"She said it is also likely that more companies will continue to allow or even prefer employees work from home if they can, which could also eliminate the cost of some office space."
I'm all for allowing WFH, but I fear when the up-front cost savings become more apparent, there may actually be pressure on people to do so regardless of how well it works for them. My impression is that the widespread adoption of open offices was largely for the same reasons (costs).
> I'm all for allowing WFH, but I fear when the up-front cost savings become more apparent, there may actually be pressure on people to do so regardless of how well it works for them.
I don't think that's an accurate way to think of work from home, and the "home" part is likely the problem.
Office culture is mandatory. Work-from-home is more like "office optional". Employers will likely continue to have some office space -- just less of it.
If you like noise, socializing, and structure, you can go to your company's smaller office, a coworking space, a coffee shop, or a friend's house.
If you don't like those things, stay home. Or mix it up.
Either way, eliminating office-mandatory culture is going to lead to more freedom and individualization, not less.
"Working from home can make it feel like managers have less direct supervision over workers. But an always-on video-conference tool changes that by automatically snapping webcam pictures of employees every few minutes."
There is almost a Feudal Lord timbre to the way some people talk about their employees. Must. Control. Everything. Especially. Minutiae. I've no idea how prevalent it actually is, especially since some practitioners are exceedingly loud about it. I really hope it's just confirmation bias.
At its worst I occasionally have to resist the urge to blurt out, "You know we live in a Democracy, not an Aristocracy, right?"
Well, until you go to work. Then it's dictatorship which you can leave when you chose but until you do it isn't democracy.
If you have to work, the best you can do is a benevolent dictatorship rather than one with authoritarian people who are usually clueless at top. Which sadly is many and maybe even most workplaces.
We put an awful lot of limits on what can be asked of people at work. That management bangs against these like a 10 year old testing boundaries is a little unsettling.
I've always preferred to think of myself as working on a team, but I guess even a team gets yelled at by a coach quite a lot.
11 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 34.3 ms ] threadI'm all for allowing WFH, but I fear when the up-front cost savings become more apparent, there may actually be pressure on people to do so regardless of how well it works for them. My impression is that the widespread adoption of open offices was largely for the same reasons (costs).
I don't think that's an accurate way to think of work from home, and the "home" part is likely the problem.
Office culture is mandatory. Work-from-home is more like "office optional". Employers will likely continue to have some office space -- just less of it.
If you like noise, socializing, and structure, you can go to your company's smaller office, a coworking space, a coffee shop, or a friend's house.
If you don't like those things, stay home. Or mix it up.
Either way, eliminating office-mandatory culture is going to lead to more freedom and individualization, not less.
Unless COVID-19 kills offices entirely, executives will continue to find ways to fit the most amount of people into the least amount of space.
https://www.businessinsider.com/work-from-home-sneek-webcam-...
At its worst I occasionally have to resist the urge to blurt out, "You know we live in a Democracy, not an Aristocracy, right?"
If you have to work, the best you can do is a benevolent dictatorship rather than one with authoritarian people who are usually clueless at top. Which sadly is many and maybe even most workplaces.
I've always preferred to think of myself as working on a team, but I guess even a team gets yelled at by a coach quite a lot.