[Aurornis]

> My reading is that reducing face time is definitely NOT a positive factor for happiness.

This is an extremely common problem for juniors in the mentoring program where I volunteer: They graduate college, take remote jobs, and then slide into depression while working from home. It takes a while to work with them to get to the bottom of their issues, but often they'll realize that they're much happier in the weeks following company on-site meetings, then they slowly decline again.

Remote work doesn't work for everyone. Many people struggle in remote environments, especially juniors. The way remote work gets pushed as being perfect for everyone can be very confusing for people who discover that they don't like it.

It's even harder because the internet tends to be very hostile to these people rather than supportive. The correct answer, obviously, is that some people do better at different types of jobs. Yet every time this comes up, people come out and try to criticize the person, blame it on their lack of hobbies, blame it on something else, and refuse to allow that some people need face-to-face coworkers to thrive.

It's a real phenomenon that gets downplayed on the internet.

[Guid_NewGuid]

I think -- on the basis of this same argument playing out for years at this point -- it's because the 2 views are talking past each other.

Sure, in office works better for some people and remote makes them miserable. They're real people.

But the side suffering economic compulsion is the remote preferred people being forced back to the office against their will.

If everyone can work how they prefer then great. But that's not the world we live in and to draw a false equivalence between the dominant (at exec level) RTO view and remote workers forced into unpaid commutes and time away from families gets our hackles way up.

[Aurornis]

> If everyone can work how they prefer then great.

The problem with this is that people's work preference doesn't always match up with the environments where they actually work well.

I've managed remote and hybrid teams for years. I've done this long enough to realize that a lot of the people who struggle to be productive at home will swear up and down that they're much more productive working remote.

The reason is simple: People aren't just expressing their preference for where they work best. They're expressing their preference for where they want to be. When it comes to low performers and difficult employees, they almost universally don't want to be at the office.

That's why it's not as simple as letting everyone work according to their preference.

Remote teams are hard for many reasons, but one of the biggest challenges is filtering for people who can actually work remote. Many people will claim they work well remote, but then you hire them and they're terrible at communicating, can't manage their own time, are constantly MIA during core working hours (a 4-hour window agreed upon by the team, in our case), and so on. It's hard to start removing these people from the company, but it's the only way to make it work.

All of those companies that switched everyone to WFH during COVID learned the hard way that you can't just take everyone and go remote. You have to build the team for it from the start. And it takes more than just asking people what they prefer.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

What about based on performance? Pre-covid, my company required ridiculous amount of politics to have remote approved. Eventually, one guy cracked the code ( basically be too hard to replace ) and just told the management he is staying remote. And I can see that management would love to get that carrot ( remote ) back to something that is either very rare or non-existent.

<< Remote teams are hard for many reasons, but one of the biggest challenges is filtering for people who can actually work remote. Many people will claim they work well remote, but then you hire them and they're terrible at communicating, can't manage their own time, are constantly MIA during core working hours (a 4-hour window agreed upon by the team, in our case), and so on. It's hard to start removing these people from the company, but it's the only way to make it work.

It is all true, but it points to crappy management. You want to fire people, fire them. You can't keep them motivated, you failed as a manager. I keep saying this, but management class has gotten really used to easy approach to motivation ( pizza and threat of firing ).

[ipaddr]

Why not hire people who have proven they have done something by themselves like an open source project or business? Seems like something that's easy to filter for. Asking someone can only tell you things about their judgement not if they actually can do it.

If you have by yourself done something you can assume they can do something else on their own. The on their own is the important pieces.

[maxerickson]

So the best place for low performers and difficult employees is the office?

[throwway120385]

Yeah people forget that when you graduate college you go from an environment where you're surrounded by hundreds or thousands of potential social contacts who all have lots of free time and lots in common to being surrounded by whoever is on your block, and, if you commute, by your co-workers. I'm a remote worker but the only reason I make this arrangement work is because I'm married, have a family, and have things to do with my time outside of work. If I did this in my 20's I would have been totally unprepared to deal with it.

When I take a junior or mid-level on I try to make sure that we talk about remote work during one-on-ones and that I make sure they have stuff outside of work to focus on or at least that they have a handle on this type of arrangement. In the first year I started doing this in 2018 I tried spending a couple of weeks just working and not leaving my apartment and by the end of it I had gone pretty toasty.

People forget that just as individuals have to work differently to do remote work, managers have to manage differently to do it too. To truly transition will require different habits of mind and a good understanding of what we actually need as people to survive.

[ipaddr]

That's because the quality of juniors has changed. 20-25 years ago a junior was a self taught senior with no resume experience. Companies would throw you into something and you sank or swam. You were just happy to work with a computer all day. Most of the developers back than were men and you had to leave work to meet the opposite sex. Work was never going to meet all of your social needs.

Is the debate wfh is worse for these juniors or these types of juniors didn't exist before and won't with the rise of llms. Why cater to them now? Aren't they a product of over inflated salaries and expanding the industry too rapidly so quality of candidate drops? Isn't that correction going on right now?

[askonomm]

These people should maybe go to co-working places then. Can still work without the butts-in-seats managers over looking every move you make while also getting the social aspect.

[saulpw]

I don't want to work next to random people. I want to work with my co-workers. I don't want to have to come in every day for no good reason. I want to be able to come in to a shared space with my coworkers and have a productive day with them. Trying to bring a group of people into a coworking space doesn't work if there are more than 2 people.

[askonomm]

Yeah but you can't force people who don't want to come to the office to come there just because you prefer it that way. And in any case, I'm sure there would be more than just 1 person who'd prefer a social aspect / whose home life prevents them from being productive at home, in which case you could most likely band together into the same co-working, no? Most co-workings I know also rent out entire rooms for companies, not just individual desks.

Unless we're talking remote and international, in which case that obviously wouldn't work, but I assume you wouldn't apply to those jobs anyway.

That way you can get your office and some coworkers, and others can do what is best for them, and the company doesn't have to lease a huge office space. Win-win-win?

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

Ahh, but you see, as a certain communist era anecdote goes:

A: What if people could choose whether they want to live in decadent West or socialist paradise? B: Problem is, we want those who want to live here and ones that don't.

And that, in a nutshell is the issue with WFH. There are people who think they know better and feel obligated to enforce that view.

[FredPret]

A week has 168 hours.

I used to commute 1.5 hours each way until I got a car, then it dropped to 1 hour.

10-15 hours per week = 6-9% of my life - including time asleep.

Taking 16 hours of waking time per week, that gives me 112 hours to work with. Now that commute eats 9-13% of my conscious time.

Let's assume a standard 40 hour workweek - 35% of my waking time. Add in those compulsory daily highway joyrides, and conscious time spent on work rises up to 48%. Depressed yet? This includes the weekend. During the workweek you'll spend between (8 + 2) / 16 and (8 + 3) / 16 = 62.5-68.75% of your waking moments on work.

Now consider that car ownership + fuel + insurance could eat up to 30% of an average person's post-tax income.

Fuck all of that, a lot.

Employees can get together at quarterly / monthly off-sites, and juniors should be encouraged to get involved in community activities straight out of college. I'm not sacrificing my life and family time so you can stare at my grumpy face in the next cubicle.