WFH mandates bad for staff morale and stunt innovation DevOps darling Atlassian reckons that far from upping productivity, mandating a return to the office will dent worker morale, increase staff churn, and potentially damage innovation. Never one to miss a good marketing opportunity, the Aussie business was speaking out after several weeks of Meta, Dell, Google and others talking …
To quote the old song, "Just you wait, 'Enry 'Iggens!"
I find it quite possible that, given a large turnout of folks from home during that two-week period, that Salesforce's Powers That Be will make some kind of declaration along the lines of: "Well, what a wonderful turnout we had in the last weeks. We saw a discernable increase in productivity1 during that time. So after much discussion2, we have come to the inevitable conclusion that we need your asses/arses in seats here, so you all must start coming in at least 3 days a week...."
1Naturally, we don't have any documentation supporting this claim, and even if we did, you can't see it, anyway.
2OK, maybe a 5 minute conversation on the way to an Executive Lunch
It's only for a fortnight. You could go into the office just for that fortnite to get the $100 donated (assuming you actually want to support their choice of charity) and then go back to what you were doing before. Unless of course the costs of your going in (minus costs saved by not working at home, plus Gift Aid or equivalent tax, and accounting for how much you value your time if you can't do what you want on the way), amount to more than $10 per trip, in which case it is more efficient to give your own money to the charity, which probably means you get more choice of charity as well.
The company I work for keep trying to guilt-trip us if we don't donate to charity using the "corporate social responsibility" scheme they signed up for, that lets them add extra to employees' donations. It doesn't seem to have occurred to them that I support a charity that's too busy doing its good work to have time to go through the bureaucracy of adding themselves to that corporate donation scheme just to catch the small number of donors who would work that way. So I just support them directly with bog-standard UK Gift Aid and the company doesn't get to brag about it, sorry. If you really want me to use the corporate scheme, you should trust the UK Charities Commission to have vetted the charity already, without requiring it to use its precious time for loads of extra hassle all over again just so you can feel good about having checked something. /rant
Having helped a charity sign up for one of those, they might find it useful. Some systems that work with corporates have a tiny form which basically outsources the decision to the relevant national regulator anyway, but someone has to fill in that form to add them to the database. I can't speak for all such systems globally, but the one I helped a charity fill out took about five minutes of effort and a week of waiting, and the extra donations* was considered worth it in that case.
* The extra donations just came from me at the start, but at least they're available should anyone else use the same system. Since I spent the five minutes, it wasn't much of a hassle.
The thing you have to remember here is that Google may well be hiring a very different mindset, indeed a different neurotype of people to those whom the other companies are hiring. Specifically, Google may well be hiring technical geniuses who are emotionally somewhat immature, and/or with autistic tendencies or even actual autism.
That then means that the two companies are trying to ride herd on two very different groups of people. If the group you're trying to guide are autistic or similar, then explicit rules and explicit consequences of these explicit rules are what is needed. If on the other hand your workforce are more emotionally mature or are more neurotypical then whilst you're not working with geniuses you are working with people who can take a hint without that hint being explicitly given.
On the flip side of this, if you are claiming this is about autism, most neurodivergent people find social situations (such as being plonked in the middle of a noisy open-plan office) to be both distracting and stressful, so I would suggest that what you are doing is trying to find evidence to fit your conclusion.
Also, there is absolutely no reason rules and processes cannot be employed without the need for physical presence. I'm not on the autistic spectrum myself (as far as I know, anyway), but find that a combination of Teams and email provide a perfectly adequate tool for all the necessary communication.
In terms of "emotional maturity", I have found that a lack thereof seems to apply mostly to those who are intent on forcing others into an office environment against their will, in order to plump their own egos and sense of self-worth.
> If the group you're trying to guide are autistic or similar, then explicit rules and explicit consequences of these explicit rules are what ...
... will aggravate them, in fact.
> ... [members of] your workforce are more emotionally mature ...
Looking at this from a little way up the spectrum, I think you just mean "... [members of] your workforce are more emotional ..." which totally does not equate to maturity.
others don't.
It ain't rocket science genius.
Personally, I did more WFH for the last 12 years of my career. Luckily, I had bosses who were only concerned about what you delivered and when. Do it right, do it once was my mantra.
Some bosses love to micro manage their drones. They will be on your tail if you spend too much time in the toilet, are late (matters not if you stay late) and everything else.
Presenteism at its worst.
These numpties can't get it into their thick heads that this can make your drones work less as they spend time worrying about the boss and not the job in hand.
Yes but if you can’t be visibly seen to manage your serfs and be visibly seen and appreciated to be brown nosing your superiors how will you ever get on ?
The problem is not the the low level who have jobs to do, or the highest level, who also have jobs to do, but all those in between who have to justify their existence by presiding over their mini empires ….
Spot on. WFH exposes fairly graphically how superfluous, possibly even counter-productive, some (most?) middle managers are.
Problem is, management tends to look after their own. So rarely does the situation get called-out, let alone fixed.
Another problem is, big wheels tend to like having a deep and wide org chart reporting to them. Puffs up the ole ego, inflates the perception of importance, etc.
I find it depends what I’m doing - if I want to motor through something, WFH can let me get on without as many interruptions as when I’m in the office.
On the other hand, working in the office reminds me that the people I promised some work for still exist and that I should actually do something for them instead of just the other projects that are more interesting.
Fucking annoys me no end. I've seen a manager micro manage someone so badly the person quit. She reported this upon quitting and said most of his work he was giving to her to do. Fuck all was done, she's moved on, he's still, some how, employed. More staff have been under him and gone over the past few years than any other department yet no one questions why.
Makes me pleased to work where I am. We have a 'management structure' but the managers don't actually manage (they have their own tasks to do). You have a task, and you do it. The company has no interest in us returning to the office although we can if we want.
Is this a surprise to you, because I always knew they were a waste of time. It's not like you have to do them.
Several companies ago, I had an exit interview.
The issue I had - micromanager - also tried to tell me he could cancel my holiday which i'd booked months in advance and honestly - happened to be in my notice period - wasn't planned... and he couldn't because there weren't enough days for him to legally do it.
Only for that reason did I do the exit interview. HR went ballistic, because they realised they could be in big trouble. He's still there, but he is the owner, and he is the CEO.....
That's happened to me too, I worked for a small company and reported directly to the Technical Director. As it got bigger they hired an Ops Manager who was utterly incompetent and made his dislike of the engineers, me especially, very clear to all. Complained about him so many times I was told to stop, written complaints from others were dismissed as me rabble-rousing and encouraging them to complain. He was such a micro-manager he wanted every hour of every day blocked out and refused to allow other engineers to call me to talk about issues when I was in the field as liasing was his job (in his words), despite the fact he was non-technical, couldn't pass messages accurately and didn't realise that a collaborative discussion was often a good way to come up with fresh ideas.
I quit in disgust, as did every other engineer within 6 months of me leaving. He's still there, so he must play the game better than the engineers did. All of us are in better paid jobs and much happier though, so silver linings.
> Some people work better WFH
>others don't.
Sometimes it's the project and team composition too.
I was called out for being less performant on a new project, that started right around when WFH started.
They weren't wrong - my performance had dropped since WFH. But, it had nothing to do with WFH, and everything to do with that the team was 75%+ new graduates.
At the risk of "mansplaining" the OP, that was the point; our Crosspondian cousins say "I could care less", whilst we (syntactically correctly) say "I couldn't care less"; the comment was an ironic illustration of the point.
It is traditionally said that it's Americans who don't get irony. Is this ironic?
I've heard Americans complaining about that phrase as well, so I wouldn't be so quick to assume that it's a regional difference, rather than a group of people who care about the inaccuracy and others who don't, the way most grammatical disagreements work. Sorry to interfere with any stereotypes out there, but not everything you dislike about the use of English is the fault of a single country.
Using the phrase "I could care less", when they actually mean "I couldn't care less", never made sense to me, until I came to understand that part of the phrase was elided. The complete phrase is something along the lines of: I could care less, but I fucking don't, so fuck/bugger off!"
Sort of like an American offshoot of Rhymin' Slang...
MUST NOT FEED TROLL.... ARRRRRG...
// And yet, I'm fed. Urp. (Troll has become dyspeptic.)
COULDNT CARE LESS
// Thank you; I quite agree. -1 for missing apostrophe.
Could care less makes no sense, it infers that they do care as they could care less. ARRRGGGGRRRGG!!!!!11!1!
// Yes, but, oh noes! You've let slip one of MY pet peeves!
// Now your infer grammar shaming! (Lol. I like to imagine other involuntary proof-readers cringing. I meant "You're in for...", of course.)
// Please repeat several times: "they imply, I infer".
// I know that C-style remarks aren't correct in written english. I'm a yuuge hypocrite.
// I infer that your motives were pure, though.
// Carry on. After this innovative stunt I'd best do something productive so I'm not forced back to the office for tighter supervision!
Back in the late 80s, I had a software development gig, I worked from my home, a few hours away from the corporate office. I would wake up and jump into my work well before dawn, and continue working well into the evening.
From time to time, the Powers would provide travel and accommodations for my presence at the "office"... usually for deadline "deliverables".
The "powers" received about 60 to 80 hours of production from me on a weekly basis. I was kickin *ss and taking names.
When there was a power shift at the C levels, I was informed that I had to relocate to the office and work onsite.
My productivity suffered. I ceased to make the contributions to which I was accustomed, and I deteriorated into a slacker.
It was a horrible experience, and hurt both my employer and my self esteem. What a f*ckin waste.
...that the image used to illustrate the article seems to have been drawn (badly) by AI?
Then again, it doesn't seem to be the first time.
M.
seems to have been drawn (badly) by AI?
The more you look, the more the horror grows. Lots of them are wearing mismatched footwear, how many legs do the top left & middle have, bottom left has no hands and his arm ends are fused together (but one of his lost hands is lying on the desk), what species is the bottom middle and the bottom right seems to lost their face doing a very advanced yoga position.
1/10, must try harder.
Every time I've read a CEO's bleating about getting back into the office for productivity etc, there never seems to be any evidence to support it.
Example - number of tickets closed per day, cadence of successful releases, etc.
Surely, especially at the same time as an org being *data-driven* being so trendy, there should be...data?
Meanwhile, my personal productivity from not having the commute and associated faff is strongly supported by many KPIs. Number of parcels not missed, average percent full of washing basket, number of trips to refuel, kilometres ran per week, videogames completed per year....
I agree that they should be able to say something more complex than "The office is better because I say so", a statement that has so far convinced exactly zero people (some people already agreed, but it didn't convince them either). I've begun to wonder whether this might be a test from managers to see if people will do something because they've been told to without having any reasons.
Unfortunately, I do not see that much evidence provided by people who encourage WFH, either. There are papers that have come to a variety of conclusions, many of which are limited to a specific company, and you can always pick one of those to support your point. In comments posted here, however, I see some people saying with no evidence that everybody should work from the office because it's terrible to do it the other way and many others saying the same thing, just with the office and home reversed. Evidence on this topic appears limited to personal preference, with at most a citation that their work has improved/suffered/remained unchanged from the switch from/to WFH/working in the office (pick the combination that supports your preference), so therefore everybody's will and anybody who disagrees is stupid or worse.
I have seen indications of improvement both from working from home and from having some employees in the office, and there are a lot of variables that modify those. I have not studied any of them, so my anecdotes aren't usable to prove which is better, if there even is a provable superior option.
>> Unfortunately, I do not see that much evidence provided by people who encourage WFH, either. There are papers that have come to a variety of conclusions, many of which are limited to a specific company, and you can always pick one of those to support your point.
You're not seeing the evidence because you're either not looking or willingly ignoring it, because there's plenty of evidence for the benefits of WFH over in-office work.
>> There are papers that have come to a variety of conclusions, many of which are limited to a specific company, and you can always pick one of those to support your point.
No, not really:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bryanrobinson/2022/02/04/3-new-studies-end-debate-over-effectiveness-of-hybrid-and-remote-work/?sh=273fbba359b2
"What Does The Scientific Data Show?
To resolve the debate, it’s time to go beyond subjective opinion and look at the objective science. David Powell, president of Prodoscore said their data showed that if an employee was highly productive in-office, they’ll be productive at home; if an employee slacked off at the office, they’ll do the same a home. “After evaluating over 105 million data points from 30,000 U.S.-based Prodoscore users, we discovered a five percent increase in productivity during the pandemic work from home period,” he said. “Although, as we know, any variant of the Covid-19 virus is unpredictable, employee productivity is not.”"
or
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/intentional-insights/202210/the-truth-about-work-from-home-productivity
"A two-year study published in February 2021 of 3 million employees at 715 U.S. companies, including many from the Fortune 500 list, showed that working from home improved employee productivity by an average of 6 percent."
And these are just two examples of many studies that all came to similar conclusions, which is that WFH is better for employee productivity.
And let's not forget: during the pandemic, the very same employers that now want to bring back employees back to the office were the ones touting the productivity increase they saw from WFH. And it's well known that the main driver for the current back-to-office initiatives has nothing to do with "culture", "innovation" or employee performance, but comes from the need for businesses to show use of the very expensive long-term office leases they signed before COVID and which can't be easily terminated (many of which can last for 7 to 10 years). Because in most countries company assets must be actively used for the business to be able to write of the costs, office desks have to be filled again.
>> Evidence on this topic appears limited to personal preference, with at most a citation that their work has improved/suffered/remained unchanged from the switch from/to WFH/working in the office (pick the combination that supports your preference), so therefore everybody's will and anybody who disagrees is stupid or worse.
That's nonsense. There has been plenty of evidence which shows the benefits and productivity gains of WFH, even before the pandemic. While for in-office work, there not only is not any evidence showing any productivity benefits over remote work, in fact there is also plenty of evidence that, especially in open plan settings, productivity and innovation take a nose dive in favor of performative working.
Those are good data, and I'm not trying to pretend that they don't exist. However, people who advocate returning to the office (I should reiterate that I'm not one of those people), have studies of their own. Even without considering ones that might have been written specifically to come to that conclusion, there are reports like this one which concludes that remote workers get more done, but by working longer hours rather than by being more productive, which has other downsides in the long-term health of the team. Similarly, at least some companies have described that they're returning to the office because they've seen productivity declines, often specifically referring to new hires. Whether they have the data to defend that or they just made it up because it sounds convincing is harder to know, because most of them didn't bothering giving out data.
You appear to have a strong opinion, so I'm not surprised that you find the papers supporting higher productivity to be convincing to you. I still question whether those sources are as universal as the summaries of them would lead us to believe. I am less convinced in part because there are a lot of different kinds of work, and I would expect there to be a lot of differences in productivity based on exactly what you're doing at home, whereas a lot of these papers either try to study everybody or focus on one activity which isn't necessarily the same as the work we do. I sometimes work from an office and sometimes work at home, and anecdotally I have some advantages when at home and often prefer to work there. The problem comes when I decide that, because that's my experience, it must also be yours and that of everyone else I know.
>> Those are good data, and I'm not trying to pretend that they don't exist. However, people who advocate returning to the office (I should reiterate that I'm not one of those people), have studies of their own.
No, they don't. They literally have nothing, because there is no data that shows in-office work is more productive than WFH. It doesn't exist.
>> there are reports like this one which concludes that remote workers get more done, but by working longer hours rather than by being more productive,
The article shows no evidence for this, in fact the article doesn't even establish this as fact (well, it's just a survey, not a controlled scientific study), only as one possibility (there are other studies that examined this in more detail, and found that, while overworking does happen in WFH settings, the productivity gains come mostly from factors such as being able to focus and work undistracted and working at times when focus is highest, rather than in a noisy and distracting office and during fixed office hours). And even the article you cite doesn't conclude with that return to the office is the solution, rather than employers being aware of the potential side effects such as loneliness and addressing them.
>> Similarly, at least some companies have described that they're returning to the office because they've seen productivity declines, often specifically referring to new hires. Whether they have the data to defend that or they just made it up because it sounds convincing is harder to know, because most of them didn't bothering giving out data.
Companies make a lot of claims to bring workers back to office, pretty much all unsubstantiated. And it's unsubstantiated because the evidence showing performance benefits of in-office work does not exist, period.
As mentioned, there are reasons to bring back workers to the office, but none have anything to do with employee performance, the reason is corporate real estate. It's a major cost factor for many businesses and if offices are empty they no longer qualify for tax deduction.
>> You appear to have a strong opinion, so I'm not surprised that you find the papers supporting higher productivity to be convincing to you. I still question whether those sources are as universal as the summaries of them would lead us to believe.
That's as stupid as saying I only breathe because papers supporting that humans need oxygen are the ones convincing me.
Also, as a business leader, it's not just an opinion, it's what I also have to deal with on a professional level. I have to look at the evidence and make decisions.
For some reason in your mind you imagine that there is some equivalency between both sides, which is pure phantasy. The facts and the science are clear, WFH is more productive than in-office work. You can twist it as much as you want, that's a simple fact. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.
There are no credible studies showing performance benefits of in-office work over WFH. Zero. If you believe otherwise then go ahead and provide some, because I would really like to see anything that would justify my business continuing to pay for those expensive real estate leases.
>> I am less convinced in part because there are a lot of different kinds of work, and I would expect there to be a lot of differences in productivity based on exactly what you're doing at home, whereas a lot of these papers either try to study everybody or focus on one activity which isn't necessarily the same as the work we do. I sometimes work from an office and sometimes work at home, and anecdotally I have some advantages when at home and often prefer to work there. The problem comes when I decide that, because that's my experience, it must also be yours and that of everyone else I know.
That sounds a lot like an employee who's anxious, insecure and indecisive. "WFH may be bad because there are different kinds of work" is a silly statement because there was never any argument that all jobs have to be WFH, which clearly is impossible. The discussions around WFH has always been focused on jobs that are not location-dependent, i.e., the majority of office-based desk jobs.
And for those jobs the productivity gains from WFH are clear.
It's a shame your "gut feeling" prevents you to build an actual opinion based actual evidence, but maybe you are one of the few types of employees who really are better suited for in-office work.
Here in $BIGUSCORP we are at the point where the CEO says "you must do it because I say so" and "if you don't work in the office, you will be isolated" and "if you don't do it, this will be reflected in your next performance review". The same office where people work on projects where all their teammates are in other countries so all meetings are done using Teams and the same performance review where a key metric is to work more efficiently with technology.
Don't look for logic because their is none, this is just the managerial class getting very afraid that work went on perfectly well and productivity went up without them.
My evidence is actually a gut feeling. I believe it's considered impolite to fart in the office, but sadly, being in the office induces wind.
The lease on our regional office expired during lockdown. Rather than looking at anything as mundane as evidence, our C suite people asked their egos what they should do. Thus it was decided that we needed a BIGGER space. Now they're realising that only one in seven seats have bums on them. Again the egos were consulted, and an edict was duely drawn up.
The upshot is that after working from home for 99% of the last two years, I've started commuting again. And with it, as if a switch had been thrown, came the farting. It seems my gut responds to the stress of commuting, noisy colleagues, and being told that where I sit is not my decision to make, in the best way it knows how.
On principal, I don't inflict this outcome on my colleagues. But if the decision makers come to visit us, I think I'll make an exception.
I get the upside of being in the office, but presenteeism is so 2019.
Work-life balance is important, if we're expected to work for more years, probably never retire, and get the same stuff done, what's the problem with hybrid WFH?
If you have a shitty employer, move. They will soon get with the programme when they realise they can't operate and have lost their staff to those offering better terms.
spending just a few days together boosts team feelings of connection That's because you can have "happy interactions" without becoming annoyed at, e.g. the constant heel-drumming of your officemate.
WFH plus: zero commute-time and commute-fees (gas, transit fare, etc.)
WFH plus: no more time-wasting drop-bys/drop-ins ("Hey, Bob, what did you think of the game last night? The Sharks are really great, right?")
WFH minus: effective team collaboration via Skype, Teams, etc. really is harder than in-person. ("Look at this piece of crap!" [points camera at inside of a PC] "Jim, that's a great view of your belt-buckle." "No, no, look at that blown power regulator ...")
WFH minus: time-wasters are just as impeding over Skype, Teams, etc. as they are in-person ("Wow, did you all catch the game last night? Those Sharks are really great!")
WFH minus: beneficial, synergistic conversation overhearings-and-responses ("Five-point-two? Don't use that; the client just updated the spec to five-point-five. I've got a copy in my inbox which I'll forward to everyone on your team.") don't happen.
First sensible comment on this ;)
Personally, I feel like ppl are getting too hung up on productivity as the only argument for/against WFH - it's only one aspect, and lots to suggest it's not significantly impacted either way. The main gains from being in the office are the less-tangible, in particular those accidental conversations/overhearings that lead to more efficient work or new discoveries. To my experience, there's not been a successful way of replicating those remotely.
I'd say the best approach is where allow people flexibility with this - broadly choosing their WFH/office days, not being d!cks about how many days in the office - while also insisting on some days in the office to allow these 'happy accidents' and to help ppl feel part of team/dept/whatever. (And also acknowledging there'll always be ppl who'd prefer to be 100% WFH or 100% in office, doing their best to accommodate these.)
Sadly, most companies seem to be deciding either with arbitrary choices from C-suite, or driven by real-estate costs...
I don't think it's about us, those who worked stable jobs through the pandemic from home - it's about the next generation learning the soft skills and being able to passively absorb office culture and information that they wouldn't be party to in their bedrooms at their mum's house. Companies need a sustainable workforce in 20 years and those that prosper will be those who worked in close proximity to the leaders of today - at least that's my thoughts currently, however, I see a large number of non-leadership roles for those that are able to interface with chat gpt!
Just moved on and read an article that supports my point (in a way) - https://www.theregister.com/2023/06/13/workplace_jargon_language_barrier/?td=rt-3a
You can effectively do some hardware troubleshooting remotely if you have a good memory for the layout of the remote site, and someone at the remote site who can be your eyes, ears, and hands, if they're observant and thoughtful (even if they're not technical).
You: "Please look in the computer room at the blue box which has a bunch of wires going into it. What color are the lights that are on, and how are those lights labelled?"
Remote Person: "All the lights on the blue box are off. Hmm ... that's odd. I remember the little black box wired to the blue box used to be plugged into one of those orange* outlets, but right now, it's plugged into one of the white outlets."
You: "Is there anything plugged into the orange outlet?"
RP: "No."
You: "Please unplug the little black box which is attached to the blue box, from the white outlet, and plug it into the orange outlet. Is there any change?"
RP: "Okay ... yes, the blue box now has a green light on beneath the company logo, which reads Conifer Networks. On the back there are now yellow lights blinking next to each of the fat telephone-cable-looking wires plugged in back there."
You: "Good, that's fixed part of the problems ..."
*Orange color used for emergency-power outlets in some countries.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2023
