bad timing with the rising cost of living. 2 days WFH is better than none at all I guess.

  • Gorgritch_Umie_KillaM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 years ago

    3 days WFH over the long term, personal circumstances notwithstanding, would likely be quite detrimental to career progression. So that’ll be a benefit of having to go back to the office more.

      • Gorgritch_Umie_KillaM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        That would be nice. But we all know promotions/wage rises aren’t always based only on merit. Even if you have a case that it is totally based on merit, people won’t always notice the input of others if, in the moment, they are absent. It links to the famous ‘water cooler conversations’ idea where theres a kind of organic learning between people physically with each other, that seems hard to replicate.

        • NorwegianBlues@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          If a company can’t work out how to recognise and understand quality work wherever and however it’s done, that’s a bad company and that company is going to promote worse options. There’s nothing inherent in working from home that makes progression bad, just a company that isn’t bothering to adapt.

          That said I agree in person interactions are invaluable - just not that a huge amount of them are necessary to progress the best people.