Comment by jarjoura | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jarjoura | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

There used to be soooo many small interactions that happen throughout the day that right now require way too much formal structure. For example, after lunch as we're walking back to our desks we would randomly chat about an idea. These ideas might grow into a bigger group conversation that clarifies things or shifts how one approaches it. Sometimes just sitting next to someone having that conversation is enough, and sometimes I feel like I have something to contribute to it.

These are things that can never be replaced with WFH and shouldn't need to be. It's not a problem right now since we're all WFH as we're in the middle of this pandemic. Once we return to safer times, some of us will really want to stay WFH, but they'll begin to miss out on a lot of these small interactions. People won't realize they missed out, and it'll never be intentional, but it'll happen. At some point it'll become a forcing function to bring everyone back into the office.

I am definitely pro-WFH a couple days a week, like Tue/Thur or Wed/Fri. Make those meeting-less days and I can use those to go into deep focus mode. If the whole company does it then we won't miss out on any in-office banter.

This isn't to say there aren't roles that work well fully remote if the entire team is fully remote too. Keep in mind those are going to be less-creative projects and much more task based, and if that appeals to you, those will always exist. They existed before the pandemic, and what's different now is that these types of teams can now flourish in bigger companies as well.

> These are things that can never be replaced with WFH

I don't see how that's true. These kinds of chats can easily take place via chat apps, informal real time chats, etc. In fact, I'd argue they're significantly better in those forums. Off the cuff few people have very well thought out ideas. Written conversation tends to yield more well-formed and careful communication. This may reduce the quantity, but likely increases the quality.

> At some point it'll become a forcing function to bring everyone back into the office.

Only at companies where this kind of thing is required for whatever reason (usually companies with old school or technologically impaired brass). If you don't get offered a promotion or get to contribute to a project b/c you didn't have lunch with your boss to chat about some random idea that flung into your head and could only be shared in person, then I'd argue it's no place I'd want to be. Certainly others may prefer this type of environment, but I would view this as a company with misplaced priorities and inefficient structures.

> Written conversation tends to yield more well-formed and careful communication. This may reduce the quantity, but likely increases the quality.

But that defeats the purpose. The whole of the interactions mentioned (at least for me) is that they are spontaneous, informal, unstructured and not tracked.

> b/c you didn't have lunch with your boss to chat about some random idea that flung into your head

Companies are first and foremost collection of people. At some point, building a career means building ties with the rest of the company and there is only so much you can do out of strictly professional interactions. So yes, at some point, not having the ability to have lunch with your boss will hinder your career.

> Certainly others may prefer this type of environment, but I would view this as a company with misplaced priorities and inefficient structures.

Most employees are not robots. It's not only about being efficient. At some point things need to feel a bit human.

The paraphrased summary of what you're saying here is "I want to have conversational in-person interaction with people and I identify mainly with companies that value this highly." This is certainly fine and understandable, but is more of a personality trait than a company or productivity rule (or guiding function as you put it earlier). What you call "feel a bit human" I call "office politics." Forced superfluous off the cuff interaction sounds terrible to me. You say most employees are like you (not robots), I say it depends.

The real answer here is there is no universal answer. Your guiding function is not the same as mine as we have different tolerances and wishes for interaction. Yours is not more right nor more creative in every case, just as mine is not more efficient nor more productive in all instances.

You're right companies are collections of people, and there is no singular method to organizing them that makes sense in all cases as personalities are different. Usually though, autonomy is important to satisfaction. Letting your people choose their environment rather than forcing your own personality on them is more likely to help them, and in turn the organization, succeed.

Dude, that's totally fine, if you're okay with online only and that gives you personal maximum job satisfaction there are tons of fully remote positions out there waiting for you if you haven't found one yet. You and I don't have to want the same things out of a job.

It doesn't mean that online chat is equivalent to in-person informal conversation. They are different mediums and different tools.

There used to be soooo many small interactions that happen throughout the day that right now require way too much formal structure.

That's what I miss. It's those conversations in the hallway, or seeing someone in the break room that reminds you about something you meant to ask them about.

It's really hard to replicate that in WFH. I can't want to say "can't be replicated" or "shouldn't need to be". I think they absolutely should be replicated. But I don't know how. Things like slack help, but it's just too disconnected. You can have "fun meetings" (a contradiction in terms!), but those feel like a waste of time. Zoom happy hours exhaust me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com