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.
I work 95% remote, and I’ll be the first to admit, there is value in working physically close to your teammates. Discussion and camaraderie can happen organically, which allows people to better understand each others’ strengths. There are also fewer things to distract you, and the reality is that many people these days are experiencing a sort of internet-induced ADHD, so being in an office can make it easier to concentrate. All of this allows you to be and feel more productive.
That’s the best argument I’ve got, but I wouldn’t mandate it on anyone. The only people mandating working from office are people who are insecure with their workforce and hiring methodologies. They don’t trust their workers to do the job, so they feel the need to micromanage their workers like children. If you’re a manager, and you don’t feel like you can trust your employees, you’ve already lost.
I actually have ADHD and the opposite is true for me. Working from home I can concentrate without distractions of office workers walking by, or talking about something that I’m not interested in but can’t block out. I work in my office at home with the door closed for practically the whole day and it’s great. My work has it’s own built in structure, but I imagine that other kinds of less structured work could be very difficult for someone with ADHD.
I can tell you from experience, there is nothing more distracting than having your manager walk up behind you and tap you on the shoulder while you’re working on code. While this problem doesn’t go away completely with remote work, at least you have time to compose yourself and bookmark your work before you respond
I haven’t had a manager that makes a habit out of that, that’s a no no. If someone is in the zone, you don’t mess with em. We did have Do Not Disturb signs we could put up, but I never felt the need.
Also for me there is value in occasionally seeing people in person. The exact ratio will depend on the job, but for me it would be about 2-3 days per month in the office. We see each other, talk about how things are going, blockers, stuff we need to change, a little office gossip and then off we go again.
In that sense, a lax hybrid schedule works best for me personally. However, for it to work, everyone should agree to be in the office in the same days. Coming to an empty office and doing the same zoom calls you could have done from home is less than useful.
And since, again, the ratio of individual work Vs collaborative work varies by person and team, we’d need to find an average that sort of works for everyone and agree on a common schedule That is where I think the idea of hybrid comes in: 2 or 3 days per week in the office for everyone. My company is trying this and asking (but for now not forcing) people to concentrate attendance in the days in the middle of the week.
This clearly works better for some and worse for others.
I heard from a colleague that some companies are trying a different model. They shut down the offices and used part of the savings as budget for managers to create more frequent team events, so teams can e.g. meet in person at a restaurant a couple of times per month. I have no idea who these companies are and how this approach is going.
I think it should be on a case-by-case basis. I’m in the legal field, and there’s definitely days I don’t need to be in the office as almost all of our work is online now. State and federal mandatory efiling, e-discovery is online, and even our document management system is headed to the cloud, so no need for remoting in, just log into Microsoft 365 from any browser. Don’t even need to own any Microsoft apps natively anymore.
On the other hand, there are days that I do need to be in the office: depositions and prepping witnesses, trial preparedness, and sometimes, you just need to touch base with everyone to see how things are going. I work in securities litigation, and those are frequently very complex, document and fact intensive cases.
We have a entire practices that are 100% remote now. The partners are either elderly, or they live far away from the office and were hybrid remote before the pandemic. The paralegal that works with those attorneys is also 100% remote.
Lastly, I am much more productive at home than in the office. I do not have ADHD, and do not have a problem with attention, and do not get distracted easily. On the other hand, I’m an introvert, and really loathe the interpersonal nonsense and constant interruptions of ppl barging into my office, more often enough that just to chat. Last month, I had to do a major document review of going through 10s of thousands of emails, and to just plow through that at home, comfy in my bed, where my bathroom is just a few steps away, made me so much more productive than being stuck in the office.
1% wealth is not pure money. It is stock and real estate. Also shares.
To keep the value of their wealth the 99% needs to spend.
Found out today that some executives are afraid of leaks and digital records of certain conversations that could happen in person instead.
That makes a lot of sense. But I wish “So we can cover up our bullshit easier.” wasn’t a reason for it.
That’s probably it, having every interaction possibly logged/recorded by the employees is pretty bad for a lot of bosses/managers.
That could be a consideration, yes. Funny enough, our whole Legal team has been consistently the one with the LEAST attendance in person in the office… Overall it seems like forcing your call center employees in office because you’re afraid they’ll leak strategic company secrets is a bit of an over-reaction. I doubt that the most high-level, secret discussions on mergers and acquisitions or mass layoffs have ever happened in our office to begin with.
A lot of large companies and executives have investments in real estate. If everyone stopped using offices all of a sudden, they would lost a bunch of money because the space wouldn’t be in demand anymore.
I think you’re attributing far more coordination to these guys than they’re actually capable of.
I don’t think there’s some shadowy Illuminati organisation behind it. They are pretty blatent when they manipulate things.
That said, I do think there are a lot of investors and analysts that have come to the same conclusion and are talking to each other and passing info to their clients.
Well, maybe you know something I don’t, but I’d expect most rich guys would be happy to save on office costs for themselves while still collecting rent from other rich guys, if they were personally okay going remote.
Sure, but if everyone who can goes remote, all that rent money dries up. Most also don’t directly own buildings to rent, but rather have investments in companies that do. If those other companies go under then they lose money on investments. I don’t have any inside knowledge though, this is just the conclusion I’ve been able to come to. Other than just being control freaks.
It’s a shared resource looked at that way. Usually they aren’t so good at managing those without being forced to by law. If it was a forest, they’d cut it all down and go broke afterwards.
I think they’re just being stupid. Or, at least their middle managers are, like CBC has suggested in a more tactful way. I have a bit of inside knowledge, because I’m close with someone that’s been working remote since the early 2000’s, and this is what he’s said about clients and vendors trying to comprehend the arrangement.
I definitely agree that they do stupid things because of short term gains and narcissism. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if they’re just grumpy bosses mad that it’s harder to boss people around.
I also worry though about portraying executives as buffoons. Most of their short term decisions that look stupid make a lot of sense when you look at it through the lense of them just not caring that it makes life worse for other people. It’s honestly probably a combination of a bunch of dumb and greedy things.
What I’ve learned from following cryptocurrencies is that people don’t need intentional coordination to be affected by the reality-distorting bias of their investments. If someone has bought a narrative about why the thing they invested in has value, when faced with evidence that this narrative may actually be wrong, most of them aren’t going to be sophisticated enough to think “Well that’s a strong argument, I guess it would be in my interest to pretend that it’s false while privately defecting”. Instead they are going to want to dismiss it outright, shit-talk everyone disagreeing, and throw more money/time/effort in the hole. Being financially invested in something messes with your emotions like that.
Basically I think that being invested in commercial real estate is likely to make someone actually believe any ideas that imply that commercial real estate has value, even if they are bullshit.
There doesn’t have to be coordination if there’s incentives.
It’s like how so many people who drive cars act in ways that benefit cars and is counterproductive for those who don’t drive. They want plentiful free parking, lots of lanes, and cheap gasoline. They’re not particularly coordinated. They’re just incentivized because of their position. They benefit from those kinda things, so gravitate towards them (and also don’t oppose them).
What’s the incentive here, though? They personally lose money paying for office space they don’t need.
Is retail near office buildings worth considering in the context of this post? That it’s worth having people return to the offices partially because the employees give business to the nearby restaurants, etc.?
This is true. I just had trouble picturing the CEO of a big company going “I’ll force everyone back to the office! WFH is sooo convenient but I can’t do this to Mr Joe’s hamburger joint around the corner”.
However as someone else pointed out, if WFH becomes the norm, a lot of business might be impacted and fail, generating turbulence in the economy. This I can picture getting a CEO’s attention
I can see the points on it, but I also know that I am prone to ordering delivery from my local shops or going to the mom and pop restaurant around the corner. The only ones who will really be hurt by a mostly WFH society (at least in this vein of thought) are big corporations who have heavily centered their efforts around the offices. Starbucks will have problems justifying having 4 shops in one block in NYC with 1/10th the foot traffic. I would rather buy from local small businesses and actually support my economy than funnel more money into some gaping dragon’s maw. I have been WFH for 7 years now and pray I never have to go back to working anywhere else.
That’s a side affect, but those retail stores could also move out to where the houses are with some legal changes.
It would be a nice suprise but I doubt corporate really cares about Jane and Joe’s coffee shop, or the local Hugo Boss
Two basic reasons:
-
Middle managers rate themselves (and others) by how many direct reports they have and it’s harder to keep score when you don’t see people in person.
-
Companies have spent billions on office space they can’t easily get out of. Look at Apple:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Park
$5 billion dollars. They are deep in the sunk cost fallacy.
Reaction?
https://fortune.com/2023/03/24/remote-work-3-days-apple-discipline-terminates-tracks-tim-cook/
-
Companies that overhired the last few years might just wanna increase the attrition rates without explicitly saying so.
That could be a driver, yes. The problem is that the first people to go are usually the ones companies want to keep, either because they are star performers or because the job market requires their specific skills more (so they find something else easily and their roles are also harder to fill again).
But yes, I can see how a company might be more or less lenient applying their return to office policies, so that attrition is concentrated more in some teams. And firing people does have side-effects too on PR and morale of the remaining employees.
I do generally see more people leaving my company than new hires, though, so you might be on to something with the attrition rates…
I would say the first people to go while switching to WFO will always be the first people to go when there is any chance of job hopping. The company is just accelerating that while forcing WFO.
Look: a lot of companies would suffer from an office real estate crash.
- the businesses that own the office real estate
- car manufacturers
- tire manufacturers
- petroleum companies
- coffee franchises
- fast food franchises lining freeways on the way to work
And most importantly, funds invested in all of the above.
People who own businesses also own stocks in other people’s businesses. Meaning they all fall and rise together. Trying to keep the “work commute” and “office rental” industries alive is just an attempt on the part of those who hold capital to keep their portfolios growing.
In secret, they are probably also trying to hedge their bets, diversify and make themselves immune to the coming collapse. They’ll try to position themselves and their capital in such a way so that the working class is the only group hurt when it happens.
But in public? They are not going to devalue their assets by standing by, complacent, as an office apocalypse approaches.
I really feel like this makes the most sense. It beats out all the other arguments.
Middle managers need more control? Big bosses never care that much about what middle managers say, why now? And across tons of companies? Seems silly. Middle managers are notoriously ineffective.
They want to retain control/keep you tired? Maybe, but it would take a large conspiracy coordinated between the execs, which seems like a stretch. There would need to be a massive Illuminati-esque organization like that Stonecutters episode from The Simpsons.
But as always, it comes back to “follow the money.” The people making the decision will lose money somehow, so they are trying not to lose, or to minimize losses. All board of directors people have multiple investments and interests, so of course they are trying to make the best of their situation. They own part of the IT company renting the space, but also have investment in office retail space and some local businesses. If the office life drives an area to stay alive, its dying will shift the money away from all their investments. As usual, they are making those decisions without giving a shit about anything but money and their own interests.
Yup. A lot of companies benefiting off the inefficiency of commuting.
I think what they don’t realize is that it’s basically Pandora’s box at this point, and what’s been let out is a ticking time bomb. Unless something changes, remote work will always be on the cards now and will probably always be preferable.
Maybe they’re focused on playing for time so they can insure their assets and move to hedge funds that are shorting all of the above industries? I don’t know investing that well.
Office real estate would crumble as a market. Even though the world would be better repurposing office buildings, the number must go up.
They took the risks, in hopes of higher rewards. They want the rewards without the risk.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
The real answer is that people are more productive in the office with more oversight and build relationships with their coworkers that help them to do their jobs better. Companies invest thousands of dollars in “teambuilding” events that benefit the company and employees in no way other than to foster these environments. It costs their employees more time and money for transportation, which means they have to pay them more. They are not stupid. They are not trying to upset their employees just to cost themselves more money.
There is no other rational explanation. Any other explanation is illogical, as it costs the company more money to have and maintain an office building. It’s just based on people angry about the fact that they have to leave home.
Found the Blackstone bot.
people are more productive in the office with more oversight and build relationships with their coworkers that help them to do their jobs better.
Not true for all types of employees. There are job functions that work great or even better remote. Your scenario also depends on if the employer has a good office environment and truth be told a lot don’t (many embraced the “open-concept” which does increase communication but also the noise-to-signal ratio).
The war on remote work likely has nothing to do with productivity but all about preserving the commercial real-estate market (and the auxillary businesses) and stop them from crashing. A lot of influential people invested in that industry.
Also research over COVID showed productivity didn’t decline at all, and in many cases increased while working remote. Turns out a lot of people work better when they aren’t wasting half their day getting in a small box, trekking to a dofferent small box inside a bigger box for absolutely no reason.
If you’re spending half your day doing that, it’s no surprise that you’d be less productive. Most people aren’t doing that. You’re projecting.
Is it actually that bad at your company? I must be pretty lucky then.
Also I don’t want to work in the same room I sleep in and I also don’t want to have my family around all day
Remote work doesn’t work for everyone and that’s always been the case. But it’s nowhere near the boogeyman that the media is currently making it out to be.
The war on remote work likely has nothing to do with productivity but all about preserving the commercial real-estate market
I mean…maybe if you work for a real estate company?
I mean…maybe if you work for a real estate company?
That’s not the only real-estate game in the business… Think owners and landlords of the building who used to make a killing leasing these commercial spaces out. If remote work continues, there is no incentive for companies / tenants to renew their lease, meaning less income for landlords and increasing risk that they will default on their loans. A lot of people are invested in that space and would love to see the gravy train continue, or at least not crash and burn. Hence the propaganda push about how crappy remote work is, an attempt to drive people back.
That’s not the only real-estate game in the business… Think owners and landlords of the building who used to make a killing leasing these commercial spaces out
So…real estate companies? You realize there are other businesses with employees right?
Yes? I’m not understanding your point. What I’m saying is the anti-remote work push is likely due to the influence of the investors in said properties and companies.
My point is the overwhelming majority of businesses in existence are not in the business of real estate so why would they give a shit if it’s impacted?
You wildly overestimate the influence of these companies.
What does the absolute number of businesses in an industry have to do with anything? Most companies in the world are not tech or even oil and gas either and you can’t deny the impact of these industries.
What matters is the amount of money and influence in the industry, and in the case of commercial real estate in the US, the market size is in the trillions.
And like another poster said it’s not just real estate either. Sectors like retail, services, transportation are also impacted by remote work culture, not to mention government revenue streams like property taxes.
I am on team work from home personally, but the reality is we will have to compromise a bit, and I think a hybrid environment is where the sweet spot is. I still work remote about 90% of the time, but realistically I think 60-80% remote, 20-40% in office is ideal and tenable for just about every work type where remote work is feasible.
There is benefit to being in person with your colleagues, there is benefit to having a centralized area for congregating, meeting with outside stakeholders, etc. However, there is absolutely no reason to be in the office all day every day. It makes no sense. The bulk of employees spend AT LEAST 50% (rank and file probably closer to 85-90%?) of their time working alone, by themselves. Let them do that wherever the fuck they want. If the work is getting done, leave them the fuck alone and let them work in their PJs or on their couch or whatever.
A hybrid environment also keeps your work force local and prevents us all from being outsourced. If we all insist on working remote full time then there is absolutely no reason for employers not to offer our jobs to someone living somewhere that’s cheaper to live. Sure, we could correct over time and move to a lower cost of living place to compete, but is that really what you want? Do you want to leave your home, friends, family, etc just to chase the job you already have solely because they won’t pay you what they already do to stay where you are? If you own a home do you want the value to tank as demand plummets? If your rent is cheap do you want it to skyrocket because displaced remote workers are flooding your town in a rush to capitalize?
I would agree with most of what you said.
There are also a not-insignifigant number of people that struggle when at home 100%. Some people are rock stars and able to just get stuff done. But a lot of people are not, sadly, organized enough to handle such an unstructured environment and able to still be effective.
This isnt a new thing due to covid or the move, but a LOT of folks just do better with a hard separation of work/life and a lot of folks arent self aware enough to know they need it.
As someone that can and has worked remote, and chooses to come back, it can be frustrating working with people that struggle with these things, and I definitely see differences between home work and office work in some. I actually work in an office because its much easier to maintain balance. I tend to work too much from home and it causes burnout but I also have kids/family that come home early and dont really understand that just because im home doesnt mean i can sit down and talk at their convenience. What I mean is that work/life balanace is harder. So i choose to commute 99% of the time and can WFH when needed.
But i have one guy that had had this issue chronically for years where he often struggles to communicate, is easily distracted, often needed to be micro managed or have his tasks organized, prioritized and in some cases, even steps spelled out. He does well enough to mostly be of help (so hes not gonna get fired), but he complains about lack of upward mobility or lack of raises, but when the SHTF, hes always got excuses locked and loaded about why hes behind or cant complete a project/task.
Conversely I have a guy thats AMAZING from wherever. Never has issues and is always way ahead of the curve. Hes also full time remote but excels at it.
It just depends on the person in a lot of cases and frankly, in my very small use cases, many/most arent the type that are capable of the self discipline needed for the task. Now that said Im not at google or one of those places that hires rockstars in buckets, so they reasons they are RTO are likely different from my orgs.
Of my team, i would say at least a cool 60% are just much less…themselves from home and easily distracted. Either because they segment their life (which is fine and awesome, i do that too), or because they dont have a good setup at home, or because they are just too easily distracted at home.
It’s easy, a lot of companies have board members who are also board members in office space companies.
Owners and executives may own companies that own the buildings and don’t want their investments to fail.
Going back to in-person now would absolutely wreak havoc on my psyche bc no one at my company knows what I look like or what I actually do so I’d rather keep it that way
why are companies trying so hard to have employees back in the office?
Managers generally don’t know how to manage people, so point fingers at WFH (or anything else that’s handy)
Managers are managers because they’re good at playing power games, not because they’re competent at their jobs. Power games are much harder if you never see the people you manage. Managing in a predominantly WFH environment will be very different and a lot of people who are successful now will fail in this world. That’s what they’re scared of.
I read some research paper not too long ago that showed how a majority of managers promoted from within are bad at their jobs because they got all their experience in other jobs along the way to management that are not even remotely similar to the tasks required for management, thus they don’t actually develop skills that make for good managers.
Like just because you flipped burgers really good at McDonald’s doesn’t mean you would be good at managing other burger flippers.
There is a concept, known as the Peter Principle, that says people will rise to the level of their incompetence. Basically, anyone who is good at a job gets promoted. That keeps happening until they finally end up in a job where they are not good. And that is where they will stay.
Exactly. There are many managers out there that have picked up a few management skills, put in to a management role over jobs that they have no clue about. Theyre frequently a big dick and create hostile company culture.
Makes sense, but you see the opposite all the time. Someone who has little experience, but has a fresh degree or an MBA in management. They might have learned some management concepts, possibly even supervised people in the past… but they have no idea how the organization truly functions, they don’t know what their team is really doing and if one of their team members or an SME is gone they have no idea what to do other than bark orders at the other team members because they have never done the work themselves.
In an ideal world, you would find someone who was excelling at the vasious jobs they would be managing and then put them into a management training program or pay for their schooling.
Oh for sure. The last decade, most of the jobs I’ve had tell me they want to eventually make me a manager; but then they never actually train me how to manage so I never take the position.
It’s called the Peter Principle.
Ive not had many managers in my working life with actual people skills…
I think there was literally a management consultant quoted on CBC that said most managers rely on time in office as their only measure of productivity.
Humanity has done many atrocities, but that’s somehow just as disappointing if true. Like, measuring and increasing productivity is the entire point of that job, isn’t it?
