This is my response to both your comment and TFA. There is less consensus on this topic than the very-vocal WFH crowd would have you believe. I know plenty of other talented engineers that feel similarly to me. They aren't dogmatic about it, but they prefer working with their teammates in the office.

Sure, you don't need to write everything down - but how many times could someone have simply RTFM if people were more in the habit of documenting institutional knowledge among other things? Even just defaulting to email discussions would help keep track of things much better.

And yeah, when I'm working with other people, I make a point to hang out in a BigBlueButton or other similar instance, with a note with my phone number there, as well as putting in my email signature line my phone and a note that I'm available for videconference.

Of course, sometimes it makes sense to do check-ins (e.g. for onboarding) or a pairing session, but that can also be scheduled.

I also tend to forget things that were just said in personal interactions or meetings. If it's written down, I can look it up.

People who want an office to work in are just as valid as people who want to work from home. It's the people who want to force RTO on everyone that are real assholes.

It reduces commute time. - This saves environmental and energy costs

- It increases worker productivity because now they commute time is recovered

- Commute time was not accounted for in contracts, and was a cost of doing business. It is no longer the case.

A common complaint is that Coordination costs have increased. However Data is missing for this. Further, Coordination activities are achievable online. Competitive firms will adapt and thrive. Bad firms will and should die.

Other benefits: - Less money is spent on rent, Especially in high rent locations. This means that more money is available for R&D, or to give to shareholders

- Rent Money is now distributed across geographies - and will favor regions with lower costs of living. This spreads talent and wealth broadly, increasing chances for entrepreneurship and new businesses to flourish in those locations

WFH was considered infeasible, but COVID provided hard evidence not only was it feasible, it was feasible at scale.

The data has been updated, so our position has changed. Expanding the economic pie makes us all better off. WFH is probably one of the more interesting economic revolutions we will see in the developed world.

Also, I've been in this industry for 17 years. Malwarebytes (VP), Vicarious (VP), Rad AI (VP), Explosion AI, Aptible, and now Comcast. Every one of those companies except Vicarious had a remote or hybrid culture, and it's worked great for all of them. You absolutely can "arbitrarily mix people with different modes" as long as you have good management.

There's a third option beyond forcing everyone into boxes in the middle of nowhere (old and busted) and everyone working from home (new old hotness).

My point is that if 5/100 people want to work in the office and 95/100 don’t, that’s fine.

If 5/100 want to work in an office with 100 people, and force the others to return against their wishes that’s * not* fine.

They can have their preference, but it seems wrong to me for their preference to override the preference of others.

> I’m not a CEO so it’s not my place to decide what a company does or doesn’t do.

Funny, because I’m the owner of my company, but I don’t think employees should defer their decision making to a CEO.

An employee can have an opinion, and even demand their preference. CEOs can’t actually make a unilateral decision on this. Labor absolutely gets a say. If the CEO says “RTO or you’re fired”, and 95/100 people say “okay, bye”, then that company won’t RTO.

Just about this. We've seen again and again that they will.

I don't understand what is happening well enough to explain CEOs destroying their companies before conceding this to the employees, but this is clearly a thing common enough for it to be the default expectation.

And that's my main criticism of the article. Those CEOs clearly are not doing some random bullshit. They are doing some completely intentional and heavily desired thing. IDK what is their reasoning or if it's aligned with the company's goals, but they do have the intention.

This is the part I was disagreeing with. The CEO does not make that call. The CEO and labor negotiation over that call.

If you view it as just the CEO's decision, you've ceded a tremendous amount of power.

But, actually, it's a shared decision between the CEO and the entire body of workers. If the body of workers all reject the CEO's decision, then...that decision will get reversed.

Yes, in a particular scenario.

If it improved productivity so much that it exceeds the work required to commute to the office, and the employer is willing to pay for that commute (both in cost and employee time), then sure. If the productivity gain is so large that if offsets the cost/time of the commute, and the employer is willing to pay for that time, then I think RTO makes sense.

I will prioritize my own needs, my own life, my own comfort, over the "productivity" or profit of a company every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

And frankly, so should we all. This obsessive focus on enabling companies to make more money, regardless of what it means for us regular workers as human beings, is utterly ruinous and needs to stop.

Every industry, every company, every team, and every project is different. What works in some places and times doesn't work in others.

You have to decide for yourself and your team/company if RTO is what is best, and don't take other's lived experience as your own.

I don't understand this response and it come off as incredibly rude.

What I'm asking is whether it ever makes sense for a firm to do something against the preferences of employees if it demonstrably increases productivity.

> You have to decide for yourself and your team/company if RTO is what is best, and don't take other's lived experience as your own.

I genuinely think you might be responding to the wrong comment or something. Where did I "take other's lived experience as your own"? Am I misinterpreting your response?

I've already said in this thread that I'm open to both arrangements. I'm not a zealot on either side of this conversation, and it bothers me that you're assuming I am. There's pros and cons to both. You put forward a scenario that for whatever reason inspired me to present a hypothetical situation because I was curious what your response would be.

I am not trying to be rude, but the way you asked the question "Hypothetically, would you still feel this way of it turned out that everyone being in the office (remember this is a magical hypothetical) has a significant and demonstrable improvement in productivity?" is leading to a yes or no answer to a hypothetical question with a lot of missing quantifiers (the lived experience). Neither answer is wrong, and neither answer is right.

A better question would have been: "_Have you_ experienced a demonstrable improvement in productivity from being in the office in yourself or others?" Personally, I have not. Going to the office wastes a lot of my day getting ready to leave the house (unhooking laptop and charger), commuting back and forth, etc. The only time being in the office is a net positive is when I need to get like 6+ people into a conference room for a few hours and get them all to agree to something. These type of meetings only happen every few months.

For the record, you're talking to different people. You asked the question to me, and I responded. guhidalg is a different person in the conversation.

That said, personally is the key word. I manage a team. I love seeing employees together and aligning on things in person where possible - but totally understand if this does not suit their schedule that day or week. It often does not work with mine.

It's the small human mistakes that are innocent and spontaneous - like inevitably spilling coffee on myself - that keep us humble.

Some fit the remote world entirely never wanting to see the inside of an office again, some thrive off rubbing shoulders with colleagues. I found it difficult to not have social engagements outside of family during the darker periods of the COVID-19 pandemic. I also found myself working longer hours, not having solid disconnected time or neglecting my health physically and mentally.

I believe we still have a lot to learn about how to work best remotely. Businesses should invest in making this as normal as possible - for example enforcing a work-from-desk policy for calls has helped normalise communication. I do worry slightly about those younger graduates coming into the industry now that have never had the experience of working in an office.

To the frustration of my then boss, I noticed that I (and a lot of other coworkers) used RTO as a way to reduce our hours to ~40/week and not spend our nights and weekends with our work laptops open nearby.

I enjoy going to the office from time to time, and if you establish no rules, I'm pretty likely to go to the office about 2-3X per week and coordinate those days with others, because I'm also a social human being.

I also enjoy being able to see my partner for a week here and there. Some have a "4 week work-from-anywhere policy", but if you're in an LDR you know 4 weeks per year is really not enough.

I don't see the OP assuming that. Not everyone enjoyed it but for those of use who did going back is not desirable.

This was the line I was directly responding to.

There's a mile wide difference between "my preference is to be vegetarian" where people will get out the stops to provide accommodations and "my preference is everyone must keep vegetarian."

I don't personally hold that view, but I know people (including individual contributors) who do and, depending on why you think in-office work is good, it's an entirely reasonable view for some people and some companies to take.

I understand the argument, I still don't think it's valid. Companies are made up of heterogeneous individuals with not only different preferences on how to work, but different work styles, different flexibility needs, different energy cycles. One of my current teammates has Crohn's and is a fantastic programmer but there's no way he could work 8 hrs in an office. For myself, I have really bad ADHD and working in the office means I will be completely dependent on stimulants instead of being able to work around it most days.

You can't put the cat back in the bag that made the whole world collectively realize that for most jobs being in an office building wasn't the real requirement we all thought it was.

There are discussions and topics that just work better in-person. If you think you have (or could arrange to have) 0% or 3% those types of conversations, you're fine to work fully remote. If you think you have 70% or 90% those types of conversations, you're logically going to want to RTO to whatever extent you're prioritizing company outcomes.

What is the value differential--in dollars--of these in-person conversations? All I'm seeing are vague speculations.

People and companies who want to associate in a different way should also be allowed to.

That lets some people and some companies choose RTO, others choose hybrid, and others choose remote-only.

I shouldn't be able to force my beliefs onto you, nor you onto me (we probably largely agree; I'm pro-remote overall); to the extent that there's an imbalance in supply and demand, there's a lot of room for prices to adjust the balance. If companies need to pay a premium for RTO, they can choose that.

Ultimately the argument is about control, extorting and coercing compliance under threat to some will. The alternative is a relaxing of control. In that model no one tells you to work in the office, and no one tells you to not. Instead of management exerting coercive control their job would become ensuring productivity given a lack of control.

Tax advantages are part of the story, but the other part of the story is most managers aren’t very good at managing people. They’re in their job through some career twist, either under the delusion that management gives them scale of influence or because they don’t really like computers that much and went to CS for a career. The easier policy to enforce is the coercive one because it requires no thought, and it’s uniform in its application. The harder one for management is figuring out how to adapt to a changing environment and maximize productivity by understanding their people and how they work and smoothing the landscape for them.

This challenge extends not just to the line managers but to the CEOs and everyone between. None of them are usually very good people managers. Often senior management are better at strategy and manipulation of the organization. They are perplexed by ambiguity, and when you’re used to being in control being perplexed is uncomfortable. And when you feel like you’re in charge you don’t have to feel uncomfortable alone, you can make it someone else’s problem. Layoffs, resignations, turmoil are all issues they are used to. But a changing work environment that fundamentally rethinks the structure of corporate engagement that’s focused on lack of control in exchange for productivity and reduced operating expenses and freeing up of capital? That’s scary stuff, and they don’t need to feel scared - it’s easier for them to make you feel scared.

Anyway - tax agreements expire, leases lapse, cultures adapt, management learns new playbooks, and things change. In 5 years the cold hard dollars will win - eventually no board will accept hand waving culture arguments when confronted with an improved EPS, freeing of cash flow, and reduced capital commitments coupled with improved morale and productivity and the “Bring your own office” moment will be here. BYOD saves a few million a year, BYOO will save dump trucks of money. It will happen.

Disclaimer, I just quit my cushy senior exec job at a mega cope over RTO and joined a forward late stage startup with a mixture of remote and in office “work the way you work best” structure.

Now, we're being told to do hybrid, but there's no peer friendships because it's hotdesking, and the senior personnel are no longer nearby (they're at home or on a different floor) ... so there's no "return", we're not going back to what we had, we don't have our own desks anymore.

Management acknowledge that office days (we're hybrid) will be low in productivity, but no changes to productivity requirements. It's all about collaboration, except you're next to random people you've never met and you can't talk because it's open plan and you'll disturb everyone.

None of the reasons given for return fit the reality (in my office), but they probably make sense for senior managers (who seem unable to see past the end of their own noses).

Time to get a new job.

It’s not all bad but it’s not all good either.

Just as an example, I see people complain (a lot) about “cameras on” policies. This is the result of a company trying to eliminate an issue that they are seeing from non-participation to potential instances of fraud. They want to do return to office, but this is a “let’s find a middle ground” step.

And yet, people will act as if it’s the end of the world. The alternative is being in the room itself. You have to pick your battles.

There need to be better more reliable ways of measuring this and affording those who are able to be productive while remote the option. Those who aren’t as productive WFH don’t get the choice.

Unless being a slacker becomes a protected class companies will hire the productive people, given a choice.

The former can be somewhat measured by in-effective methods such as lines of code produced, revenue per emp in division, and other measures. The latter via surveys.

A company's direct objective it to turn a profit. Their indirect objective is might be to do that via retaining productive workers, or they may take a churn approach. Is it surprising they'd put more effort and weight on the former (prod) than the latter (better for people)?

What math function allows you to strike the correct balance between the 2 measures. For some employees you might make them maximally satisfied by paying them a lot to do nothing. For others they might want little to no money for socially rewarding work. It's not going to be the same for every person.

So in your mind what's the right optimization function for this equation?

just what in the hell are you thinking?

I always point out that most "productivity" numbers assume the costs of commuting hours/fuel are $0, because it measures from the perspective of employer costs, and it assumes the employer has used their bargaining-position to force all those variable-costs entirely onto the employees.

So we've got (A) a misleading "productivity boost" sometimes being used to rationalize (B) one-sided policies which are (C) probably not sustainable in the long-term anyway.

If you already have a set of employees, and you demand they all come in, you are selecting against people who know they can sustain their lifestyle by moving to another company.

Only problem with low enough productivity enough to be bumped down to becoming totally unemployable don’t get the choice. These also are the people who are most likely to follow an in-office mandate. It seems like a bad filter to apply.

I see this assertion every time the WFH/RTO topic is brought up, but there's never any data to back it up. Mind changing that?

If you (royal you - anybody who wants to make this claim) really want to claim that many people are measurably more productive at the office, we'll need studies to counter those done which show WFH is more productive than working from the office.

I really don't think it's a controversial statement that some people work better from home and some people work worse from home. In fact, I'd be extremely surprised if the opposite was true (everyone works better from home, or everyone works better in the office), I'd almost say that's impossible.

I think some people _are_ more productive WFH. But also there are lots of people who become quite unproductive WFH. Direct managers can often tell.

I don't know of a study that says one way or another, but from experience those two kinds of people exist (among other kids of people).

I mean this is true in the scenario where demand for their skills outstrips the supply of available workers with said skills.

In a different scenario, where tech jobs are being reduced across the board (due to return to normal interest rates and VC funding slowing down), such an "aren't going back" ultimatum isn't necessarily going to be compatible with "I need a job."

And of course, if you believe Microsoft, ChatGPT is going to start eating tech jobs left and right any day now.

The economy runs in boom and bust cycles, and the winds are shifting. The tech environment from 2020-2022 was extremely weird, and the balance of power now is shifting back to management. Management knows that (at least some) workers highly value remote work, and they're not going to hand that out for free.

The only certainty here is change, and as tech workers lose leverage, "remote work" moves from a default assumption to an item that must be negotiated for (perhaps in exchange for some total compensation) - if it's available at all.