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

Damaging results of mandated return to the office: it’s worse than we thought

finance.yahoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 212 posts

Re: Damaging results of mandated return to the office: it’s worse than we thought

#141

Post by DiggyJohnson »

js8 wrote: post #40
DiggyJohnson wrote: post #26

Seems more nuanced than this discussion is making it out. We have had attrition and recruiting challenges with RTO, but also noticeable improvements in morale and productivity - especially when it comes to onboarding new folks.

> also noticeable improvements in morale and productivity - especially when it comes to onboarding new folks I am sure you will need it with all the attrition. ;-)

Yea weirdly enough it seems to be pretty balanced right now. For what its worth, the key players are not attrition risks, which is why I can be so blaise about it. I have seem attrition ruin many a team in my career.

Re: Damaging results of mandated return to the office: it’s worse than we thought

#142

Post by briandear »

FredPret wrote: post #63
underseacables wrote: post #16

I understand why businesses want us to return to office, and cannot disagree that I would likely react the same way. However returning to the office has numerous additional costs that are very much avoidable. I have to go to the office once a week. That’s a week do gas, time, money, pollution, and using resources and space that is duplicative.

Here’s the thing with commercial leases. They go on for years at a time and cost a very large amount. So some companies are locked into their office leases and stupidly think not having people there is a waste of that money when it’s a sunk cost and has already been wasted. But for companies without an office, it’s a massive saving. So in the long run, cubicle-minded managers will go out of business, and get outcompe…

“Younger” replacements? I am 46 and I’m the opposite of cubical minded. At lot of us old guys remember when remote was a thing long before Covid. The only time I worked in an office was 3 of my 5 years at Apple. And it wasn’t by choice.

Plenty of “younger” workers often equate “work life” with “life” and love the ping-pong and beer culture of “tech” offices. I despise it. A lot of younger workers coming out of college see the office as a place to get their lattes and socialize.

So while I agree with the “cubicle-minded” aspect, the “younger” aspect isn’t quit accurate or fair. Many of us that have a life outside of work hate that cubicle-minded attitude regardless of our age. It’s often the older and more experienced people that have less tolerance for office culture, especially those of us that were doing remote long before it was a widespread “thing.” Unless I have to work with physical stuff, there is zero need to be in an office.

Re: Damaging results of mandated return to the office: it’s worse than we thought

#143

Post by wredue »

tmpz22 wrote: post #121
commandlinefan wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> transparently a middle management “I’m still relevant!” Which makes one wonder who the people who kept posting on here how much they missed the office and wished we'd go back to the office during the pandemic actually were.

Its easy to believe RTO would be a bandaid to a degraded social life or non-optimal at home situation. And for some it might even be true. But by large your social life can and should thrive outside your job. You just have to work for it.

Honestly, I don’t even really have much of a social life outside of work, aside from talking to the other parents at my kids rec activities.

For me, WFH has made giving my kids a great childhood just substantially easier. We’re not constantly in a rush to get the mandatory stuff for the day out of the way, so we can spend more time with rec activities or just having fun.

We’re also not beholden to terrible schedules. As an example, the range of swimming lessons times we can handle basically opened up drastically. The range of afterschool activities we can manage as equally opened up. Where previously it was soccer, now we’ve been able to try a bunch of things and let them land on what they like.

Re: Damaging results of mandated return to the office: it’s worse than we thought

#144

Post by elvis10ten »

bluefishinit wrote: post #134
elvis10ten wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s why I said it’s contextual :) There is always a good enough balance (I think). Some of my colleagues live outside Berlin and I think they are only required to come to the office a few times a month and they haven’t complained so far.

I would never work somewhere that required me to be in office a few times a month. You still have to live within driving distance to the office (or take a plane a few times a month which is even worse). I think over time we'll see that the "balance" is actually 100% WFH unless physical presence is absolutely required (like you're making and selling sandwiches). It's just going to take a while for the new fully remote…

> I would never work somewhere that required me to be in office a few times a month.

It’s great that we have that option of companies that are full remote.

———

However, your last paragraph seems to not appreciate the fact that there are folks like myself that prefer going to an office often.

My prediction is that we might get rid of the office and replace it with the office in another form — most likely better.

Re: Damaging results of mandated return to the office: it’s worse than we thought

#145

Post by DiggyJohnson »

darth_avocado wrote: post #62
DiggyJohnson wrote: post #26

Seems more nuanced than this discussion is making it out. We have had attrition and recruiting challenges with RTO, but also noticeable improvements in morale and productivity - especially when it comes to onboarding new folks.

RTO morale highs are temporary, attrition morale lows are permanent.

I feel like its the opposite? Our attrition has slowed greatly in the past few months now that there is the expectation that we are in office on the same site (as it was pre-pandemic). There was just a spike post-covid as we were figuring out this policy.

RTO morale isn't really a thing. Morale is high when the team members enjoy the product, the respect of our customer and fellow teammates, and the ability to deliver to the product to the customer. We also have excellent work-life balance in leadership. This kind of morale can be garnered by both remote and in-person teams alike. I genuinely think it's an issue of nuance, personal preference, and specifics of geography.

Re: Damaging results of mandated return to the office: it’s worse than we thought

#146

Post by DiggyJohnson »

weard_beard wrote: post #51
DiggyJohnson wrote: post #26

Seems more nuanced than this discussion is making it out. We have had attrition and recruiting challenges with RTO, but also noticeable improvements in morale and productivity - especially when it comes to onboarding new folks.

Why are squishy subjects like, "morale" and "onboarding" suddenly weighted so highly when middle managers might be laid off? These topics are often ignored, neglected, de-prioritized, or laughed at 90% of the time when the bottom line of the company is at stake.

Morale and onboarding experience most directly affect individual contributors, not management. I'm not sure I really understand your point.

Re: Damaging results of mandated return to the office: it’s worse than we thought

#147

Post by marcosdumay »

farnsworth wrote: post #55
unglaublich wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this doesn't add up. The typical 2x20 mins daily commute is effectively an 8% unpaid increase in working hours, not counting transportation costs.

I don't know anyone with a 20 minute commute- I'd be in the office every day if I had that. Actually I think the commute pain is the best single predictor of how people feel about going back to the office.

I had one. And I'm not willing to RTO.

But well, I'm just a single point.

Re: Damaging results of mandated return to the office: it’s worse than we thought

#148

Post by FredPret »

briandear wrote: post #142
FredPret wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here’s the thing with commercial leases. They go on for years at a time and cost a very large amount. So some companies are locked into their office leases and stupidly think not having people there is a waste of that money when it’s a sunk cost and has already been wasted. But for companies without an office, it’s a massive saving. So in the long run, cubicle-minded managers will go out of business, and get outcompe…

“Younger” replacements? I am 46 and I’m the opposite of cubical minded. At lot of us old guys remember when remote was a thing long before Covid. The only time I worked in an office was 3 of my 5 years at Apple. And it wasn’t by choice. Plenty of “younger” workers often equate “work life” with “life” and love the ping-pong and beer culture of “tech” offices. I despise it. A lot of younger workers coming out of colleg…

Younger as in next wave of owners and CEO’s. Economically speaking, the average person is just getting started at 46. I didn’t use the term to refer to 21 yo’s.

Re: Damaging results of mandated return to the office: it’s worse than we thought

#149

Post by bluefishinit »

elvis10ten wrote: post #144
bluefishinit wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would never work somewhere that required me to be in office a few times a month. You still have to live within driving distance to the office (or take a plane a few times a month which is even worse). I think over time we'll see that the "balance" is actually 100% WFH unless physical presence is absolutely required (like you're making and selling sandwiches). It's just going to take a while for the new fully remote…

> I would never work somewhere that required me to be in office a few times a month. It’s great that we have that option of companies that are full remote. ——— However, your last paragraph seems to not appreciate the fact that there are folks like myself that prefer going to an office often. My prediction is that we might get rid of the office and replace it with the office in another form — most likely better.

Actually my last paragraph is about efficiency, talent access and cost savings. As a leader, I have no reason to incur the massive cost of having an office because it's only going to limit the talent pool I have access too, cost the company a bunch of money and increase team friction.

I've managed around a dozen teams in my career and 100% of the time the fully remote teams have produced better results than the in-office teams. You're literally paying for worse performance and over time it's not going to be sustainable.

Re: Damaging results of mandated return to the office: it’s worse than we thought

#150

Post by tmaly »

commandlinefan wrote: post #104
wredue wrote: post #50

I reclaim 1.5 hours a day from work from home, so a mandated back to work would actually represent a 6 point pay cut on the day assuming I thought that through properly. I don’t even have an egregious commute compared to others. Never mind that all of a sudden I no longer need before and after daycare. I have a home gym and can acceptably exercise at lunch. I don’t have peer pressures to go out for lunch all the time…

> transparently a middle management “I’m still relevant!” Which makes one wonder who the people who kept posting on here how much they missed the office and wished we'd go back to the office during the pandemic actually were.

I have talked with HR and I am told the younger generation entering the workforce wants to be in the office.

I guess this might be true, but I do not have any numbers to validate this.

Post reply on HN