• UrLogicFails@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    83
    ·
    1 year ago

    Remote work is such a boon to workers, and from my perception there is not a lot of benefit of mandating in-person work.

    It really feels like the push to return to in-person is primarily driven by a combination of propping up the industrial real estate industry as well as managers not trusting their employees, and perhaps some level of maliciousness towards employees.

    The return on investment on operating an office space for the nominal increase in productivity really makes in-person work feel like it’s only for the managers’ egos.

    The fact that the Zoom CEO is pushing for this to me does not represent a lack of faith in their product, but a strong desire to squeeze every drop of productivity out of their employees regardless on quality of life and regardless of return on investment of the cost of operating the office.

    • Gaywallet (they/it)@beehaw.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      59
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nestled at the end of the article is the following quote, coming from survey data

      But there’s also the power trip. Remarkably, a recent survey of company execs revealed that most mandated returns to the office were based on something as ironclad as “gut feeling,” and that 80 percent actually regret ever making the decision.

      I think the reality is that like most policy decisions at a workplace, they are based on nothing. They simply are drawn from how the people at the top feel like an organization should be or because that’s simply how these decision makers are used to (or comfortable with) doing things.

      • coyotino [he/him]@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        1 year ago

        I truly think it’s just the corporate real estate thing. Those 80% that regret return to office are CEOs that weighed the loss from real estate contracts against the blowback from forcing employees back to office, and they are saying that they feel they made the wrong decision.

        I might argue this statistic also shows that 80% of CEOs underestimate the value of their employees. Not exactly a hot take in 2023, but it’s fun to put a number to it.

        • dom@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          I dont understand this real estate thing. Cancelling contracts or having empty space is still cheaper than everyone back in the office.

          More people in the office means more maintenance, more snacks, more hvac needs, etc.

          • Banzai51@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Unless your or the company’s portfolio has lots of commercial real estate securites. The commercial real estate and the financial securities behind them are in a bubble and there is a fear it could pop like it was 2007 with the mortgage securities. That was the fear behind it. And many cities had mayors pushing for a return to office because the downtowns were threatened.

            Most of this comes from the C-level execs being “inbred.” Meaning many C-level execs sit as board members on other companies. These guys are all trying to scratch each others’ backs.

            • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              1 year ago

              And many cities had mayors pushing for a return to office because the downtowns were threatened.

              …with affordable housing. The horror!

            • dom@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I guess it’s possible. It just seems a reach for people to think that’s the /only/ reason.

              Honestly. I think people would be more successful if they actually tried to understand some of the nuance and understand what things are better in person than remote. Then try to solve for those things, rather than just saying “remote is better in every way” like everyone seems to think.

              • Banzai51@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s going to be highly dependent on the work done and the structure of the company. Even then, it is also about demonstrating power. I work in IT where our datacenters are in different states, and we work more and more with cloud infrastructure. Even when I’m in the office I’m working remotely. We don’t see clients. Our teams are scattered across the country, hell my manager lives in another state. So even in the office the people part of it is still done remotely. There is zero reason to be in the office for us.

          • ricecake@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            If you have an unutilized asset, there’s pressure to get rid of it for the cost savings.
            If you sell your asset at a loss, it looks bad for you and the company. Same for paying cancelation fees.

            If you legitimately think that you’re going to need that space in the future, for example because you think that we’ll find an equilibrium between “everyone work from office” and where we are now, and that we’re trending towards an organic level of office need/desire higher than we’re at now, you might see selling now as the first step to needing to buy again later, likely for higher than you sold for. So you try to “mandate” the equilibrium that you expect so you’re not in a position to have to explain why you’re holding onto a dead and losing value property.

            Executives spend a lot of time talking to people and having meetings. The job selects for people who thrive on and value face to face communication. Naturally, they overestimate how much that social aspect of the job is true for everyone else, so they estimate that the equilibrium will have a lot more office time than other people would.
            To make it worse, the more power you have to influence that decision, the more likely you are to have a similar bias.

            This isn’t an excuse of course, since you can overcome that bias simply by telling teams to discuss what their ideal working arrangement would be, and then running a survey. Now you have data, and you can use it to try to scale offices to what you actually want.

    • SquiffSquiff@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      We keep hearing about ‘productivity’ in this context. Let’s explore that - back in the days when people were 5 days/week in the office, supervisors and managers concentrated on attendance and punctuality. They still could but now they are focusing on being in the office. In both cases these are proxy measures- they don’t directly measure output. What is this ‘productivity’ here? Because the actual verifiable data tells the opposite story

      • UrLogicFails@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        Basically, I think it’s exactly what @[email protected] was saying: these decisions aren’t being made with any actual facts/ data as the basis. The decisions are solely based on “gut feelings” of the higher-ups. Attendance is the only way the higher-ups know how to gauge productivity, and that is going to trump any actual productivity data.

        • Banzai51@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think it is less gut feelings than many of these top execs being personally invested in the same financial securities the company is invested in, like commercial real estate securities. But they don’t want to say that part out loud.

        • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Funny thing; my company was using Zoom long before the pandemic. It was useful for organizing meetings between offices, and at the time was the only product with good enough sound quality to actually understand people connecting from low bandwidth connections.

          As the pandemic was moving to “business as usual” mode, the company did a quantitative analysis of 5-day vs WFH, plus did an employee survey on 5-day vs hybrid vs WFH. Based on those results, they went to a hybrid model for a few months and then ran another quantitative analysis: end result was that WFH model was permanently adopted for all roles where it made sense, and the company started selling off properties.

          Zoom’s still used because it was able to handle all these work models, but the company has its own contract with Zoom and would never touch the default agreement. If Zoom tried that at this point, they’d just lose a large customer.