Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft is officially sending employees back to the office

businessinsider.com

881–890 of 969 posts

Re: Microsoft is officially sending employees back to the office

#881
post #777
post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those numbers were so convincing they have been shared with employees... 0 (ZERO) times.

Why would they share that... come on lets not be naive here. Do they always justify every bigger decision to whole world? It just creates friction surface for various people to catch on. C suite is there to set directions, not to explain themselves to their employees. Its like getting refused during interview process. Sharing actually why makes no sense for hiring people, no gain and potentially a lot to lose. I don'…

Yes. They would. There is a whole world of MBA and business analysis schools that look into this with a microscope.

The evidence that we have is that hybrid work is a net increase in productivity. Do note its hybrid, not remote.

Re: Microsoft is officially sending employees back to the office

#882
post #701

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(4) In person teams outperform remote/hybrid teams. I'm surprised this was not mentioned as a possibility.

What's also not mentioned is that in multinational companies, especially since remote working became more widespread and attracting talent more difficult, teams are often made up of people from different locations anyway. So you won't have an in-person team, you'll just be joining Zoom (or in M$'s case, probably Teams) calls from the office rather than from home.

That's the key thing IMO; it's not "return to office" when quite a lot of the people never were in that office to start with. With the rate of turnover in most of these companies and the amount of time they were hiring for positions remotely, it's more "forced relocation, transfer, or 'voluntary' quitting without severance" for a large number of people. You can't return to a status quo that never existed for you.

Re: Microsoft is officially sending employees back to the office

#883

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the return to office phenomenon is inevitable because employers externalize transportation costs, but internalize value capture from employees being in presumably a less distracting and more controlled environment. It’s a systems problem where the incentive only goes one way. I think you could have a balancing incentive of providing employers tax credits if they can prove that they are using remote or partial…

Pre-pandemic, I had multiple employers that were incentivized via the state and county government to push remote working, ride sharing, and transit utilization as a means of reducing overall government spending on roads and road maintenance. It typically showed up as small benefits to the employee, like a monthly drawing for a $50 Target gift card or preferential parking spots. Based on that, I got the sense that whi…

My state basically did the exact same thing, monthly drawing for gift cards included.

Re: Microsoft is officially sending employees back to the office

#884
post #667

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not mentioned as a possibility because nobody has ever been able to substantiate that claim.

Shouldn't we trust that the execs have this data and can see productivity metrics that aren't available to the public? Unless you think all RTO is a conspiracy.

> Shouldn't we trust that the execs

No.

> can see productivity metrics that aren't available to the public

I am an employee of a company claiming my productivity is higher in the office. Nobody has ever shown me anything even remotely resembling a productivity metric. They haven’t even tried.

Productivity metrics are a holy grail. If any company created one that works they’d be bragging about it endlessly to shareholders and correlating it with the enormous profits they’d be generating.

If they have one that works I’d like to see it so I can use it to measure changes in my daily habits and further increase my productivity.

Since they can’t articulate this metric at all I can only conclude that it doesn’t exist.

With how contentious RTO has been why haven’t the advocates published data on how big of a boost it has been to their KPIs?

> Unless you think all RTO is a conspiracy.

It’s possible RTO is just regular old incompetence. No need for conspiracy theories.

Re: Microsoft is officially sending employees back to the office

#885

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This might be evidence of a belief, but that's no evidence that be belief is rational.

Would you sit in an airplane designed and built by a full remote workforce?

Would you download a car?

Re: Microsoft is officially sending employees back to the office

#886

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If more people eat hamburgers than vegetables, you'll start saying that that's evidence that hamburgers are more healthy?

It'd be evidence that people enjoy eating hamburgers more than vegetables.

Yeah, but managers enjoying RTO doesn't mean that it's good for the company

Re: Microsoft is officially sending employees back to the office

#887

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s absolutely all being done on vibes. The execs don’t have some super-secret productivity dashboard giving them a breakdown of employee output by work location. Maybe, if they’re really on the ball, they have employee profit contributions divided by that, but that would then immediately show all the support staff as unproductive.

I agree that a lot of smaller companies would do it on vibes. I don't think Microsoft would.

Based on what? Why do you trust Microsoft’s judgment here? They are fallible like anyone else.

Re: Microsoft is officially sending employees back to the office

#888
Like anything, remote vs in-person work is multifaceted

1) For experienced high performers, remote work definitely increases productivity. They're much likely to work longer hours and get more done when they're not in the office.

2) For people who are on the low end or need more guidance, it's more likely for them to slip or get left behind with remote work.

3) It takes longer to onboard new hires working remotely.

4) There's more barriers to cross-team collaboration working remotely. You don't have that natural bumping into each other in the office and unintentional communication that you do on Slack or Teams.

5) Remote work allows you to pull from a much greater talent pool, and you don't have to spend money on office space. This is really beneficial for startups.

6) For larger companies, remote work is excellent for teams that need to support a live product 24/7 since you can pull from many different time zones.

7) For managers and senior leadership, your meetings are all on zoom. And they're all back to back. The natural food or bathroom breaks you get working in an office don't exist. And they're more likely to exist later into the night.

This all leads to high performers picking up a lot more of the team's slack. They tend to thrive. Meanwhile, there's a certain percentage of staff that aren't doing a lot or are struggling. Managers are totally overloaded with meetings and don't have much time to give direct support. And because these are the decision makers, they're more likely to be in favor of RTO.

What I expect to happen with RTO is that junior staff and new hires will pick up more work (hopefully), the meeting burden on managers will be me more reasonable, and there will be better collaboration. But the high performers who teams rely on will be unhappy, will get less done, and are more likely to leave. Productivity will dip at first, and there might be a brain drain. It might be a good decision longer term. But there are tradeoffs any way you do it.

Re: Microsoft is officially sending employees back to the office

#889
post #739

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The downvotes are all from guys remote-moonlighting three separate FAANG jobs, each paying out hundred grand a year. They can afford it!

Regardless of someone's stand on the topic of remote vs in-office, I find it staggering that _anyone_ could believe that either one of them is the one-true-way. There's downsides to both and either decision is likely to make at least some of the participants unhappy. I'm firmly on the WFH end of things; I much less productive in an office. But I know other people that are better in the office with the ability to talk…

The productivity is tangential at best to this matter; the discourse around WFH has long devolved into primitive drivel for/against freedom precisely because abstract "freedom" is all that Americans care about. (I don't think WFH is as big in Europe, at least based on my experience—everywhere I worked in Europe has overwhelmingly been in-office.) I get the argument that American cities are really sparse, and sometimes people have to commute a long while, etc etc. but I don't believe that it's the deciding factor. I think it's FAR simpler than that; in view of covid, all companies subscribed to WFH policy, and workers (quite naively) interpreted it as +freedom. The companies are now subscribing to RTO policies, and it's simply read as -freedom. That's it. People find it offensive whenever they're deprived of some extra options, choices, etc. It's nice not having to go to office all the time, but it's in of itself much nicer if you CAN choose not to, isn't it? In my view, that's what it boils down to.

Re: Microsoft is officially sending employees back to the office

#890
post #777
post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those numbers were so convincing they have been shared with employees... 0 (ZERO) times.

Why would they share that... come on lets not be naive here. Do they always justify every bigger decision to whole world? It just creates friction surface for various people to catch on. C suite is there to set directions, not to explain themselves to their employees. Its like getting refused during interview process. Sharing actually why makes no sense for hiring people, no gain and potentially a lot to lose. I don'…

Why would they share it? To counteract employees complaining endlessly about it, presumably.
Post reply on HN