into reality. That’s on the same level as flat eartherism or antivax, so if those are the kinds of positions you want to support, that’s on you.

That these points are somehow relevant for "unit cohesion" is entirely yours to demonstrate.

But after these ad hominem attacks I'm not actually in a mood to discuss this any further with you. If you cannot make a cogent argument and have to descend to such derogatory accusations, I'll rather leave this conversation.

Have fun in the mud.

Re: Return to Office Enters the Desperation Phase

#109

Post by Zetice »

esarbe wrote: post #108
Zetice wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can’t see how unit cohesion is relevant to your job, then there’s nothing I can say that will snap you back into reality. That’s on the same level as flat eartherism or antivax, so if those are the kinds of positions you want to support, that’s on you.

That these points are somehow relevant for "unit cohesion" is entirely yours to demonstrate. But after these ad hominem attacks I'm not actually in a mood to discuss this any further with you. If you cannot make a cogent argument and have to descend to such derogatory accusations, I'll rather leave this conversation. Have fun in the mud.

I need to demonstrate that building emotional safety for a team involves unit cohesion?

No, I don't. Like I said, if you can't see how those two concepts connect, there's nothing here to discuss.

Also for anything I wrote to be an ad hominem, I would have needed to call you a name and also claim that, because you are that name, you are therefore wrong. I did neither, so no ad hominem occurred. There is nothing here for you to be sick of.

You can feel vaguely insulted all you want, but that's got nothing to do with what I wrote.

Re: Return to Office Enters the Desperation Phase

#110

Post by Zetice »

nness wrote: post #103
kcplate wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but can you actually prove them wrong with real data? Everybody I know advocating WFH (including myself FWIW) tend to use words that amount to their own “vibes” that they are more personally productive but I rarely hear people moving beyond feelings and anecdotes about their personal productivity and into real data that shows benefits to the organization far beyond the individual. Until WFH advocates can do that…

I would argue the best indicator is that, after all this time, productivity has not dropped, businesses are not failing, unemployment has not sharply risen, etc. Everyone is making record profits. (but it would be a hard case to prove, at macro-level, given all the other recent factors which would also impact those metrics.) ... I guess I've not heard of any businesses failing specifically because of WFH.

Productivity has dropped [0], businesses (small ones in particular) are struggling [1], unemployment rose 0.3% between April 2023 and May 2023 [2], and "record profits" are also dropping (why did you think inflation was dropping?) [3].

So uh, any other indicators you'd like to use to measure the impact of WFH?

[0] https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-productivity-drops-fir...

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/26/business/economy/small-bu...

[2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/273909/seasonally-adjust...

[3] https://thehill.com/business/3945727-inflation-eases-as-corp...

Post reply on HN