Big tech eager to minimize remote working

[softyelectric]

I’m aware this isn’t the favored take on an internet forum comprised of a lot of people that are very active online, but I understand many companies hesitancy in just allowing 100% remote anywhere for everyone. I don’t think there’s a nefariousness about employee control or cynical real estate needs at the forefront for most tech businesses.

There’s a lot of benefits from the sort of “microinteractions,” informal communication, and true face-to-face connection that having a shared office space. As someone who has worked remote for various reasons for many years, I see the tremendous productivity and quality gains from both me and colleagues when I’m in the office.

When there’s little opportunity for people that work together to really connect, small issues risks being blown up because there’s no goodwill buffer built. We all know how poor internet discourse can be, and all remote all the time risks devolving work into hyperbole, misunderstandings, and assumptions of ill will.

There’s obviously examples of businesses, especially software ones, that work almost entirely remotely. But they tend to be relatively small in size and have very specific and intentional cultures built up that I think are unlikely to scale. We have to be careful not to extrapolate individual experiences (especially of Already Very Online People) onto everyone else and every business.

The pandemic has definitely exposed the lie that remote work (and I think even more importantly - flex work) can’t be done and done productively. But there is a balance. Personally I would be best I think with two days in an office, two days remote a week.

If the world shifts significantly to exclusively or near-exclusive remote work, you’ll see a competitive advantage form by companies that foster in-person collaboration and flex-work.

[Carbonman]

@WoolyBugger

I for one would rather work from an office.

@SheiffFatman

I’d rather continue to work from home.

I work from a proper office - in my home. Such is the life of having a small business. The goal is to quit working within a couple of years.
Amazon is going to be the primary tenant in the old Canada Post renovation/expansion in downtown Vancouver (a pair of towers atop the original structure), taking all the space in a newly built office tower across the street as well. Apple is taking most of the space in another tower being built across the street.
Unbelievably, Vancouver has an office space shortage.

[SheiffFatman]

@softyelectric

We have to be careful not to extrapolate individual experiences (especially of Already Very Online People) onto everyone else and every business.

Isn’t that exactly what you’re doing?

@softyelectric

There’s a lot of benefits from the sort of “microinteractions,” informal communication, and true face-to-face connection that having a shared office space. As someone who has worked remote for various reasons for many years, I see the tremendous productivity and quality gains from both me and colleagues when I’m in the office.

When there’s little opportunity for people that work together to really connect, small issues risks being blown up because there’s no goodwill buffer built. We all know how poor internet discourse can be, and all remote all the time risks devolving work into hyperbole, misunderstandings, and assumptions of ill will.

You’re taking your experiences and assuming they’re universally applicable,

[IronEdithKidd]

I notice a great reduction in productivity in the office because I find myself constantly interrupted by other people in the office. I waste a ton of time getting back into the flow of what I was doing after each interruption. Working remotely has put me in better control of such interruptions. I also find we’re having significantly fewer pointless meetings. Which is a nice bonus.

This is my observation, everyone’s mileage is going to vary.

[SheiffFatman]

@IronEdithKidd

I also find we’re having significantly fewer pointless meetings.

Plus when they do happen, I can get work done during them, rather than doodle or stare into space while bored out of my skull.

[IronEdithKidd]

I find it depends on the group. Some people are really attached to having everyone keep their cameras on. My little group mostly does camera on because we like each other. We do have “working” meetings where all cameras are off because screens are being shared, and department meetings that are a mixed bag of on and off cameras (doesn’t bother our department head at all).

[SheiffFatman]

Again, everyone is different, but I keep my camera off as much as I can because (a) I don’t want to inflict my fizzog on everyone else (b) fewer cameras means lower bandwidth usage and hence less chance of someone sounding like a beatboxing Dalek (and also, of course, (c) so I can multitask during pointless meetings without making it obvious).

[anothernewbbaccount]

Both the links in the post go to stories about Google. This is not ‘big tech’ en masse (as one of the linked reports makes clear).
@beschizza you might want to mention in the text that this is in fact a Google-specific story.

[anothernewbbaccount]

@MrWoods

I can’t see Big Tech making a decision purely on sunk cost.

Especially as closing down sections of a building can save running costs (not just power/light/heat/air - it can also result in some cleaners and security staff getting laid off). That’s exactly what my employer did a few years ago when it was clear we could no longer fill the whole complex after lay-offs. We were ‘consolidated’ on to fewer floors so a couple could be mothballed.

@gracchus

They have to fill that space

Why? Why does it have to be filled?

[mmascari]

@evadrepus

My work is beyond eager to have people back in the building. FWIW, the C-suite has been back in place for some time, even though most staff are not, per multiple reports, so they’re at least practicing what they preach.

I’ve been pushing for some flexible work time for staff, as we’ve proved that we can do the job great remotely, and the reception is more than a bit chilly.

The inability to manage an office remote work force is primarily a management problem not a remote worker one. A poor employee in the office will be a poor one remotely and a good one will be good in both.

@Gamen

at least one had a legitimate reason that he didn’t have space for home offices for both him and his wife

This is more of a real issue. At least going to an office the cost of a good workspace is on the employer. You’re kind of on your own with a home workspace, for both space and configuration. Of course, you can trade off this cost against the commuting cost, so it could be no net change.

@gracchus

@MrWoods

My expectation is that the companies believe they can get more productivity on an ongoing basis by having workers collocated.

“Believe” is the key word there. Remote work has its trade-offs, but the early indicators have been that most workers are at least as if not more productive when they work from home. I’m sure we’ll see a lot of BS narratives and commissioned studies from corporate America denying this starting in the fall, but the reality is that productivity isn’t the primary benefit to corporations for bringing people back to the office.

You’ll know they’re all BS because companies aren’t dropping huge offshore IT contracts. Having entire teams not just remote, but 8-12 hour different time zones, and an entire different company adding to the management layer. If a company is committed to that structure, there’s no reason they cannot manage the local workers as remote too. They already need all the processes and tools for dealing with remote collaboration.

Maybe someone says, “Sure, but everyone from one team is at single location it’s not team members that are distributed”. It’ll still be BS, since it’s not like multiple teams ever need to collaborate. If a business is that siloed, they’ve already got management issues.

[anothernewbbaccount]

@DukeTrout

“Hey, we can spend $29B to expand the 880 to 12 lanes, or we can mandate that companies allow any employee to work from home. Hmmm. What should we do?”

Usual answer: “nothing” - let them stew in their gridlock.

[PsiPhiGrrrl]

@softyelectric

There’s a lot of benefits from the sort of “microinteractions,” informal communication, and true face-to-face connection that having a shared office space. As someone who has worked remote for various reasons for many years, I see the tremendous productivity and quality gains from both me and colleagues when I’m in the office.

While that works for some, it’s not true for all. I’m perfectly happy without those “microinteractions” which for me are distractions. Teams can still exchange ideas during video and phone conferences, so remote work does not mean meetings end. I’m not really into reading body language or other reasons people insist we have to be in the same room.

@SheiffFatman

I’d rather continue to work from home.

Hopefully we can come up with a solution that makes everyone happy.

I think this is the attitude that positions companies and workers for greater success in the future.

@softyelectric

If the world shifts significantly to exclusively or near-exclusive remote work, you’ll see a competitive advantage form by companies that foster in-person collaboration and flex-work.

Forcing people to come into an office doesn’t mean they’ll be more productive. It’s still a huge cost and emotional toll, even if it’s fewer days per week. The advantage goes to firms that support workers in environments that function well for the people doing the work. Maybe the flex model will become video conferences between the people in a meeting room and the ones who prefer to work from home. That way, those who want in-person interactions will be satisfied, as well as those who don’t.

[softyelectric]

Please excuse, I must have not done a great job of communicating my belief of having balance. I’m not universalizing my experience onto everyone - my two main points were that 1) there are significant benefits to person-to-person interaction made possible by in-office work (in other words, 100% remote for everyone at a company isn’t all upside) and 2) that companies may have very legitimate reasons for not allowing 100% remote work and living outside commute range - reasons that are not anti-worker or just for bottom-line reasons.

To be clear as I wrote in my first post, I believe that there can and should be far more remote work than there was pre-pandemic, and for some people and jobs 100% remote might be best for both them and their employer. But that’s not universal for all people, all jobs, and all company cultures. There simply might not be a good fit between some employees that want to keep remote working all the time and companies looking to have some level of office culture.

[armozel]

I hate offices to be quite honest. I don’t get much done being around people due to my anxiety issues. Seriously, I don’t get the need to keep programmers and other office jobs in the same building. We goof off regardless of whether HR sees us or not. It’s better we goof off at home since we can work more and not waste time on commuting hell.

[SheiffFatman]

This is currently the #1 story on Hacker News:

Please don’t make me go back: Some of the reasons I hope work from home...

[Brian_Shock]

It’s interesting to me that you suggest real estate issues as the reason for Big Tech wanting workers back in commuting distance, because out here in Silicon Valley the major tech companies have an almost comical contempt for where their workers are living. Google and Amazon continue to build offices and battle over existing office space, but they don’t even provide enough parking for their employees. Major highways and surface streets from San Francisco to San Jose are ridiculously clogged during commuting hours. Valley public transportation is a joke (if not deadly during the Age of the Pandemic). Towns from one end of the peninsula to the other bend over backwards to accommodate tech companies but shun the idea of affordable housing,if only because wealthy NIMBYs don’t want to dilute the value of their real assets. The general attitude among tech executives seems to be that they got homes already, so they don’t give a good goddamn if their employees have to commute two hours each way (which I did for a while, and let me confirm that it is hellish and soul-killing).

I guess we’re just special in NoCal?

[gracchus]

@DukeTrout

“Hey, we can spend $29B to expand the 880 to 12 lanes, or we can mandate that companies allow any employee to work from home. Hmmm. What should we do?”

We’re going to look back on this pandemic and immediate post-pandemic period as one of lost opportunities for societal change. The only institutions taking lessons are those that control the borders of nation-states. They’ve taken the occasion to refine the ways in which they can limit the movement of people in and out. It’ll come in handy as the issue of climate refugees becomes more pressing. Otherwise, though, it’s back-to-the-office BS like this.

@softyelectric

But there is a balance. Personally I would be best I think with two days in an office, two days remote a week.

If that works for you personally, that’s great. Google could easily do that for most of its employees, but that’s no longer their plan. Consider the real reasons why such an innovative, forward-looking company would go back to everyone having to be in the office.

As I said above, there are trade-offs to remote work. Some workplaces, especially creative spaces, tend to thrive on having everyone there in person. I’d still wager that at least 80% of jobs done in American offices (including most software coding) could be done 100% remotely with no real loss in productivity (which, again, is the main metric corporate America is going to use as the reason to bring workers back in).

@anothernewbbaccount

Why? Why does it have to be filled?

As with all such questions, the answer comes down to $$$. Specifically as managed by myopic MBAs.

@mmascari

You’ll know they’re all BS because companies aren’t dropping huge offshore IT contracts.

Exactly. Managing call centres is even easier. Your points about bad management being a core problem are excellent.

@armozel

I hate offices to be quite honest.

They’re not really my thing, either. I haven’t worked in a standard corporate office in decades, except for brief visits to clients’ offices (as much for my own convenience as theirs).

That said, I really did enjoy working in the newsroom when I was in TV news. I also rented a desk for a couple of years in a design professional’s collaborative shop, which I remember fondly.

Both were populated by very smart, very funny people, and goofing off (of the un-forced variety) was considered part of the creative process. Management was light-handed to non-existent, as was the presence of HR. In other words, they weren’t standard corporate offices (where I wouldn’t last 9 months).

@Brian_Shock

out here in Silicon Valley the major tech companies have an almost comical contempt for where their workers are livin

Cupertino is the poster child for that. Millions of square feet of office space for one company alone, and a tiny fraction of that for residential space (mostly in the form of insanely pricey luxury SFHs). As you say, crappy parking for car commuters and public transit (local an regional) a joke.

@Brian_Shock

I guess we’re just special in NoCal?

As in many things, Silicon Valley is a heightened version of what you find going on elsewhere in late-stage capitalist America.

[softyelectric]

@mmascari

The inability to manage an office remote work force is primarily a management problem not a remote worker one. A poor employee in the office will be a poor one remotely and a good one will be good in both.

Respectfully I disagree big-time on this. I think there’s some employees that shine in the office, and struggle greatly at home, and vice-versa. I have heard from so many extroverts and people with volatile home life (even just having children around, or worse, difficult home situations) that are very quietly suffering by working from home.

Conversely there’s folks that really get distracted or worse from being in-office and really excel without others around.

[lava]

I don’t think its about real estate. I think its about oversight over employees, and feeling in control.

[mmascari]

@PsiPhiGrrrl

Maybe the flex model will become video conferences between the people in a meeting room and the ones who prefer to work from home. That way, those who want in-person interactions will be satisfied, as well as those who don’t.

In the before times, when having a mixed meeting with some remote and some in the room, we found that adding a camera showing the room was a huge help. We didn’t need everyone on camera, just the room. Also, sharing a screen and using digital tools to draw instead of a white board, huge help.

A problem with a mixed audience meeting is frequently the phone being ignored or unable to break in. Having the room on camera became a great help for the remote team on being able to interject and stay connected.

An all remote meeting tends to develop a different cadence as everyone is only listening to voices.

@gracchus

As I said above, there are trade-offs to remote work. Some workplaces, especially creative spaces, tend to thrive on having everyone there in person. I’d still wager that at least 80% of jobs done in American offices (including most software coding) could be done 100% remotely with no real loss in productivity (which, again, is the main metric corporate America is going to use as the reason to bring workers back in).

Exactly. If the job is done all using a computer screen. Save for meetings done on a whiteboard and then transcribed into a computer screen. Then, it might as well be done wherever is convenient for the person and the computer screen to be.

If you’re working in the print room, creating sculptures, or some other physical thing, sure that’s not remote work. But, how many office jobs are really “knowledge workers” primarily working on information?

@gracchus

Exactly. Managing call centers is even easier. Your points about bad management being a core problem are excellent.

I’ve worked remote for 18 (maybe over 20?) years now. With an 18 month stint back in an office in the last 5 when I changed jobs before going back remote. Over that time, even within companies across departments, I’ve seen different acceptance of remote work. Sometimes for exactly the same type of work. How well it worked and who was allowed to do it always came down to two things. What’s the leadership direction from the top, and who the next level manager was. The top leadership impacts what tools are available and sets an important tone. Are remote work requests “default approved, managers need to show cause to deny” or are they “employee needs to show cause and convincing to allow and managers can reject for any reason”.