Pandemic did something that was never possible, show that doing effective work without having to physically put yourself in a specific location was always possible. Higher productivity and record company profits show that it is totally possible. Any push towards bringing people in to work is just about preference now.
The other thing that working remote has done is that it has disillusioned a lot of people. It’s harder to drink the cool aid when you can easily distance yourself. This has also meant all the corporate lies and bullshit are easily called out. And that is where the management struggles and wants to push for in person work. Employees have taken back a lot of power from the management and that is something that doesn’t sit well with them.
I was surprised at how content-free Malcolm Gladwell's position on this really is. The bit about "feeling necessary" really grates and the bit about "sitting in your pajamas" strikes me reductive and borderline insulting.
> “As we face the battle that all organizations are facing now in getting people back into the office, it’s really hard to explain this core psychological truth, which is we want you to have a feeling of belonging and to feel necessary,” he said.
> Gladwell added that it was “not in your best interest to work at home.”
> “I know it’s a hassle to come into the office, but if you’re just sitting in your pajamas in your bedroom, is that the work life you want to live?” he questioned. “Don’t you want to feel part of something?”
This idea that if I don't sit through a boring and pointless commute, then sit in an office all day (no matter how much work may need to be done) in order to feel like I "belong" or that I'm "necessary" is entirely unhinged. The tone here that people just "don't know what's good for them" sounds pretty sanctimonious.
I don't work in my pajamas and frankly I don't know anyone who does. My wardrobe is different these days - I wear a pair of comfortable shorts and a polo shirt. I'm groomed and professional. If I want a change of scenery I go to a coffee shop. It's been working out quite well for me and others on my team.
And don't forget WFH vs working in the office are not two sides of a coin where you can pick and choose your adventure and it costs about the same -- working from an office has notably lower productivity (look at the non-FANG studies), costs way, way more for the employee and the employer, and has an unconsciounable carbon footprint (commuting, running AC in the offic 24/7, real estate, vehicles, etc etc).
While I love to hate on forced-in-office work as much as the next guy - the AC point is actually the opposite of the truth. During the hottest hours of the day it's more efficient to cool down a single large space for many people than have everyone running their AC at home - now if your office likes to keep the temperature at 14C and forces most employees to bring in a space heater to keep from getting chills then that's a perfectly valid point... but most offices keep a "reasonable" temperature.
I can believe as a one-to-one comparison, cooling an office is more efficient. But people aren't turning off their home AC when they go into the office. If you figure that a majority of people won't even schedule their thermostat due to laziness, having other people at home, etc, and if even if they do, having their house cool down for their arrival home (5:30-6PM?) is still during a pretty hot time of day.
I would be pretty surprised if offset you could anywhere near the cooling of an entire office building considering all that.
I'm coming from the perspective of Texas where it's 100F effectively all day during the summer and I wouldn't move the thermostat from it's usual daytime setting of ~76F past maybe ~80F. Any more and it would take hours to cool back down.
This is just isn't true. Way way more AC gets used when offices are involved than when they are not (especially if the office building didn't exist in the first place in the flipside scenario). They leave office AC on 24/7, and people leave their home AC on anyway, so it has a multiplicative effect on carbon footprint.
how about the offset on all the vehicles on the road? People still need to cool their homes reasonably while at work (people, pets) when they're not there so the difference might be less important. also this makes the assumption you're living in a place that needs AC. Commute is all year, AC usage maybe not.
Yes, but it could definitely be true of literally every single desk job. There are also many manufacturing, retail, and warehouse jobs that could be done by someone controlling a robot over the internet. If that becomes practical one could envision a 100% WFH economy. IMO it's an inevitability and is way way more practical than autonomous robots replacing jobs.
Can you link to some of these studies? I feel like a lot of articles / comments are pointing to said studies, but rarely link to them. Looking at the people and companies around me I would personally take such a broad conclusion with a grain of salt.
Much of what middle management does is justify its existence. Without being in the office, it is a whole lot harder to justify this existence for people who spend their days in meetings talking about what will happen in other meetings. You can significantly cut these roles out and gain productivity.
I agree. The pandemic weakened the position of a lot of corporate bullshitters.
On the other hand, if management can figure out this asynchronous, remote, results-driven world, they gain a lot of flexibility w.r.t to labor. It's hard to find skilled people. If you can hire globally, it should be a big advantage.
Just because profits are higher after the occurrence of working from home, doesn’t mean it is because of it. This is a common logical and statistical fallacy to attribute causality from observation.
That may be true - but at this point the crowd that yells "Working from home lowers productivity and wrecks the economy" is the one that's going to need to actually get some statistics to prove their point.
Neither stance should be taken as a given and, additionally, it's going to vary from person to person - I know some people that were chomping at the bit to get back into the office because they exist best in that sort of a structured environment... and I know a lot who looked at their commute and said "Nah, I'll pass."
Anecdotally it also looks like productivity / output depends not just on the person but also the organization / team. Probably not feasible to say as a blanket statement either way if WFH is more or less productive.
I agree with this comment. I think as we condition from profession to team to company culture - assuming there is anything causal with WFH - some may be more productive, while others less so.
Remote work isn't just about the company results though (their profits, their effectivity), the point they're making in the article, which I believe in, is the effect on the human wellbeing. On average a lot of people might benefit from a more intimate/collegial environment (which the article says), and depending on your personality and skills it may be harder for some young people to get ahead when not being in the office (they might not be noticed, they might not build the right networks or be part of serendipitous important conversations etc.). I think we're moving fast to a world where many knowledge workers are becoming zero-career fend-for-yourself, kpi-only, you-wont-have-an-office, we-dont-know-you, "widget cranking" gig workers, and trust me that only benefits the shareholders and "the company"..
"I think we're moving fast to a world where many knowledge workers are becoming zero-career fend-for-yourself, kpi-only, you-wont-have-an-office, we-dont-know-you, "widget cranking" gig workers, and trust me that only benefits the shareholders and "the company".."
Employers will do that anyway no matter you are at the office or not.
You may want to re-read the article. You’re welcome to prefer working at an office, but the article is heartily roasting a person’s hypocrisy: he famously works remotely himself, but advocates a return to the office for others.
As far as the substance of your opinion as expressed, I’ve worked remotely for the vast majority of the last two decades. There have been times (and specific jobs) I could say matched some of what you describe, other times (including my current role) where there’s no resemblance whatsoever.
But importantly, in no case would I want anyone to arbitrarily determine for me what working arrangement would be best for my wellbeing, unless I’ve been deemed incompetent. I’d certainly listen if a friend outside of work said they think I’d benefit from more time working in an office. But I’m definitely not interested in that insight from business leaders, hypocritical authors, or randos on the Internet.
In short: you want to work in an office? Great, go work in an office!
The number of people getting ahead at a company is very close to zero sum. Someone needs to manage the team, someone needs to get work done, and companies need to pay market rate for both. Saying some type of people are better off in an equally effect system just means some other group of people are worse off in it.
As to knowledge workers fending for themselves, it’s mostly a question if a company can make full use of an employees specialization. Employees cost less per hour and prioritize the companies work, but must be paid based on the market rate for their most valuable skills. That basic preference for employees isn’t going away.
You're welcome :) hence why I'm NOT speaking about "you" or "me".. and I'm not talking about the fluffy social side only - there's a lot of interesting studies (incl our own below) and many areas of modern work sucks and that it seems like the more we've moved to remote work in the last couple of years the more we've seen increases in things like working late, doing duplicate work, time spent in unnecessary meetings[1]. Also, we've seen that working parents with children at home are also experiencing a higher level of imposter syndrome (67%) vs non-parents (57%)[2]. Suffice to say "remote work" isn't the answer for everyone and everything (and funnily enough if you read paper #2, turns out people prefer a mix)
“Employees have taken back a lot of power from the management…”
Power?
The only power employees have is the power to quit en masse. A spasmodic riot. Mutiny—which no manager wants on their watch.
If employees continue to WFH it’s still by the consent of the employer, even if it’s reluctant consent. At least that’s the case in New York, an “at-will employment” state.
The other thing that working remote has done is that it has disillusioned a lot of people. It’s harder to drink the cool aid when you can easily distance yourself. This has also meant all the corporate lies and bullshit are easily called out. And that is where the management struggles and wants to push for in person work. Employees have taken back a lot of power from the management and that is something that doesn’t sit well with them.