this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2023
414 points (96.6% liked)

Asklemmy

44151 readers
1424 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I have posted this on Reddit (askeconomics) a while back but got no good replies. Copying it here because I don't want to send traffic to Reddit.

What do you think?

I see a big push to take employees back to the office. I personally don't mind either working remote or in the office, but I think big companies tend to think rationally in terms of cost/benefit and I haven't seen a convincing explanation yet of why they are so keen to have everyone back.

If remote work was just as productive as in-person, a remote-only company could use it to be more efficient than their work-in-office competitors, so I assume there's no conclusive evidence that this is the case. But I haven't seen conclusive evidence of the contrary either, and I think employers would have good reason to trumpet any findings at least internally to their employees ("we've seen KPI so-and-so drop with everyone working from home" or "project X was severely delayed by lack of in-person coordination" wouldn't make everyone happy to return in presence, but at least it would make a good argument for a manager to explain to their team)

Instead, all I keep hearing is inspirational wish-wash like "we value the power of working together". Which is fine, but why are we valuing it more than the cost of office space?

On the side of employees, I often see arguments like "these companies made a big investment in offices and now they don't want to look stupid by leaving them empty". But all these large companies have spent billions to acquire smaller companies/products and dropped them without a second thought. I can't believe the same companies would now be so sentimentally attached to office buildings if it made any economic sense to close them.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] theKalash@feddit.ch 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You guys are still doing homeoffice? I've been back for over a year.

[–] andallthat@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We're supposed to be doing hybrid, 50% in the office. I don't think we ever went over 30-35% of people in the office. My company tried the carrot, more than the stick to get employees back, like events. Everybody hated the almost-full office in those days. Most teams tried to have in-person team meetings, so there were no available meeting rooms and nobody is really used to the noise of an open-office plan full of people. There is clearly some push from above on our managers, because they try to sound happy but they mostly look as miserable as everyone else.

How was the return for you? Is the whole company back in the office or just you/your team?

[–] theKalash@feddit.ch 6 points 1 year ago

How was the return for you? Is the whole company back in the office or just you/your team?

Everyone is back and has been since like may 2022. I don't think we even considered keeping homeoffice around longer than it was mandated.

Also I never really had to return. I live closest to the office, so I stayed there while everyone else went home. Someone has to let in the mailman and such.

[–] sixtyshilling@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Since 2020, my specific team only meets in person 3 times per year, with one or two members deciding to come into the office once every 2 weeks (because they want to).

We discovered early on that we were more productive WFH (with metrics to back it up), so we only have live meetups to organize big projects. We then take those big plans home with us and get it done remotely.

I can’t say it would work for every team, but I definitely don’t see the value in “being in the office” as someone who works entirely on the computer.

I see a lot of propaganda about how teams are more productive when they have “spontaneous interactions around the water cooler”, but in my experience that was never really a driving factor of our work.

[–] PhantomPhanatic@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

My department works almost entirely on the computer but is made up of knowledge workers. We found that our metrics also reflected improved efficiency. However, our metrics didn't (and likely can't) measure knowledge sharing interactions and training effectiveness to compare working from home with in the office. Most of our department has noticed and believes that knowledge sharing and training interactions decrease when working from home. This is not good for long term health and efficiency of the department. In 5 to 10 years the quality of work we provide will go down (or at least not improve as much as it could) without these interactions. So a small sacrifice in efficiency now could be worth it in the long run.

It's hard to quantify exactly what is being sacrificed one way or the other. The only way to really find out is to experiment and see what happens long term.

[–] BURN@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As someone who was a new hire during WFH I still don’t know a lot of the random tribal knowledge. It’s been getting better since we’ve been back to office, but I’m absolutely behind the curve because of it.

[–] PhantomPhanatic@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Thanks for sharing. I think this is a really important factor that I feel most people don't understand or care about.