[bluefishinit]

> I feel the ideal environment is contextual and it’s probably a hybrid work environment where people who want to work remote can but have to touch base in-person a few times every month

This necessitates living near the office/only hiring people that live near the office. I will not let my employer dictate where I live and I will not live in some of the most expensive real-estate markets in the world

[elvis10ten]

That’s why I said it’s contextual :) There is always a good enough balance (I think).

Some of my colleagues live outside Berlin and I think they are only required to come to the office a few times a month and they haven’t complained so far.

[bluefishinit]

I would never work somewhere that required me to be in office a few times a month. You still have to live within driving distance to the office (or take a plane a few times a month which is even worse).

I think over time we'll see that the "balance" is actually 100% WFH unless physical presence is absolutely required (like you're making and selling sandwiches). It's just going to take a while for the new fully remote companies to replace those who refuse to adapt.

[elvis10ten]

I didn’t see the option to reply to your last response, so posting this here.

Just curious, Do you live in a cycling friendly city? And how is the public transport?

Also, your response confirms what I said earlier. Not factoring in people that prefer an office will mean you replace the office with another form of an office.

> I've managed around a dozen teams in my career and 100% of the time the fully remote teams have produced better results than the in-office teams.

The worst performers in my career has usually been the remote folks. But we can post all the anecdotes we have, but guess time will tell.

[bluefishinit]

> Just curious, Do you live in a cycling friendly city? And how is the public transport?

I do, but I work remote and I honestly don't even think there are any tech companies in my city even if I wanted to work locally (which I don't).

> Also, your response confirms what I said earlier. Not factoring in people that prefer an office will mean you replace the office with another form of an office.

If you count zoom/discord/slack/github... as "another form of an office", then sure. I really do mean that successful companies in the future will not have a physical presence if they don't need to.

> The worst performers in my career has usually been the remote folks. But we can post all the anecdotes we have, but guess time will tell.

I think it's pretty easy to see how being pure remote is superior from a talent market perspective. How can "people who live within commuting distance to the office" ever compete with "the best people on the planet I can hire"?

[StimDeck]

> The worst performers in my career has usually been the remote folks.

On what KPI? Did they also suffer less burnout? Did the company lose money hiring these folks? Did anyone care? Who? Why?

[elvis10ten]

> I would never work somewhere that required me to be in office a few times a month.

It’s great that we have that option of companies that are full remote.

———

However, your last paragraph seems to not appreciate the fact that there are folks like myself that prefer going to an office often.

My prediction is that we might get rid of the office and replace it with the office in another form — most likely better.

[dickersnoodle]

>My prediction is that we might get rid of the office and replace it with the office in another form — most likely better.

You'll have to explain what you mean by "most likely better" and then make the case that your "better" is enough to draw workers to an office that a bunch of them don't want to be in for all of the reasons HN has listed.

[elvis10ten]

> You'll have to explain what you mean by "most likely better"

If I knew, I would have started a startup with the idea :).

My high-level point is that there are some pros to periodic physical meetups with colleagues (in an office?). And my prediction is predicated on two things: 1. Those needs still need to be solved 2. There are folks that prefer working from something like an office.

In no way do I want to draw “workers to an office that a bunch of them don't want to be in for all of the reasons HN has listed.”. Tho I think there is some balance for most folks.

I’m pro options. I’m anti black and white. What HN lists on this topic are usually one sided takes.

[bluefishinit]

Actually my last paragraph is about efficiency, talent access and cost savings. As a leader, I have no reason to incur the massive cost of having an office because it's only going to limit the talent pool I have access too, cost the company a bunch of money and increase team friction.

I've managed around a dozen teams in my career and 100% of the time the fully remote teams have produced better results than the in-office teams. You're literally paying for worse performance and over time it's not going to be sustainable.