Ironically, Zoom tells employees to return to office for work
nypost.com
nypost.com
There is soooo much vacant office space right now and no one is lowering prices like should happen with this much surplus.
I never said that's the only reason it exists, but you know what, that might be the only reason it's so hyper localized to one place.
Let's look at the incentives:
Pretend you are a wealthy VC with tens of millions invested in San Francisco real estate.
You have been given billions by LPs to manage.
If I, as the person that has control over how this money can be distributed, only invest those billions in the bay area and bring all these high skilled workers to this one place I can actually impact the price of real estate and triple the tens of millions I already have invested. Once those high skill workers move here they will remain, even after the initial startup goes under because they will move to a different startup.
Now if all the VCs are doing this and they all control large multi billion dollar funds...
But it's a conspiracy theory that doesn't even require a explicit coordination, just people acting in their own self interest.
Also they understand that most of these companies are 100% losses anyway, but real estate investments are much less likely to go to zero. (Plus rent is just cold hard cash.)
Why would you accept my data without checking the methods?
The onus is on you to prove a very reasonable human behavior false.
Whole lot of people saying we ought not fiddle kids been arrested for diddling kids.
Reasonable real world, if emotionally “wrong” feeling does not make the notion wrong.
You want data the sun rose in the east, go outside.
So many demand technical correctness in others, think without checking themselves, they know what’s true.
If you're a startup, getting office space without much bullshit is worth a premium.
What do you mean "ask"? They demand because it's their capital that fuels the company.
It's not like a VC gives money to a company and then cannot do anything but wait for returns.
Assume, you own Microsoft stock and are a venture capitalist. How do you react to your latest investment considering to buy AWS vs. Azure? The same pattern might apply in many more direct forms. Where does that fruit basket come from? What headhunting agancy do you trust with your top-level hiring?
I wouldn't be surprised if most VCs would mitigate their risks by funneling a startup's expenses back to their own investmentsnin one way or another. Vacant office space is just another such investment.
I am involved in a real estate selection process right now and I can definitely see this sort of stuff going on. I don't like it but folks with the money make the rules.
Some of them are claiming that they have, but none have shown anything resembling evidence or numbers, there’s been nothing but hand waving about the value of water cooler talk. There’s no reason to believe a word they’re saying.
The conversation is about whether there is a drop in productivity and what evidence we have of it, not whether employers have an obligation to collect or share such evidence.
During the WFH period we had more deployments & less incidents than ever. In addition we had less sick leaves (due to tolerance being higher when WFH). Yet - the leadership is ignoring this and enforcing the hybrid model.
Because sharing these insights could help convince at least some employees to RTO?
Because it’s good to have credibility and look like a sensible decision-maker in the eyes of your employees?
Note: Studies includes internal studies or analysis of a company’s own performance.
Jokes aside, the topology of the office<->employer relationship has inverted.
Productivity has fallen even further, as people get too comfortable and start to resent the lack of a "third place", or even a second one; the allure of working, playing, and leisure from the same place all day turns out to be less ideal than others prothetized.
As for the middle management's productivity themselves, that is a function of their subordinates work, and their own office water cooler politics. Between unconfident, unreliable, and gamed reports of employees' activity status, and the increased difficulty of socializing horizontally, of course middle management wants a return to office. Without it, eventually they will boil themselves as it is most apparent how little management actually is needed with modern companies.
I think in these discussions everyone oversimplifies to one single conclusion that should apply to all companies in all locales and all employees. There’s way more nuance to this.
What’s especially helpful to such nuanced and detailed debates is data. So my question is why isn’t data being brought out in support of the RTO argument?
Two pretty obvious potential reasons are that they don’t have data or the data doesn’t support the argument they’re making, which reflects rather poorly on management and their decision-making.
I’m personally skeptical of the explanation “they have the data and it supports their argument but they just don’t wanna show it to their employees as they beg them to come back to office.” Just makes a lot less sense than the other explanations IMO.
No one’s bringing out data to support WFH either, so I really don’t understand this demand. WFH at scale only has around 3 years of history where in office has decades and decades.
There are plenty of anecdotes by employees stating that they are definitely, for sure, 100% more productive at home. But I have seen very few by top level execs stating that this is true and that it also scales to teams, divisions, etc. Even the definition of productivity seems very, very loose in these discussions - is it that an employee feels more productive because they don’t have to commute? Because they write more code or better code? Because they can do the laundry at lunch rather than outside work hours?
On the other hand you have people saying “in office is more productive.”
Note how it only makes sense to ask one of those parties for data to substantiate their position.
There really isn’t a debate here that requires scientific studies backing it. It’s like asking whether Elon Musk had any studies showing X was a better name than Twitter. Companies can do what they want and employees can vote with their feet. If the job market weakens then it becomes a harder vote in the negative.
WFH is really no different a perk than free lunches or unlimited PTO. it will be offered when the labour market demands it, but I think we are heading into a weaker market and employees will be up shit’s creek.
That is irrelevant to the conversation going on here.
Imagine, for a moment, that I have collected metrics on the members of the teams that I manage that measure productivity against work from home, things like sprint burn down versus work from home, and things of that nature. Suppose that I have this information for 50 people. I can’t share it externally due to corporate policy, and I can’t extend its scope to other teams that don’t use Jira in the way we do.
I can use it to try to discuss WFH with my teams directly, but even starting this conversation is liable to upset WFH stalwarts, but if I do I cannot present this information in a way that is both deidentifiable and satisfyingly comprehensive. If I aggregate it I get something like “we’re 10% better at task completion while in the office”, I have people who claim to be an exception to the rule (and the loudest complainers are disproportionately actually the worst when it comes to WFH productivity), and if I present it unaggregated then I have people complaining about being called out publicly as under-performers (rightfully so) and people complaining since their productivity didn’t slip 10% they should be able to work from home.
I cannot manage 50 different WFH policies due to incoming complaints about fairness, mandating RTO upsets the team, allowing unrestricted WFH nets a productivity loss, and anyone who says “fire the people who are underperforming from home” knows nothing about management.
So my personal response here is to just allow the productivity loss: 10% productivity means less to me than the major impact on the happiness of the teams, but it must be recognised that this pick is the “best of bad options”, if you’re trying to maximise business output.
Clearly, at some level of management, the happiness is less important that the profit, but that’s beyond my pay grade.
It isn’t beyond your pay grade. If your team underperforms because of your decision, then you risk the entire team being let go in the next downturn.
I also have access to other more obvious task-tracking metrics like the number of pull requests, or Jira task completion, or stack deploys.
I also have team calendars where team members plug in whether they're working from home or from the office.
It's fairly trivial to punch a bunch of this data into BI tooling to get an approximation of how work from home makes a difference to how much actually gets done. Is it 100% accurate? Certainly not. Would I ever use it for an actual performance conversation? Nope. But it does help as a component of the gestalt that is my understanding of WFH performance.
The other major component of my understanding is more direct. I go out for lunch with my teams or for beers with my teams, and I listen to what they have to say. I know that a reasonable number of my team members head out at 3PM to pick their kids up from school every time they work from home, because they tell me that to my face. The guy with the new baby is not 100% focused on work when he's home, because he's got tiny human to deal with.
It's also very important to note that performance is squishy and hard to quantify at the best of times, before you even get into things like Goodhart's Law. For example. employee retention is important and as a rate of turnover fairly easy to measure, and is a significant factor for total velocity, but causes of turnover are almost always orthogonal to the root cause of job dissatisfaction... More importantly, though, do we decrease the negative impacts of turnover commensurate to the loss of productivity by allowing WFH? Who knows!
I have way way way more that I could say on the topic, but I might be being a bit hypocritical by continuing to talk about it while at work. ;]
I work from home and dont want to change. I can make a case why it’s better for me, but I can’t make a case why it’s better for my employer.
It’s the companies saying that productivity has gone down, so I’m very curious: how do they know? They never seem to say.
Management could say “come RTO because I prefer it that way” in which case asking for productivity data would be silly, but management doesn’t say that because it’d be unconvincing and indicative of vibe-based management.
More than once in my career I have worked for companies that have moved office locations. In all the cases I certainly wasn’t consulted ahead of time or given a vote. To my knowledge, no one beyond the executive leadership had a vote in the location. I am not sure why RTO vs WFH is any different.
Correct! They are obviously not required to produce evidence! But the question wasn’t “are they required to produce evidence,” it was “what’s the evidence,” and so the provided answer here amounts to “I don’t know/I don’t have any/I don’t know if they have any”
I don’t require my employees to be in office, and given that 60% of my team is non-local it’s not an option anyways. Given a magic wand I would 100% have everyone be around for at least a hybrid 3/2.
There are so, so many information and communication inefficiencies that could be solved by an off the cuff 1m in-person chat. Idea generation as well. Being in a zoom occasionally and chatting on Slack is a shit replacement for this in a creative field like video game development.
And to be clear, I am wildly productive remote but I’d be willing to trade 33% of that for the benefits my team would have by being in-person.
I think a best use of your magic wand would be for you to acquire the skills to manage a highly productive remote team.
There are hundreds of managers with remote teams that don't need to propose hybrid work as a solution for collaboration problems. Instead of looking at yourself for the solution, you're choosing to send your poor team to the office.
BTW, my highly remote teams are very productive. While some like the office, we never had to resort to mandatory attendance/hybrid to improve our communication.
I've been making games for 15 years across three companies, two of which ended up full remote. I can judge the effectiveness of a team, and I can say for certain that there are some situations and needs that benefit greatly from in-person. YMMY, especially if you are not in a creative field like games where a team comp is designers, artists, and eng. all mixed in a chaotic pot.
If/As WFH gigs start to become scarce or more the exception to the rule, you will still have top level folks ready willing and able to go work in an office.
Oh well then of course!!!
There is no data to back it up. Managers I’ve talked to have in fact said their figures show productivity has gone up but who knows. How do you measure productivity in a knowledge economy?
In the absence of a compelling argument for return to office it’s reasonable to assume this is driven by other factors.
[0] https://fortune.com/2023/08/03/amazon-svp-mike-hopkins-offic...
Terrible strategy since the people who leave are likely to be more experienced or higher performers able to land remote jobs more easily. It’s also slimy.
For some organizations, they do care about money, and people which is a shocking thing and yes it can be done. If employees are making their performance requirements, and the choices left to the employee that seems like the best case to support people and profit. It’s when that choice is taken away from people that you know the pure motivation is a vested interest in commercial real estate somewhere.
Also, no amount of complaining online is going to change any of this. News outlets have armies of reporters and endless amounts of money to run story after story until the narrative becomes what they want it to be. So, stepping out of the negative mindset for just a minute, just go work somewhere else that’s remote.
It's quite possible that people have good-faith reasons for disagreeing with you and writing stories expressing perspectives that you dislike.
Ever read the "work-life" articles for this topic on the BBC website? They are so obviously hit pieces against remote working that it almost forces you to think there's a campaign against it, whether you want to believe it or not.
Do you eat when you're hungry? Oh, you do?! Guess what? I do, too. And so do everone I know of. But have we all met before and arrived at this surprising consensus?
In the same vein, when some sort of global consensus is observed, one possibility is that it's driven by innate needs of actors, instead of due to explicit agreement, or it's some form of "social pressure".
Granted, it's just a hypothesis. But considering that corporations amassed huge profits while WFH scheme was in place, but now want to undo all that without any other rationale (yeah, I'm not buying the "collaboration" and productivity shit), you'd wonder if this driven by some nth order profit motive alone.
A lot of this comes back to the new to write new stories constantly. Remember a few years back when you’d see stories in news outlets about how cryptocurrency would transform daily life or a certain activity like going to concerts? That was the same mechanism: nobody really believed that, and nobody’s boss told them to write the story or they’d be fired, but a heavy promotion effort meant that journalists kept hearing about it until some of them wrote stories in case it turned out to be a real trend.
Rather than looking stupid by having hugely expensive, empty, office space that you’re contractually obligated to keep paying for because of a decision you made pre-Covid, you encourage the he company to utilize so the asset doesn’t sit unused. (For better or worse)
If you purchased or built the office, it might hurt your balance sheet to sell the asset at a loss.
That loss might be greater than the cost of filling the office with people.
I could see a CFO making a pretty compelling argument like this to a board filled with investors.
Is there any actual evidence of this? Why do you believe it?
I just think this whole argument is so far fetched as to border on idiotic.
I run a fully distributed company where work from home is standard. It works for us but has major downsides related to sharing of information that we struggle with every day. We have to overcommunicate every decision to ensure everyone gets the memo. Plus collaborative problem-solving is very hard, especially when the team crosses timezones. It's a constant threat to our competitiveness. At a more basic level, many people simply can't stay motivated or work productively a fully distributed environment. This reduces the pool of people to whom we can offer jobs.
I love work from home and we have no plans to change. At the same time I am skeptical that it is a general solution that can work across the entire economy. It's just too difficult to manage.
I wouldn't trust a person like this to work very well in the office either to be honest.
Your company and approach sound great tho, you must be saving a ton in office space expenses.
Bold words.
I've heard plenty of people with various opinions on this, but I suspect that you've cut to the heart of it here.
It's not that it can't work.
It's just harder to make it work.
...and that hard work has to be done by people who previously just sat everyone in a room and expected them to do their things with no additional effort required; and having to do that extra effort on top of what they normally do is uncomfortable for them.
There's no denying that remote work makes some people's lives more difficult; but it indubitably makes the life of others easier.
It's a trade off; and anecdotal 'it works' or 'it doesn't work' comments are just people commenting on their personal situation; what is much less clear, is if it actually has a meaningful impact at scale, or what that impact is.
It seems possible that Zoom got more of the first sort of person.
> How about a face to face meeting once per quarter?
The problem comes when you try to stop what others want.
2.Even if your job is forcing you to do something you don’t like, that’s not a problem. If I want to use Windows and the company only lets people use Macs, then that’s not a problem. It’s a rule that either I’ll comply with or I won’t work there anymore.
If a company decides to be in-person-only then the people who want to work at a remote-only company won’t work there (or they will).
To sum up your summary, that’s why we’re seeing companies lose employees faster than they anticipated.
From the perspective of those who prefer in-office work, how is this any different from forcing a WFH policy on everyone? Why is that not tyrannical behavior?
For many people the separation between home and work has real value and for many people (particularly younger people with roommates in smaller apartments) their homes don’t have a dedicated workspace with a desk.
The WeWorK I go to has nicer furniture, Internet, and lighting than my home. It is in no way logical for me to work out of my apartment.
Even an apartment bedroom 10x12 can accommodate both in an L. Gig internet is also a lot cheaper than commuting or we work. If you are a professional there is little excuse not to have a desk and fast Internet at home.
Doing tech support I was always shocked to see some folks including techies angry that their elcheapo Internet plan with 10 year old rented equipment downstairs wasn't working well for their hyper important job.
Invest in yourself a bit.
Jesus Christ, here’s my excuse: Before the pandemic I didn’t work at home. After the pandemic, I work at WeWork.
WeWork is $150 a month btw and includes free coffee and A/C in the summer (my apartment doesn’t have A/C) as well. Plus I can walk there in 30 minutes so the dollar-cost of commuting isn’t an issue.
I hate remote work but I happen to like my current job enough to stick with it despite it being remote. My next job will be in-office.
You don’t have to. Somebody at the company (owner, board, leadership team, etc.) decides if they want to be remote, on-site, or hybrid. Then leave it up to everyone who works there to make a decision about whether that’s something they can live with.
It depends on the team and work but I definitely feel a lot more disconnected being fully remote these days. Seeing my team (and broader org) every quarter was a nice compromise that combatted this somewhat but I miss the energy of the hybrid model.
Five days in the office would probably grind me down but 3 has been a great hybrid for me.
That sounds unhealthy. Do you have family and community relationships? Work should be professional relationships. You provide services in exchange for money. If you are getting anxious and depressed from not seeing the people you work with, I think something is wrong with work life balance.
By the way, it is the company that benefits from this one sided attachment. If you feel emotionally attached to the company you are less likely to leave for higher pay or tolerate more abuse from the company. Believe me, the company will have no regrets parting with you if they feel you are not adding to their business value.
Companies love selling their employees on how they are a part of a family and how they are all on mission together. They are trying to inspire loyalty. In reality, the company has pretty much zero loyalty to you.
I think one of the reasons companies are trying to get rid of WFH, is that it is harder to make people emotionally dependent on the company and inspire one sided loyalty if they are working remotely.
This is kind of risible. No, it does not sound "unhealthy" to express a desire to spend time around colleagues as part of the work day. I can hardly imagine a more natural or healthy desire.
When someone implies it’s a character flaw or because you don’t have a social life it’s offensive. My life is fine outside of work.
Sounds like a cultural thing.
One of the best periods in my life was working with people who became my friends.
> Believe me, the company will have no regrets parting with you if they feel you are not adding to their business value.
"The company" doesn't exist. Its a somewhat useful abstraction. The people involved can and will keep people on long after they "should" have been fired. At least here is Europe.
Learning to WFH is as much a skill as learning to operate in an office environment. The difference, when you learn the former you also have increased freedom.
Any net new work is too abstract and complex for the HN CRUD engineer crowd to be central too.
Go find a local job onsite. No one is going to miss you at your office because we all know implicitly this is just busy work to preserve nation state status quo.
People aren't obligated to shut up and tolerate working conditions they dislike. Changing their lives outside of work won't make them enjoy those working conditions more.
When you spend 40 hours of your week doing something, it's going to influence you.
No amount of "satisfying life outside of work" can make up for a workplace that you don't enjoy. That's true for toxic workplaces, it's true for people who can't stand in-office work, and it's true for people who can't stand remote.
It's unfair to try to blame it all on the person's personal life. Different people work well in different environments. The WFH maximalists and in-office maximalists need to stop acting high and mighty like their way flawless.
It also depends on the crowd. On old jobs (public services) I felt there was more warmth (a lot more problems but still) whereas as a dev the spirit is a lot more dull and nerdy. I don't miss that.
However, consider the fact that the old status quo of working in open concept 'feed lot' style office spaces makes people feel awful too.
I do not mean to discount your experience or feelings. Just pointing out that people are different, and you are just on the other side of the fence post shift.
For some, it is exactly the opposite.
Google Meet and Microsoft Teams also beefed up their offerings. My current gig is an Office 365 shop (or whatever the brand is) so it's all Microsoft cloud stuff. Meetings including broadcast type things like all-hands are all done via Teams which integrates directly into Outlook and ActiveDirectory. I know Google has equivalent integration with their offerings.
So Zoom in my experience doesn't quite offer anything all that unique to a lot of COVID era adopters. It completely makes sense their usage would drop back to their pre-COVID numbers. Remote work isn't dependent on Zoom nor does it offer the same integration as other platforms.
COVID will be forever with us from now on just like the flu has been since forever and I haven't heard of a currently realistic/feasible way to snuff it out. It will be just one of those infectious diseases everyone gets the yearly shots for.
That the lockdown situation wouldn't last forever however was clear to anyone who hadn't gotten high off the farts of <insert any conspiracy theorist nut's name here>.
In the end society mirrored the body's immune system with their reaction to new viral threats:
- active defense mode: fever (lockdown) and try to sweat most of it out (first vaccines for broad herd immunity), followed by
- continual defense mode: producing and tuning antibodies to ever new mutations to the original viral aggressor (releasing lockdowns step-by-step, yearly boosters, learning to live with the chance of catching another of the myriad of diseases out there).
This doesn’t seem like all that stringent a requirement.
It's what's being done with junior employees anyway.
From what I've seen (anecdotally of course, a few friends) these "no more home office" orders don't tend to come as a response to any objectively measured drop in productivity, they come from CEOs and managers who benefit from being able to control things or crack the whip in-person.
But recent years brought me to conclusion that many people have a need for in person communication, and your morale, productivity and even mental health going down little by little every day you interact with others only digitally. You can not fix this, if you bring back to office only selected few. You have to bring back the whole teams — so if a person goes to the office, everyone he works with and interacts with are also there
When there is a mandate to return to the office, it really makes me wonder if the employer can even tell if their employees are productive at all, much less know that they are more productive in the office. If they could tell, they would simply use that measure directly.
One accusation is that they’ve noticed nothing and are demanding changes on entirely false pretenses.
In this case, the commercial real estate industry has been making a huge PR push trying to keep the value of their portfolios up so senior managers at most companies are regularly hearing that WFH causes problems - and anyone distrustful and/or looking for an excuse to shift blame is likely to seize on it.
edit: by increase the number of milestones i don't mean increase the amount of work, i mean increase the amount of times people need to demonstrate they actually did something.
I have some ideas for how to measure output:
1. Code output: I know this one is controversial but at the end of the day code needs to be written. People wouldn't get penalized for missing this minimum output, it's just a signal that their work needs more detailed review. Rather than incentivize people to write more code I would say that some minimum amount of lines of code should be changed or a more detailed review of your work needs to be done.
2. Document output: Designs are obviously important to launching quality software so the work put into design documents should be taken into consideration but it should also result in actual features and products being launched.
3. Feature / Product launches: People actually shipping software and running and completing experiments should be tracked. This should be tracked and rewarded separately from the actual result of the experiment.
4. Feature / Product success: If feature and product launches are successful this should also be tied to employee performance but obviously the employee is not in complete control of this outcome. Sometimes things can be executed on well and just fail so this should be used for a bonus system of some sort.
There are obviously ways people can game a system and the system should be adjusted to account for them as they come up.
Either way, I think anything that encourages actual accountability is superior to the system people have blindly copied from Google and Facebook where you are rewarded for getting into management and building a tiny kingdom of people that do nothing.
I think a lot of what you have described is flawed. It feels more like trying to systemize something that cannot be systemized.
One time I spent 6 months in a brutal migration of a critical system. Lines of code in production in those 6 months = 20 lines. By your measure, I did not accomplish much.
But where exactly did my time go? It went in getting stakeholders together, performing significant experiments to identify the problem, performing more experiments to find solutions, carefully roll out the experiments in various production datacenter - often over weekends. The output? Migration completed.
It was hard work, stressful and took a lot from me. But for a manager strictly follows your rubric, I was unproductive. And now, I get a poor performance rating. I would likely have to sink more time to produce tons of artifacts to prove that that rating was incorrect. Other engineers sees it. Learn to never take up hard problems ever. Just smash more lines of code to be safe.
You have single handedly shot the success of engineering by having an uninformed performance review criteria.
Which is why I disagree with a strict rubric.
That's a myth. Google's performance reviews, as flawed as they are, still require one to provide references to deliverables like reviewed commit history and reviewed documents written. Doing no work will result in poor performance ratings after a couple review cycles, since you will have no deliverables to your name. Those who produce nothing at all are routinely put on performance plans and then fired if things don't change. I've seen that happen.
That said, the Google performance review system, at least in my experience, can favor those who are strategic about choosing and promoting their work even if it is lower in quantity, and disadvantage those who do the a lot of work but aren't strategic about choosing and promotion it. That's almost by design, since in theory Google favors "impact" over lines of code.
So after 1.5 years?
If you do absolutely no work, your manager will generally inquire about your state of motivation pretty quickly. You will be referred to internal or external resources to help you find your motivation, but if you refuse help or don't change course, you will be generally fired well before 2 review cycles. It's pretty rare for people to produce absolutely nothing though.
In my anecdotal experience the leadership of organizations is mostly flying by feel on this issue. And, by nature of their position, they skew heavily towards extroverts who value lots of work interactions. So their gut feels more face to face contact is important and that’s what they mandate.
Very naive. If this was my manager, I would immediately know that my manager is unskilled.
So the current management philosophy just sucks.
Also I'm very good at what I do (developing software), the common thing among the people that produce actual value to companies is that they are high output. Whether it's code or designs or whatever. And I'm talking about quality output obviously.
I think about stories like this:
https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Negative_2000_Li...
I'm glad you like the social aspect of work. My friends are mainly not work related.
We are all different and one size does not fit all.
Btw, I know this is about real estate. It's happening to me too.
There may be an element of commercial real estate usage but I honestly think bad leadership and control explains most of this.
> all employees within 50 miles of a company office to go in at least two days a week on a hybrid schedule.
Brilliant!
What a world we live in. This applies to all companies to make video conferencing software including Google...
Eben after rto I'd never climb a few floors to find a meeting room for f2f anyway.
Large screens, whiteboards, audio and video are almost perfect nowadays.
edit: I don‘t understand the downvotes. I‘ve been working myself fully remote for years and I do my work. I just see zero drawbacks in terms of efficiency.
By... using Zoom to connect to those meetings?
> Similarly, Zoom has multiple offices so even if people had to go to the office 5 days a week there would still be a point to have zoom for calling between offices.
What's the point of joining a Zoom call from an office when you could join it from home?
It was a rhetorical question pointing out that zoom would still be used for meetings.
>What's the point of joining a Zoom call from an office when you could join it from home?
Because you are already in the office.
You also are attempting to transparently reframe your selfish desire in terms of caring about others while spinning the rational desire to be maximize ones personal well-being as being somehow ridiculous or antisocial.
It's a bad pitch and if you are going to sell it next time start with the manufacturered concern it would play better.
Once or twice a month? Sure. Once or twice a week? Can be ideal especially as a company is finding it's repeatable and scalable path.
I love remote, but it's just a tool. Same for hybrid, and being in the same office.
That's how my entire team operates (since before the pandemic!) and have never had an issue with it.
I've worked primarily remotely for north of 10-15 years and love it. But it isn't 100% effective or the best choice for every situation and continuously.
Especially for people at the start of a career or position. Lots of meaningful mentoring and coaching that can't be measured or limited to text chat or video calls.
As someone who mentors their fair share of juniors starting out in software and product development, meeting my mentees in person after mentoring them during the lock downs did not compare.
Mostly, the smiles, the genuine happiness for the success and learning that has been happening, and most of all knowing there's openness to talk about what's next and a challenge to learn.
The very starts of projects and startups can often be much cleaner and faster in person, until you don't need to be.
I understand and also don't like commutes. There's also no shortage of people who report the value of getting out of the house and seeing things differently
Beginners often onboard much easier in person, and quicker to be productive and feel like valued members of the team. Understanding and designing new things, for example is one. Discovery or design sprints can be another.
There is a good amount of merit for hybrid work and teams for producing results faster that can create profitabilty quicker, and pay those raises quicker.
What does being in-office accomplish other than face-to-face meeting?
Zoom is a replacement for face-to-face meeting, but they themselves want to meet face-to-face.
Hence the irony.