why are companies trying so hard to have employees back in the office?
why are companies trying so hard to have employees back in the office?
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're viewing a single thread.
-
First, a lot of studies have shown the productivity boost for WFH may not be uniform or actually exist. Whether the possible productivity boost is worth the money on office space hasn't been answered, it is likely more in that gray area than WFH proponents want it to be.
Second, while generic work productivity is about the same level, teaching new skills isn't. We have data showing educating from home has been worse for students, and that seems to be filtering into the office place. Junior staff aren't picking up skills fast enough and are probably a major reason why WFH productivity measures are lower than expected. It isn't because new staff are lazy, just that they have fewer people to ask questions to and don't ask as many questions in general.
Third, building and maintaining a work network has fallen apart. People don't know others in an office, which can be a problem in flat company structures where communication is not expected to go through the boss only. So you have people who feel like they are doing productive work, but aren't talking to others. This can cause a lot of rework that the managers see in slipping deadlines.
That said, the answer seems to be hybrid for these jobs as workers won't tolerate full time in the office anymore. However, hybrid has been a clusterfuck in a lot of companies because the hybrid model is new and not everyone knows how to manage to it.
-
I just wanted to say that this is pretty much the most well thought out answer on WFH I've seen. It's nuanced and balanced.
Thank you.
-
You're welcome.
As you can see from some of the replies, there is the assumption that bosses and executives are evil and trying to make the worker's lives worse, but I don't see that in a lot of these discussions.
I can also see how some staff may see themselves as being more productive yet their managers may see less productivity within their department overall.
-
I am absolutely happy for the people I manage to stay home if they have real work to do. They can clearly do whatever they prefer, even work from the beach as far as I am concerned, but I know that going to the office is a waste of time. But the job we do is project based, long deadlines, no real "daily business" to handle. It however requires maximum focus, because it is not trivial. Offices are hells for concentration and quality work.
They can stay at home and call whenever they want whoever they want.
It has been working great.
It really depends on the positions. Office spaces are very bad for some positions, good fo others. Pushing a unique way of working for fishes and elephants cannot work. This is the main problem with current approach
-
There are some teams that can maintain full remote; I usually find those teams are filled with people good at their job, can see the big picture, and know to communicate early.
The problem is that not all teams are like that.
-
-
-
-
To speak to your points, I started with about 1 year ago in a new career in IT. We initially were coming in one day a week and this has moved to two days.
First, when we moved to two days, I have it about 6 weeks, then started crunching numbers. By the sole metric of closing tickets... My team as a whole is more productive in the office. I didn't break down exactly who was more of less productive, but I have my ideas. I'm willing to bet that I work better at home, but it's a moot point as the team is better on site.
As far as learning new skills, even at one day a week, I've caught up to the rest of my team and have surpassed them technically. Again, it's IT and I've always had a strong interest, whereas I see some of the team probably view it as "just work" I'm actually enjoying the work. Again, it's a second career so maybe maturity is in play here too, but even the younger guys who were hired after me are growing very quickly.
You're absolutely right about networking. I felt so isolated when I started. It wasn't until I learned a few people a few steps above where I was that I learned who is a good resource, and who I can trust. Once I got my head around that, I think people actually see the work in doing and redirect me for it. If I were 100% wfh I don't think I would be having as good a time.
Just my experience
-
Did you have any relevant experience or credentials? I'm looking to jump to a new career possibly in IT, but I have absolutely nothing on paper to sell myself with. The most I have is a few years experience in diagnostics as I was once a refrigeration tech.
-
I have no paper credentials, but I was a licensed educator, so at least it shows I can get credentials if I worked at it.
I started at a local community college party time, then transferred to my current role. Both bosses are the type like, "I can teach anyone IT, but it's hard to teach soft skills." Turns out they can't really teach IT either and I'm left to getting knowledge from my team and outside sources.
I am taking some azure fundamentals courses right now though, so I'm going that legit certs will make me more hireable
-
I'm about to bootcamp myself out of my current career and into IT. My related experience is limited and this is a major (and costly) move for me. Cashing out an old 401k to finance it. Otherwise I'd be taking a predatory loan from Sallie Mae...
I'll be starting from scratch, probably doing entry-level work. But I'm ok with that because I'll eventually be able to better provide for my family, and I'm so broke and stressed that my hair is thinning. Check out springboard or thrivedx. My bootcamp is through them (haven't decided between software engineer or cybersecurity) but handled by a local university.
-
Thanks for the info! I'll have to check that out!
-
-
-
-
Thanks for helping bring this perspective to light. Most threads on work from home go all in on productivity being higher, but don't take into account the longer term consequences of working from home on knowledge sharing, education, training, and team building. Even if productivity is higher now, that doesn't mean it will remain that way in the long run.
-
Great summary, I wish all the WFH fanatics would read and understand this. I really hate how in most online spaces they make it seem like 100% WFH is the answer for everything.
-
while generic work productivity is about the same level, teaching new skills isn't.
As someone who did his last year of college and first two years of career from home this is spot on. My senior simply refused to teach me anything, or even answering my chats and my manager didn't care. I had to learn doing inverse engineering on the excel files because I cannot even sit at his side and saw him work ans learn. I changed companies a month ago to a full-time in office position and I'm learning more in this month that what I did on the past two years (its also helps that my new manager is also a college professor and have like 40 years of industry experience).
-
Your comment reflects what my own experience has been over the past few years.
-
Thanks for your answer, you bring some great points. I'm wondering how stable hybrid is; while it does alleviate the issue with training/knowledge sharing and networking, it also looks like a compromise choice that still requires companies to pay in full for a half-empty office.
Either over time "hybrid" companies plan to reduce their office footprint by half (but then have empty days and "overbooked" ones, making the "in-office" part of the experience potentially even worse) or they are just hoping to create some critical mass in the office that will eventually pull most of the other employees there.
WFH works better when most people are at home or otherwise distributed (eg small groups from different offices). If you're the only one calling into a meeting room where everyone else is sitting in person, it tends to suck.
Same for being in-office. It's productive if all the people you need to talk to are also in, on the day you go. Otherwise you just commuted 1 hour or more to have the same zoom calls in a noisier environment.
So I feel like there must be some sort of "gravitational" pull where it gets more convenient to be at home/in the office based on how many people are making the same choice.
-