The future of remote and full-time WFH

[Anonymous]

I’m beginning to think that this trend won’t last, especially for high-paying professional jobs, perhaps minus programmers. With a recession looming and increased evidence that many WFH staff are working the system, companies, particularly high-performing ones, seem ready to prune their staff. What do you think?

[Anonymous]

OP here. I’m thinking mostly about high-level technical staff, like a generic analyst, project manager, etc.

[Anonymous]

Once an office gives up the space, it is hard to go back. My office only has 20% of what we used to. I am not worried.

[Anonymous]

My wife's work says they want to go back but has now been looking for office space for over a year. I know the rates are definitely lower than what they used to pay, but it's just a bad economic decision. I think a lot of places keep dangling the "back to the office" propaganda over employees' heads just as extra insurance that they don't move way outside the geographic area. My prediction is that a lot of places never go back unless they're run by old fuddy duddies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m beginning to think that this trend won’t last, especially for high-paying professional jobs, perhaps minus programmers. With a recession looming and increased evidence that many WFH staff are working the system, companies, particularly high-performing ones, seem ready to prune their staff. What do you think?

What evidence?

[Anonymous]

My town had a regional Nationwide office and employed a lot of people. They sold their land and buildings and moved to remote only after about 3 months of covid.

Working remotely is here to stay for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Once an office gives up the space, it is hard to go back. My office only has 20% of what we used to. I am not worried.

Vacant office space is abundant and cheap. Not hard to re-lease space and demand everyone back hot desking.

[Anonymous]

Everyone will have a different perspective: managers, senior managers and regular employees. I personally do not think WFH is going well.

I think a better system would be certain "mandatory days in the office" for collaboration, team building, in person meetings, etc. We didn't need this in the beginning because we all knew each other, but now we're incredibly fragmented. There are now entire programs that I know nothing about because I've never had a meeting or have spoken to this person. Weekly I have a conversation that goes like "oh didn't you know that John is the lead on that? You should be talking to him." But the other person has no idea who John is or where he works.

Employees are lonely and because of this have checked out of work. (sure- some of you have wonderful social lives outside of work, but plenty of people had meaningful professional lives at work and work friends). I think a lot of it is people's unwillingness to turn their cameras on.

[Anonymous]

I travel to our headquarters in NYC about once a quarter and don't expect to ever be in office.

[Anonymous]

PP here. I would say of those times I go up, about half of them are really necessary. The other times are because I like going to NYC.

[Anonymous]

I think mandatory back to office full time in business clothing is best thing to avoid layoff costs and force people out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone will have a different perspective: managers, senior managers and regular employees. I personally do not think WFH is going well.

I think a better system would be certain "mandatory days in the office" for collaboration, team building, in person meetings, etc. We didn't need this in the beginning because we all knew each other, but now we're incredibly fragmented. There are now entire programs that I know nothing about because I've never had a meeting or have spoken to this person. Weekly I have a conversation that goes like "oh didn't you know that John is the lead on that? You should be talking to him." But the other person has no idea who John is or where he works.

Employees are lonely and because of this have checked out of work. (sure- some of you have wonderful social lives outside of work, but plenty of people had meaningful professional lives at work and work friends). I think a lot of it is people's unwillingness to turn their cameras on.

It's never been a policy, but on my team we all keep cameras on, and we also do team gatherings and retreats regularly (I realize not every company can afford this).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think mandatory back to office full time in business clothing is best thing to avoid layoff costs and force people out.

I agree this is going to be a tactic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone will have a different perspective: managers, senior managers and regular employees. I personally do not think WFH is going well.

I think a better system would be certain "mandatory days in the office" for collaboration, team building, in person meetings, etc. We didn't need this in the beginning because we all knew each other, but now we're incredibly fragmented. There are now entire programs that I know nothing about because I've never had a meeting or have spoken to this person. Weekly I have a conversation that goes like "oh didn't you know that John is the lead on that? You should be talking to him." But the other person has no idea who John is or where he works.

Employees are lonely and because of this have checked out of work. (sure- some of you have wonderful social lives outside of work, but plenty of people had meaningful professional lives at work and work friends). I think a lot of it is people's unwillingness to turn their cameras on.

It's never been a policy, but on my team we all keep cameras on, and we also do team gatherings and retreats regularly (I realize not every company can afford this).

Same. We also have scheduled one-on-one’s between individual colleagues. It seemed silly at first, but it really helps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think mandatory back to office full time in business clothing is best thing to avoid layoff costs and force people out.

Except it’s often the lowest performers with the fewest options who will stay. Top performers can leave.