Who thought a video like this was a good idea? If you "aren't asking or negotiating at this point", why aren't first-level managers just telling employees to get back into the office or find another job?
Amazon's approach to RTO seemed broadly effective at getting workers into the office even though it was largely bungled at level of fine details.
1. Track badging
2. Enforce RTO via chain-of-command. SVPs, VPs, and directors have aggregate RTO compliance metrics. SVPs crack the whip on VPs to get their numbers up, VPs crack the whip on their directors, and directors crack the whip on their reports, and so on, all the way down.
The actual implementation of the policy was a mess and there was poor messaging especially at the beginning. I'm pretty sure it still doesn't take PTO or illnesses into account — if there's an issue with that, you're supposed to work it out with your manager — and from what I heard they simply handled the holidays by excluding the work weeks before and after Christmas from the metrics. But, ultimately, the chain of command approach appears to have worked very well in terms of actually getting people to come in.
edit: Just noticed from your profile that you also work at Amazon, so I guess there's nothing new in my comment for you :)
Having worked at Amazon through RTO I can tell you that it was effective at getting a lot of people to come in, but no one is happy about it and it has made work much less efficient and productive for everyone.
Most people are maliciously complying. They will come in at 11:45, grab lunch, and then leave. The clever ones then come back late at night to badge in and out again after 6pm so it looks like they were there all day, just outside. So far they aren't counting total time on campus, but when they do those people will have good numbers.
But it means they are now not working during those drive times. And they ones that are coming in all day waste a ton of everyone's time, including the remote people, looking for meeting rooms and setting up video calls, because every meeting still requires video, since all the teams are spread out over multiple offices.
And they also had to resort to denying promotions and raises for anyone who didn't RTO.
Yep, that's all true. Like I said, bungled at the level of fine details, pretty questionable if it was a good decision, but largely effective at actually getting people to come in.
People do work noticeably shorter days, a handful of people come in for less than 30 minutes (huge waste of resources and time), and yeah, there is a morale problem.
One thing I have noticed is that the more co-located a team is, the more people behave like pre-Covid — in at 9:30, out at 5. Satellite workers who are coming in are the most unhappy (for obvious reasons) and are the most likely to badge in, grab a coffee and check their emails, and then leave and finish the day at home.
Amazon is moving from being a ruthlessly-efficient corporation to becoming a pennywise pound-foolish, stifling bureaucracy to make office workers miserable and drive away talent.* As Amazon's inability to do either WfH or RTO properly, it's footgunning itself with lower productivity, lower momentum, and lower competitiveness that the Target's, Costco's, and Walmart's of the world can and will exploit. If I were the Motley Fool, I would slap a "sell" rating on AMZN because the Bezos era has ended and the era of hyperdeep PHB MBA management pyramids has begun.
* They already do their best to make delivery drivers' and warehouse workers jobs as inhuman and miserable as possible.
People are so naive to think that the big tech firms don't know exactly what theyre doing. They all more or less operate the same way.
If someone is a top performer within a highly valued part of the org, then one way or another they will be able to navigate RTO without serious problems.
For everyone else, RTO is a dial for management to fine tune voluntary attrition before having to resort to more unpleasant tools like higher PIP quotas, at a time where big tech firms all still need to cut employee costs.
My (now former) neighbor worked as a manager at AWS. Their team was ~10 people who were largely remote around the world, their job role required extensive travel, and required much time in meetings with external parties. Nothing about it is conducive to RTO and it's more like an external sales position that was traditionally WfH in tech even before COVID to save on office costs. They received the RTO ultimatum from corporate and bought a house in another area. ]:
You mean they bought a house assuming they could WFH and the RTO mandate forced them to quit since it was too far away? Or they said no to the ultimatum and bought a house elsewhere?
I don't know... I'm conjecturing a lot here, but it seems like the video was made because Bob Brisco thought it was funny, and his company's performance reviews hew towards How Often Did You Agree With Bob Brisco
The funniest part: for several hours the video itself had comments enabled(before any outside media picked it up). The employees this was directed at felt very similarly to most of the comments on HN.
Based on the message of the video I would have to guess that the video was created by folks working at home. They might have wanted to get the video done in office for better results. ;^)
Sarcasm aside, capitalism at work, really nothing to see here. They'll lose employees from the demand to work in office for the various reasons, and maybe it'll affect their bottom line, and maybe they'll learn some lessons. Or maybe they whither by not moving with the times. The websites they create are nothing that couldn't be lost.
The thing is that I'm able and frequently required to produce math that backs up my statements or feelings on a subject. I'm not right all the time, but I can demonstrate my chain of logic to others.
WebMD is mostly famous for being a thorn in the ass of doctors, when panicked patients insist that their latest symptom is definitely cancer, and not trapped wind. They're a gift to unethical pharmaceutical companies and they add little to no value.
This happened to me in my early twenties. I'd have some symptoms, look them up, and it always led to either cancer or aneurysm. It actually made me a hypochondriac for years, and I had to just stop.
The thing to realize is that the map between illnesses and symptoms is many-to-one. Given some symptoms, doctors assume the most common thing (because then they're right most of the time) and WebMD assumes the scariest thing (because it benefits their traffic).
Just the ability of ChatGPT to calmly remind people that a collection of symptoms, without a proper exam (and maybe tests) can only rarely lead to an accurate diagnosis.
The tag line at the end could be interpreted different ways and is slightly awkward, but not enough that I'd give it a second thought.
IMHO this article is just people yet again trying flex the power of shame and contempt, against something they dislike (returning to in-person work). Before you join in, just watch the video!
I would argue the video is trying to flex the executive power of a company using shame and contempt, against something they don't like (or understand?): remote work.
I would agree with your final statement and would go further: Share with any people considering work at WebMD: Better to cringe now instead of after you accept an offer.
Menace, sarcasm, shame and contempt can be presented as friendly but still have the same effect.
Here is an incomplete list of items that might fall into this list:
- The opening frame of the video, indicating no one is there because everyone is in person
- "Unfortuately, too big of a group hasn't returned"- "We need you ready and present and we need it now". Both of these indicate the employees that are working remotely are not pleasing to the senior leadership staff -- and whether they were performing well or not doesn't seem to be addressed by that same senior leadership staff. It also seems to imply the employees weren't 'ready and present' up to this point.
- The background music (which is either tone-deaf to the message or downright menacing). Iko-iko (the song) has a meaning.
Thanks. I guess I saw a clear, firm message, but not menace, and that to me it's lightened by the 'nobody there' bit (I don't suggest that my interpretation is somehow superior, just my own.)
How would you like to see the CEO and executives communicate this message, without menace? Forget that you might not agree with the message; how do they say it better?
I think the point is that the message itself is menacing, not any particular display of it. You could have a clown dance around and sing a song about how there will be consequences if you don't do X--pick any wording or presentation and it's still a threat.
To shift tacks, that's the sort of response I was talking about in the root comment. It's all about having fun flexing ridicule (the contempt and shame I was talking about earlier).
I understand that it's for laughs - and I got some enjoyment your comment - but I also think it tends to cross over into 'real life'. It's used (maybe not by the parent, but by many) as a substitute for actually examining the merits, being open-minded, curious, learning.
Under these social 'rules', if we can ridicule it, shame it, that's the end of the discussion. It crowds out people who are atypical, and who are inventive and challenging the norms and the estabilishmen (in whatever place they are). It creates a very conservative culture.
To riff on: I think people have become much less expressive, much more afraid of ridicule, as social media has enveloped our lives. When the whole world wouldn't see, it didn't matter much if you took a chance with how you dressed that day.
Have you considered that perhaps, just perhaps, it's a bad, inept and tone deaf video that is absolutely correct to ridicule? It's a possible interpretation!
What does 'correct' mean here, and what makes something 'correct to ridicule'? Other than when it's harmless, I think ridicule is toxic. It's an appeal to toxic emotions and interactions, and that spreads to other things, and especially in today's culture, it's a disease that we need to be careful about inflaming. Also, it fails to look at merits - almost the point of ridicule is to avoid that, which will lead to many mistakes, much harm, and closes the door on much innovation.
Your entire argument has been dismissing concerns about the video and then offering nothing of substance other than 'ridicule is bad'. In effect all of your comments here have offered the least amount of substance other than attempting to divert discussion away from how bad the video actually is, which is saying 'come to the office now or you're fired' with a nice bow on top.
I fear I'm going to get flamed for this asking this, but I am curious in the most genuine way, and I'm not trying to make fun of someone's medical condition but... Is the CEO a stroke victim?
> this article is just people yet again trying flex the power of shame and contempt
Exactly. Who amongst us can say that they’ve never quoted Iko Iko lyrics in a threat to employees? It is a common and normal thing that happens all the time
I think it's a threat to the competition (i.e., other companies), a bit of team spirit: when we're a team, don't mess with us! Earlier they have the 'crush the competition' bit, with someone crushing a can.
Edit: I mean not that it's a message for the competition to hear, but it's the leaders telling telling the team 'we're tough - when we're together!'.
It's clear that the intended audience is employee's since they talk to employees in first person throughout the video- "*we* need *you* ready and present and we need it right now."
this means that "US" in the remainder of the video becomes the people speaking, which in this case is the high level management.
I can see that interpretation, but I don't think it's the only one. It's not perfectly communicated (as a I said in the root comment), but at work I'm looking to be productive, not find flaws.
This whole things feels like the corporate equivalent of "I can't let me spouse travel. I don't trust they won't cheat on me."
If a company doesn't have any way to determine employee worth other than counting heads in the office and peaking at their screen... there is a problem that won't be fixed by RTO.
That people came together and said yes this is a good idea let’s do this - where are their spines? Why didn’t someone tell that dude with the weird huge hands that he’s got a stupid idea?
Hi. I'll just come out and say that I work for this company, and NOBODY, not a single one of us, not even managers, thought this was a good idea. My boss described it as an "extremely cringe threatening video" in our team meeting the next day.
This video was not intended for a wide audience. It was only sent to employees. The idea that the "we" was "everyone who works here" was lost on us, and it felt that "we" meant "Leadership"
I don't know why you like the flavor of boots, but it's a taste many of us have not acquired.
I use the “I’m not negotiating, I’m telling” line with my kids sometimes. It’s usually out of frustration, and I usually feel bad about it afterward. There’s usually a better way to handle the conversation. Something more collaborative—which would make even more sense here, given that they’re presenting this move as being good for collaboration.
If an adult spoke to me like that in the context of any type of relationship, I would immediately look for a way out. Maybe that’s the point here. Yes, there’s a hierarchy at work, and those at the top have the right to make the rules. But the smug condescension in this video says “I haven’t made the business case for this or I haven’t effectively communicated it, so I’m just resorting to ‘because I said so’”. Not the kind of environment I’d want to be part of.
If I worked there, my preference would have been a video with just the CEO giving an honest talk about what the changes are and what they’re basing the changes on. It might be data; if so, explain the data. It might just be the preference of the executive team; that’s their prerogative, but I think it’s worth being honest about it. Show some empathy for the people who are affected (“I understand that there are members of our team who would prefer to remain remote, and I understand that this move will impact their lifestyles” or something), and then be kind and unthreatening but firm about the decision (“but it’s my belief that these changes are necessary for xyz reasons, so we’re going to require x in-person days per week”). It’s still clear that it’s not optional, but there’s less of a “gfy” tone.
I get that the intro with silly office shots and lots of different members of the management team is meant to provide some levity, but making a significant, unilateral change to an employment agreement isn’t a situation that calls for levity, and so it comes off as disrespectful and condescending. I think that getting straight to the point and being honest about it is a better approach.
I still don't see the video as a problem. Most of the comments here (not yours) are jumping on the ridicule bandwagon, so I don't know if I have a blind spot, in which case I need to be careful with how I communicate, or if a lot of it is that bandwagon.
The tag line at the end is the weakest thing I've ever heard an executive say. Of course you're not negotiating, you're my fucking boss, put your big boy pants and make us come in or be fired. That's not to mention that none of these shlubs appear to even be in a fucking office to make the video.
Personally, having worked remotely since 2014, I feel quite secure in the fact the remote work is here long term.
The economics of it make sense on both sides (Office costs, salary costs, commutes, hiring pool access)
And the organization impacts work well (for knowledge based businesses) if Leadership is able to adapt to measuring outputs instead of inputs and fostering clarity of goals.
Beyond the fact that mangers don't care, there are many, many businesses with zero commercial real estate holdings outside of a fairly short term lease (which is a sunk cost regardless) who also promote RTO. The argument that all these businesses care less about their core business than they do about their (often non-existent) commercial real estate holdings seems tenuous at best.
Feels like we keep trying to look for a conspiracy when in reality that answer might just be that leaders believe their teams to be more productive in office
(Note: I'm not saying I believe this to be true, that there's evidence for this, that it's right, or anything else along those lines. Just that the most plausible explanation is that people asking for RTO believe it's going to make the company more valuable, not their commercial real estate holdings.)
What I think you'll see happen over the next 1-2 years is that as some jobs return to office the WFH roles will attract more talent, but also be lower compensated on average since some people are happy to take say a 10-20% for a fully remote role.
Personally I don't understand why there is even a push to return people to office if they are working fine remotely. We're having this argument at my place right now... Most of us have been remote for 3 years and there's no obvious signs that we're delivering lower quality or any slower than we were before. I think everyone is onboard with occasional team meetups, but requiring an arbitrary amount of office per week serves no good purpose.
I do get the need for office work in some cases, but outside of that it seems to me a lot of this is simply driven by managers feeling less important when they can't be office busy bodies. At very least it's interesting to note that the desire to return to work appears to be highest among those with more "power".
These return to office movements pair suspiciously well with the recent layoffs, but with a smarter touch and a little more forethought. Bravo, so it looks like this strategy works, but at what cost?
This is going to be a sore point for all workplaces going forward. Naturally each company is different, but from my experience, I have worked for years in a manufacturing company and I personally know people who will jump on remote work only to st around watching netflix all day. These folks have to be reminded daily what their job is and will find any excuse to not work. On the flip side You also have conscientious people (often knowledge workers) who want remote work to save on commute time and distractions, and who will actually have increased productivity working remotely. I believe there is room for multiple opinions without demonizing either side.
> I personally know people who will jump on remote work only to st around watching netflix all day
In office work is prone to the same difficulty in different forms. You don’t think people were alt-tabbing in the office? Taking really long lunches or coffee breaks? Tying one or more drinks on during those breaks? Clocking out mentally if not physically by 2 on Fridays?
Perform 5 units of work by xyz date at abc quality level. The point is a reasonable person could look at the task and be able to evaluate whether it was complete. Can’t be complicated or hand wavey. Bonus points if you can link everything to increased revenue.
I was hired as a remote worker (as were the other people on my team). During the hiring process I asked, repeatedly "This is a remote job, correct? I'm fine coming in once a month for a team meeting or important events, but I expect to be able to work from home in perpetuity". I was told by everyone during the process that it would be fine and that many of my coworkers are remote.
Now this came out. I was not given a special email on the side that said "don't worry, this isn't about you". I just got the weird threat video.
Don't defend these people please. They're not good at their jobs.
"eh, this isn't so bad, heavy handed use of the fact they're not negotiating apparently but fair enough"
*CEO stops talking... extremely cringe workers dancing with a greenscreen backdrop... google meet "no one else is here; because we are all in person now!" and... their interpretation of the lyrics to the background song*.
Wow. What a close, awful.
Truly awful.
--
However to defend them a little, I personally have noticed that the people who routinely come to the office tend to be better informed and have more realistic expectations of what is possible.
It's true that being in-person can paper over communication gaps, and you can argue that those gaps shouldn't exist; but they do. Additionally, while I am CTO of a remote-first company there starts becoming a knowledge and culture imbalance with the people who are capable of going to the office from time-to-time.
It's also true that we need a lot of positive interactions as humans, and we tend to have micro-positive interactions more often in person, usually when we reach out to someone over text chat or have a meeting it's somewhat negative. My psychologist once told me it takes 9 good interactions to offset 1 bad one, which is probably not grounded in science but I think the proportions are something like that; and it seems like we are more prone to communicate more often negatively if there is any friction in making that communication.
I would like us to have some form of strongly flexible work, but I am not certain that this is possible... it's essentially "worst of both worlds" where we have an expensive office that is barely used and people can't live where they really want to.
I guess co-working is the way to solve the former, but it doesn't help with the latter. Though co-working spaces can be as expensive for 1 week as taking a whole month anyway. :(
Generally, yes, but companies usually don't want to deal with employee litigation due to costs and bad publicity. It's why employers give generous severance so that you won't sue them.
Companies trying to work like it’s the 1990s will become defunct in the coming decades. Being able to work remotely is a skill. Those unable to do so and companies implementing blanket policies to return to office are fossils in a digital age.
I finish work in 1-2 hrs. With RTO, I finish work within 4-5 hrs. Combine this with a physical commute.
Constant breaks in attention. People just asking stupid shit irl when it’s clearly documented online. The cOlLaBorRaTiOn is really just micromanaging issues projected onto us.
Oh and let’s not forget the exposure to your virus of the week/month from people with kids in school or daycare!
Just another deadass company and one that I will never directly work for
I have worked in remote-first organizations for more than 15 years, mostly at technology companies, both as an individual contributor and a manager. By dint of my role, I also get to meet with companies of all different sizes all over the country and see companies who are fully remote, hybrid, and fully on-premise. I have literally talked with hundreds of companies across the world and got to observe the differences.
There are some leaders who simply can't function in a remote environment. However, this is a flaw of their leadership and the organizational culture, not a problem with employees or their preferences. It is a problem with personal fear, inflexibility, and lack of vision more than anything else. My experience is that the older people are and the longer they have worked at a company, the more issues they have with remote work.
We proved during COVID that we can function just fine remotely. It benefits the employees in a hundred different ways. An organization that wants people to come to work at their detriment is one that doesn't value their people, and this is how they are expressing it.
>An organization that wants people to come to work at their detriment is one that doesn't value their people, and this is how they are expressing it.
Yes this is the entire point. They want to turn up both voluntary attrition or be able to fire for cause. Either way they get to lighten their employee costs which is the goal.
The thing is, when you do it this way you loose the best and the brightest, which starts a downward spiral as those were the only ones who could hire good people.
152 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 225 ms ] threadBecause if most of them just ignore you, what then? Fire most of your staff?
Also: Good luck filling those positions (especially after that video)
1. Track badging 2. Enforce RTO via chain-of-command. SVPs, VPs, and directors have aggregate RTO compliance metrics. SVPs crack the whip on VPs to get their numbers up, VPs crack the whip on their directors, and directors crack the whip on their reports, and so on, all the way down.
The actual implementation of the policy was a mess and there was poor messaging especially at the beginning. I'm pretty sure it still doesn't take PTO or illnesses into account — if there's an issue with that, you're supposed to work it out with your manager — and from what I heard they simply handled the holidays by excluding the work weeks before and after Christmas from the metrics. But, ultimately, the chain of command approach appears to have worked very well in terms of actually getting people to come in.
edit: Just noticed from your profile that you also work at Amazon, so I guess there's nothing new in my comment for you :)
Most people are maliciously complying. They will come in at 11:45, grab lunch, and then leave. The clever ones then come back late at night to badge in and out again after 6pm so it looks like they were there all day, just outside. So far they aren't counting total time on campus, but when they do those people will have good numbers.
But it means they are now not working during those drive times. And they ones that are coming in all day waste a ton of everyone's time, including the remote people, looking for meeting rooms and setting up video calls, because every meeting still requires video, since all the teams are spread out over multiple offices.
And they also had to resort to denying promotions and raises for anyone who didn't RTO.
People do work noticeably shorter days, a handful of people come in for less than 30 minutes (huge waste of resources and time), and yeah, there is a morale problem.
One thing I have noticed is that the more co-located a team is, the more people behave like pre-Covid — in at 9:30, out at 5. Satellite workers who are coming in are the most unhappy (for obvious reasons) and are the most likely to badge in, grab a coffee and check their emails, and then leave and finish the day at home.
* They already do their best to make delivery drivers' and warehouse workers jobs as inhuman and miserable as possible.
If someone is a top performer within a highly valued part of the org, then one way or another they will be able to navigate RTO without serious problems.
For everyone else, RTO is a dial for management to fine tune voluntary attrition before having to resort to more unpleasant tools like higher PIP quotas, at a time where big tech firms all still need to cut employee costs.
I shouldn't be amazed, but somehow I still always am.
Probably the 3 entry-level employees that still care to go to the office.
Related: has any contested RTO on a disability basis?
Sarcasm aside, capitalism at work, really nothing to see here. They'll lose employees from the demand to work in office for the various reasons, and maybe it'll affect their bottom line, and maybe they'll learn some lessons. Or maybe they whither by not moving with the times. The websites they create are nothing that couldn't be lost.
I'm not sure they mean to start a RTO Krewe, but it sure feels like they're calling out the WFH Krewe.
translation: "we want you to work harder and spend 2 hours a day commuting to an uncomfortable office to make us more money"
Yeah, if they won't eat their own dog food then why would I want to eat it?
But don't take my word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebMD#Criticism
That, and it won't immediately say "Cancer"
https://vimeo.com/866052086/7d7781e9ea
The tag line at the end could be interpreted different ways and is slightly awkward, but not enough that I'd give it a second thought.
IMHO this article is just people yet again trying flex the power of shame and contempt, against something they dislike (returning to in-person work). Before you join in, just watch the video!
I would agree with your final statement and would go further: Share with any people considering work at WebMD: Better to cringe now instead of after you accept an offer.
Here is an incomplete list of items that might fall into this list:
- The opening frame of the video, indicating no one is there because everyone is in person
- "Unfortuately, too big of a group hasn't returned"- "We need you ready and present and we need it now". Both of these indicate the employees that are working remotely are not pleasing to the senior leadership staff -- and whether they were performing well or not doesn't seem to be addressed by that same senior leadership staff. It also seems to imply the employees weren't 'ready and present' up to this point.
- The background music (which is either tone-deaf to the message or downright menacing). Iko-iko (the song) has a meaning.
How would you like to see the CEO and executives communicate this message, without menace? Forget that you might not agree with the message; how do they say it better?
I watched the video. It was even worse than I expected.
I understand that it's for laughs - and I got some enjoyment your comment - but I also think it tends to cross over into 'real life'. It's used (maybe not by the parent, but by many) as a substitute for actually examining the merits, being open-minded, curious, learning.
Under these social 'rules', if we can ridicule it, shame it, that's the end of the discussion. It crowds out people who are atypical, and who are inventive and challenging the norms and the estabilishmen (in whatever place they are). It creates a very conservative culture.
To riff on: I think people have become much less expressive, much more afraid of ridicule, as social media has enveloped our lives. When the whole world wouldn't see, it didn't matter much if you took a chance with how you dressed that day.
What does 'correct' mean here, and what makes something 'correct to ridicule'? Other than when it's harmless, I think ridicule is toxic. It's an appeal to toxic emotions and interactions, and that spreads to other things, and especially in today's culture, it's a disease that we need to be careful about inflaming. Also, it fails to look at merits - almost the point of ridicule is to avoid that, which will lead to many mistakes, much harm, and closes the door on much innovation.
If you don't understand that, I can't help you.
In comedy I think the best litmus test is "punching up/down." I think riffing on a brand conglomerate's HR video could be considered "punching up."
Exactly. Who amongst us can say that they’ve never quoted Iko Iko lyrics in a threat to employees? It is a common and normal thing that happens all the time
Edit: I mean not that it's a message for the competition to hear, but it's the leaders telling telling the team 'we're tough - when we're together!'.
this means that "US" in the remainder of the video becomes the people speaking, which in this case is the high level management.
If a company doesn't have any way to determine employee worth other than counting heads in the office and peaking at their screen... there is a problem that won't be fixed by RTO.
Edit: 'we're tough - when we're together!'
That's on a level with children's cartoon "power of friendship" messages. If anything it would make me run even further from the offices.
This video was not intended for a wide audience. It was only sent to employees. The idea that the "we" was "everyone who works here" was lost on us, and it felt that "we" meant "Leadership"
I don't know why you like the flavor of boots, but it's a taste many of us have not acquired.
Here is another fitting quote
>I'm going to make him an offer he can't refuse.
If an adult spoke to me like that in the context of any type of relationship, I would immediately look for a way out. Maybe that’s the point here. Yes, there’s a hierarchy at work, and those at the top have the right to make the rules. But the smug condescension in this video says “I haven’t made the business case for this or I haven’t effectively communicated it, so I’m just resorting to ‘because I said so’”. Not the kind of environment I’d want to be part of.
I get that the intro with silly office shots and lots of different members of the management team is meant to provide some levity, but making a significant, unilateral change to an employment agreement isn’t a situation that calls for levity, and so it comes off as disrespectful and condescending. I think that getting straight to the point and being honest about it is a better approach.
> empathy
I still don't see the video as a problem. Most of the comments here (not yours) are jumping on the ridicule bandwagon, so I don't know if I have a blind spot, in which case I need to be careful with how I communicate, or if a lot of it is that bandwagon.
The economics of it make sense on both sides (Office costs, salary costs, commutes, hiring pool access)
And the organization impacts work well (for knowledge based businesses) if Leadership is able to adapt to measuring outputs instead of inputs and fostering clarity of goals.
Smart companies don't care about either but many (usually larger) corps have vested interest in both.
Feels like we keep trying to look for a conspiracy when in reality that answer might just be that leaders believe their teams to be more productive in office
(Note: I'm not saying I believe this to be true, that there's evidence for this, that it's right, or anything else along those lines. Just that the most plausible explanation is that people asking for RTO believe it's going to make the company more valuable, not their commercial real estate holdings.)
Personally I don't understand why there is even a push to return people to office if they are working fine remotely. We're having this argument at my place right now... Most of us have been remote for 3 years and there's no obvious signs that we're delivering lower quality or any slower than we were before. I think everyone is onboard with occasional team meetups, but requiring an arbitrary amount of office per week serves no good purpose.
I do get the need for office work in some cases, but outside of that it seems to me a lot of this is simply driven by managers feeling less important when they can't be office busy bodies. At very least it's interesting to note that the desire to return to work appears to be highest among those with more "power".
In office work is prone to the same difficulty in different forms. You don’t think people were alt-tabbing in the office? Taking really long lunches or coffee breaks? Tying one or more drinks on during those breaks? Clocking out mentally if not physically by 2 on Fridays?
Tell that to these guys. It’s not the remote workers demanding everyone work remotely.
Now this came out. I was not given a special email on the side that said "don't worry, this isn't about you". I just got the weird threat video.
Don't defend these people please. They're not good at their jobs.
We had a young woman working multiple jobs and feeding the work back to Pakistan. We had a young man who smoked weed and played WoW all day.
Turns out you can just fire people!
So what you're saying is, the work was getting done?
I would quit over just the existence of this video if it had been authored by the company I work at.
*CEO stops talking... extremely cringe workers dancing with a greenscreen backdrop... google meet "no one else is here; because we are all in person now!" and... their interpretation of the lyrics to the background song*.
Wow. What a close, awful.
Truly awful.
--
However to defend them a little, I personally have noticed that the people who routinely come to the office tend to be better informed and have more realistic expectations of what is possible.
It's true that being in-person can paper over communication gaps, and you can argue that those gaps shouldn't exist; but they do. Additionally, while I am CTO of a remote-first company there starts becoming a knowledge and culture imbalance with the people who are capable of going to the office from time-to-time.
It's also true that we need a lot of positive interactions as humans, and we tend to have micro-positive interactions more often in person, usually when we reach out to someone over text chat or have a meeting it's somewhat negative. My psychologist once told me it takes 9 good interactions to offset 1 bad one, which is probably not grounded in science but I think the proportions are something like that; and it seems like we are more prone to communicate more often negatively if there is any friction in making that communication.
I would like us to have some form of strongly flexible work, but I am not certain that this is possible... it's essentially "worst of both worlds" where we have an expensive office that is barely used and people can't live where they really want to.
I guess co-working is the way to solve the former, but it doesn't help with the latter. Though co-working spaces can be as expensive for 1 week as taking a whole month anyway. :(
I finish work in 1-2 hrs. With RTO, I finish work within 4-5 hrs. Combine this with a physical commute.
Constant breaks in attention. People just asking stupid shit irl when it’s clearly documented online. The cOlLaBorRaTiOn is really just micromanaging issues projected onto us.
Oh and let’s not forget the exposure to your virus of the week/month from people with kids in school or daycare!
Just another deadass company and one that I will never directly work for
I think it's awesome some people have found such a place, more power to them/you, but having so little to do is a very alien concept to me.
There are some leaders who simply can't function in a remote environment. However, this is a flaw of their leadership and the organizational culture, not a problem with employees or their preferences. It is a problem with personal fear, inflexibility, and lack of vision more than anything else. My experience is that the older people are and the longer they have worked at a company, the more issues they have with remote work.
We proved during COVID that we can function just fine remotely. It benefits the employees in a hundred different ways. An organization that wants people to come to work at their detriment is one that doesn't value their people, and this is how they are expressing it.
Yes this is the entire point. They want to turn up both voluntary attrition or be able to fire for cause. Either way they get to lighten their employee costs which is the goal.