The future of remote and full-time WFH

[Anonymous]

I liked the convenience of WFH, but I became depressed and disengaged. And, I’m an introvert!!! I couldn’t imagine life continuing this way, so I quit my very good job and got one nearby. Now, I have a 15 minute commute and go into the office everyday. I love it!

[Anonymous]

It’s a different set of personnel problems (as someone who managed a lot of people)… less people having relationships at work for example.

[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.

Me, neither…sorta.

Yes, it’s difficult but not impossible to force staff back into the office once you have reduced office space.

But I believe the OP is also wondering if the remote staff might be the first ones axed when cuts are needed. I think that’s something to consider. Rather than eliminating all WFH/remote staff, I do think it’s possible for decision makers to suggest that 1 highly reliable staffer (particularly one who comes into the office) is just as good/all you need and cut those remote staff who are perceived as slackers.

While we aren’t presently cutting, I routinely hear leadership commenting about certain remote staff/teams. The impression is that they are coasting.

FWIW, I make a point of being in the office. It’s how I get FaceTime with the executives as well as how I hear their impressions of others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Me, neither…sorta.

Yes, it’s difficult but not impossible to force staff back into the office once you have reduced office space.

But I believe the OP is also wondering if the remote staff might be the first ones axed when cuts are needed. I think that’s something to consider. Rather than eliminating all WFH/remote staff, I do think it’s possible for decision makers to suggest that 1 highly reliable staffer (particularly one who comes into the office) is just as good/all you need and cut those remote staff who are perceived as slackers.

While we aren’t presently cutting, I routinely hear leadership commenting about certain remote staff/teams. The impression is that they are coasting.

FWIW, I make a point of being in the office. It’s how I get FaceTime with the executives as well as how I hear their impressions of others.

Also, they can reconfigure that 20% office space to hold 80% in a hoteling open floor plan, and have you come in 80% time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree but it’s very hard on managers to do one on ones constantly as well as weekly team meetings. Employee engagement was much easier before.

[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?

Programmers were already WFH pre-Covid. Also, explain the bolded statement.

[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.

Same here. We have 500 staffers and office space for maybe 20 people so there is no office to return to over here. I'll keep on rolling over and logging on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree but it’s very hard on managers to do one on ones constantly as well as weekly team meetings. Employee engagement was much easier before.

That wasn't employee engagement, that was being interrupted

[Anonymous]

all I remember is that when IBM allowed for remote work, when the recession last came, they all got fired.

[Anonymous]

There will always be entry level data entry and call center work for work from home. These jobs can be easily tracked through key strokes and phone monitoring.

At a professional level you need to be in an office if you want to get promoted.

[Anonymous]

We are not fully remote, so people come in when they need to for those interactions that require face time. They stay home otherwise. IMO that is the actual future of WFH - even in orgs where the official position is "in-person required."

WFH has goosed our productivity: we're exceeding targets and past performance. First-line managers pay lip service to the need for in-person social interaction but they WFH as much as anybody else. Line staff wouldn't normally see anybody more senior than that, so it's hard to know if senior people are even aware how often staff are in or out.

Our managers announce the current (ever changing) RTO position at staff meetings, and we all update our extremely notional WFH schedules to meet it, and then keep doing what works regardless.

[Anonymous]

My whole pathetic life revolves around the office. So I’m soooo upset about remote work. Plus, I think remote work really hurts my company’s culture and productivity (I have zero evidence for this, but I like making these broad, unsubstantiated pronouncements anyway).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Programmers were already WFH pre-Covid. Also, explain the bolded statement.

You already know. The endless posts on DCUM (and social media) about people using office hours to watch movies, pick up kids, go to the gym, do laundry, make dinner, etc, etc, etc. You’re not one of those “but…but…we proved WFH is sooooo much more productive” jokers, are you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Programmers were already WFH pre-Covid. Also, explain the bolded statement.

You already know. The endless posts on DCUM (and social media) about people using office hours to watch movies, pick up kids, go to the gym, do laundry, make dinner, etc, etc, etc. You’re not one of those “but…but…we proved WFH is sooooo much more productive” jokers, are you?

If you make a claim (WFH home people are slacking) shouldn’t you provide evidence?

Over the past two years, if there was actual, quantifiable evidence that WFH hurts productivity, office morale, engagement, collaboration, etc., wouldn’t someone have published that data and wouldn’t companies be singing about it from the rooftops?

Instead, we get vague, broad pronouncements. And we know what that means- WFH didn’t have any appreciable affect. My employer publishes quarterly productivity reports, and productivity increased during the pandemic. However, they still insisted that employees go into the office weekly- no employee enjoys this, for many they sit alone in their cubes the entire day and get less done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Me, neither…sorta.

Yes, it’s difficult but not impossible to force staff back into the office once you have reduced office space.

But I believe the OP is also wondering if the remote staff might be the first ones axed when cuts are needed. I think that’s something to consider. Rather than eliminating all WFH/remote staff, I do think it’s possible for decision makers to suggest that 1 highly reliable staffer (particularly one who comes into the office) is just as good/all you need and cut those remote staff who are perceived as slackers.

While we aren’t presently cutting, I routinely hear leadership commenting about certain remote staff/teams. The impression is that they are coasting.

FWIW, I make a point of being in the office. It’s how I get FaceTime with the executives as well as how I hear their impressions of others.

Also, they can reconfigure that 20% office space to hold 80% in a hoteling open floor plan, and have you come in 80% time.

It is already an open floor. They would have to stack us. Also things like bathrooms and parking need to be considered.