I’m interested.
There are plenty of articles I’m not interested in, so I don’t read them, or feel the need to leave a comment. Try it
Nothing to employees: Get back in the office 5 days a week or find somewhere else to work
- Thread starter midian182
- Start date
There are plenty of articles I’m not interested in, so I don’t read them, or feel the need to leave a comment. Try it
axiomatic13
Posts: 713 +924
Unfortunately, that's not the only question, because, as usual the Real World is complex and It Depends.
There are already a fair number of studies on this, and if you ignore those funded by the same companies that are advocating their own mandates, the results are already in:
For situations where boots on the ground matter (in person where that person can not be efficiently replaced), in person is better.
For situations that require a lot of in person interactions (schmoozing/sales), in person is better.
Otherwise, there is a negative effect due to the distraction caused by fellow employees and managers.
The sole exception can be inexperienced new hires, or people with very very poor communication skills (close to mute or not natively speaking the language).
Normally it is the management pushing these sorts of things, because bad management styles are subsidized by nagging, micromanaging. Bad managers outnumber the good, bad managers also like to prioritize meaningless metrics that make them look better vs actually performing better. Then you get things like Boeing where the plane falls apart (I don't think they are remote, and that certainly doesnt stop them from outsourcing to a bunch of remote contractors, so there is also just a lot of hypocrasy).
Bottom line, there won't be an simple answer, because the question is overbroad.
nitebird
Posts: 103 +103
Success IS the only result we can interpret as achieving it means the company is correctly weighing the pros and cons of in person work. If they are right in eliminating remote positions, then the company is more productive and profitable. If they are wrong, for reasons you and others have mentioned, then they become less profitable. There's no way we as armchair generals can determine if across all the roles at this company, whether the move is right or wrong as people are so quick to judge.
Last edited:
Vrmithrax
Posts: 1,611 +684
It's a very weird circumstance, though... One that plays out a lot now, with companies that started in a very strange worldwide state that prevented actually working in an office. The companies that started during the pandemic and actually survived and stayed in business had to make (sometimes massive) concessions to make the forced remoteness and isolation of its entire workforce be effective enough to succeed. Now, we're in a world that there actually is a choice for having physical work locations, and those businesses are looking at how much MORE they can potentially achieve if their work force isn't spread out and only working together virtually.
I work in an engineering and production environment, where we make physical things, so I can completely relate to where the Nothing leadership is coming from. It's one thing if you are a sales oriented company, do things like IT or work mostly with non-physical things like data, where digital documentation and virtual meetings are adequate to do your job. It's quite another when you need to work with inter-discipline teams to look at physical models, touch and feel the product, work out issues, physically test and adjust, etc. There are some things that just do not work well in a fully remote scenario.
I wouldn't say it "took them this long" to figure out the business model needed to change, I can almost guarantee the Nothing leadership have been agonizing over it for months if not years, doing what they can to make the status quo work as effectively as possible. But, that is apparently not working well enough for what they plan for the future of the company. This is not a "blame game" scenario, this is a business changing its methods to the environment that has the best potential to let it continue to grow and flourish with new products and/or innovations.
And this same story is happening all over the world, Nothing is just a recent example. Some companies are able to continue with complete remote workforces and be as effective as ever, in some cases even better. Some companies are stuck and just can't make the remote workforce effective enough, and have to decide between leaving it to keep the workers happy but ultimately stagnating or going out of business... Or actually making the changes they need to make. If the workers can't meet the new needs of the company, they can find something else. If the company cowed to the workers and ended up out of business, those workers would still be in the same boat looking for a new job, right?
Freddie159
Posts: 177 +108
Agreed if you were to ask the Company how their employees are as employees they would say 'we hire nothing but the best' but NOW that they want them to come to work or be fired it turns out that they don't REALLY think they are the best and instead alot of them are nothing but lazy good for nothing people who don't belong at the Company. What a crock that is, they are either 'the best' or they are 'worthless and deserve to be fired'.
BogdanR
Posts: 99 +41
I would leave the company. But not because of the in office setting but rather because that letter rung absolutely all my alarm bells. Things like “our growth was over 500% YoY but our potential is only .01% utilized” or “generational tech that can change the world”…
Something tells me nothing good will come from Nothing.
Something tells me nothing good will come from Nothing.
Endymio
Posts: 3,326 +3,243
Funny, people in years past managed to juggle work and family obligations just fine. Is your generation so much less capable?
m3tavision
Posts: 1,528 +1,275
If people working from home were actually very productive and very beneficial to a company I can assure you company's would have ZERO problem with it and would continue to encourage more of it .
The fact that companies are requesting that employees return is because the work from home experiment has proven to be counterproductive but I give them props for trying it for so long .
The fact that companies are requesting that employees return is because the work from home experiment has proven to be counterproductive but I give them props for trying it for so long .
FaTaL
Posts: 359 +472
well no sht....its easier to get away with getting paid to do nothing.
thelatestmodel
Posts: 272 +308
Pick your career path is on you and your employees.
hwertz
Posts: 604 +332
Welp, don't be surprised when a bunch of your employees leave! Yes companies can set whatever policy they like. They will lose employees over it though. I've read about the disaster in London -- congestion fees, expensive parking, due to high rental costs I imagine a fair number of their London office employees are not particularly close to the office. They are highly likely to have quite a few employees quit.
To those who use restaurant workers and nurses as an example... silly example. Yes, if you are doing that, or running a production line, you have to be physically present. But the same argument could be made that you shouldn't have air conditioning either, because construction workers and landscapers must work out doors.
If one is coming into an office, only to sit down in front of a computer all day -- guess what? That can be done remotely!
I have a friend whose employer decided he had to come back to the office, they started making him drive from where he lives to their office in another city -- come in for maybe 5 minutes, then dispatch him to do IT work at offices in the vicinity of where he lives. "Can I just call in and get dispatched directly to save the 2 hours on the road?" "Nope!" He doesn't work there any more.
Well, whatever. I'm 100% remote myself and I love it. I bill hourly so nobody has to worry about if I'm tied to the computer all day or not.
To those who use restaurant workers and nurses as an example... silly example. Yes, if you are doing that, or running a production line, you have to be physically present. But the same argument could be made that you shouldn't have air conditioning either, because construction workers and landscapers must work out doors.
If one is coming into an office, only to sit down in front of a computer all day -- guess what? That can be done remotely!
I have a friend whose employer decided he had to come back to the office, they started making him drive from where he lives to their office in another city -- come in for maybe 5 minutes, then dispatch him to do IT work at offices in the vicinity of where he lives. "Can I just call in and get dispatched directly to save the 2 hours on the road?" "Nope!" He doesn't work there any more.
Well, whatever. I'm 100% remote myself and I love it. I bill hourly so nobody has to worry about if I'm tied to the computer all day or not.
CBTex
Posts: 170 +374
Dysnomia
Posts: 22 +11
Did you get this backwards intentionally or unintentionally? People with families, especially children in school, are the ones that want to work remotely. Not needing a day care is like getting an enormous raise vs. going into the office.
Endymio
Posts: 3,326 +3,243
From personal experience, those most stridently demanding work-for-home rights are the childless Gen-Zers. I'll dub them "Yuzzies" -- they're young and urban, but anything but professional.
Sure. It also means you're performing day-care services for your children, rather than focusing on your job duties. That said -- and again in my own experience -- those with families to care for generally perform better in work-from-home scenarios than the 'Yuzzies' I describe above.
wizardB
Posts: 303 +155
I think it's time for the entitled generation to enter the real world. Show up or starve, the only one who cares is you.
GFitzpatrick47
Posts: 12 +13
That's a bit of a spurious argument.
It assumes that the leaders of company are all thinking rationally and are aiming, at all times, to maximize the profitability of the company, and that simply isn't the case in many situations.
Are their times where being in-person is a boost to productivity? Of course, but that's tautological (just as people in this thread mentioning hospitality and nursing). No one is doubting, nor is anyone making the argument, that 100% work-from-home is always better from a productivity standpoint.
As other people have said, many of these companies have a fat, unduly-paid layer of middle managers who don't contribute particularly much to the company, but also have a lot more sway with the leaders of these companies than the rank-and-file employees (the ones who are mainly being tasked with returning to the office). Those managers are the ones who are likely salaries, likely have contracts that include benefits and severance packages, and are the ones most-likely to raise a serious stink should they be terminated, even if they aren't particularly productive. They're the bureaucratic fat that tastes good in the moment, but do long-term damage if you continue to gorge yourself on it.
A more cynical take that I have is that many of these companies built new office buildings and signed new leases in the runup to 2020, and are simply unable to get out of them without taking a significant hit. They still have to pay rent regardless of whether the office space is being used, and given that it's quicker to shed costs by employee attrition than trying to get out of commercial real estate leases and ownership, they're taking option A rather than option B.
I can't speak for this company (even though the earbud space seems like an odd area to expand in, given that relative juggernauts like Jabra are actively getting out of it), but when it comes to people at the company who work in areas like sales or the back office, I can't imagine the argument that they're more productive (let alone significantly more productive) in the office rather than remote. As I said before, commercial real estate is expensive, and this company is headquartered in London, so I'm sure they want to get their money's worth out of their office space exposure.
m3tavision
Posts: 1,528 +1,275
Good employees want to be at work.... they want their talents to be seen and they want to move up the ladder.
Everyone else is just transient trash.. using their employment through you, to move to another company, not upwards in your Company.
Companies that keep saying that "Productivity is better in the office" are snakes eating there own tails. If my company had this mindset then you have to put your foot down on it. If your employer contacts you outside work hours then you have too push back, "Sorry I'm out of the office and I'm unable to work more productivity at this time. You will have to wait when I'm back in the office tomorrow/next Monday."
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
The OLED Burn-In Test: Six Month Update- Dreadpirateflaps replied
-
AMD Ryzen 7 9700X vs. Ryzen 7 7700X: 45 Game Benchmark- Neutronman replied
-
This YouTube video can help flush water out of your smartphone- p51d007 replied
