>We’ve looked at how our teams work best, and the data is clear: when people work together in person more often, they thrive — they are more energized, empowered, and they deliver stronger results.

Citation needed or this is just more vibe-xecutive decree.

▲

at-fates-hands 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Anecdotal evidence to counter this argument.

Work at a fortune 200 company. We spent COVID all 100% remote WFH. After several quarters of their entire workforce working remotely, they were gushing about how productivity increased, satisfaction scores went through the roof and the company recorded several record breaking quarters in revenue during a time they expected the exact opposite to happen.

This inevitably lead them to having one helluva hard time trying to get people back into the office since they owned about a dozen buildings where the majority of their employees were supposed to be working. After a year and several attempts, they instead sold most of their real estate holdings and have since consolidated everybody into just a few buildings. The new rule is that if you are less than 30 mins from the office, you need to come in at least twice a week. Not a huge hurdle and so far, has been met with little if any resistance.

I have to give them credit. They tried ordering people back in, and ultimately pivoted and sold their real estate instead.

▲

AnimalMuppet 5 days ago | parent [-]

1. Will you name? Sounds like some sane management; those looking for jobs might find that a useful datapoint.

2. I think making it proportional to the length of the commute is an interesting idea. And even for those who don't like the office... two days a week with a short commute isn't terrible.

▲

at-fates-hands 5 days ago | parent [-]

1. I can't name them, but they're in the health care industry.

2. Yeah, and all they're doing is taking badge reports. Going in for a Town Hall meeting or a team meeting meets these requirements. You're not required to be in the office a set number of hours - just be there. I've been told its a kind of reverse psychology trick. The more time you spend around your coworkers, grabbing lunch, collabing on little stuff, it will morph into a desire to want to be there more often and thus, the decision will then be yours that you want to be there - not some mandate coming from on high.

I think in a lot of ways its working. Last year, I'd go in for some tech support thing and the building was a ghost town. Barely anybody. This year? Totally different. The ramp is full, people are bustlin about, the cafeteria is packed. Its being around that atmosphere I think is what they want people to be more involved in. I've already had several team lunches on campus and instead of going home, we unpack our laptops and hammer out a few things, then head out. None of us are really there for more than a few hours, but it just feels like really productive face-time with your team.

I just think its cool how the company is just letting the employees figure out without a heavy handed approach and from what I can see, its working.

	▲	pragma_x 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		Honestly, it sounds like the drop-in-drop-out allowance is what makes this tick. Well, that and the short commute thing. You get the best of face-time collaboration without the "grind" of needing to punch a timecard. Just the best possible parts of in-person work, and nothing else. Plus, you get to time-shift so that commute stays nice and short.

▲

datadrivenangel 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They need to be in the offices to collaborate with their offshore counterparts...

▲

rk06 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

it is obviously more nonsense. There is no way one single will approach will work for ALL employees. some people just do not want to spend 4hrs in commute on daily basis. and any senior employee with kids would prefer to spend more time with kid than on

and that is when Office does not hinder productivity through lack of team space, meeting rooms and open office non sense or seting up equipment.

▲

surgical_fire 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There's no data that proves it. If they had the data they would parade it in front of everyone.

The elites that rule those companies always had WFH as a benefit for as long as I remember. They find it very icky that the underclasses have now a benefit that was exclusive to them. That's the only data there is.

▲

nomel 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Corporate analysts were "gifted" with a two impossibly rare step functions, that will probably never be repeated in our lifetimes: Near 100% -> near 0% percent in office, then 0% percent -> partial% in office. With most (all?) of the big companies following the same path, I think it's safe to assume the data points to the same conclusion: in whole, humans work better together.

It makes you wonder if it's a fundamental part of our evolution, or something. ;)

It would be very interesting to see their rational.

▲

JohnFen 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

> With most (all?) of the big companies following the same path, I think it's safe to assume the data points to the same conclusion

That is, at best, very weak evidence supporting your conclusion.

I agree, by the way, that humans do work better together. That doesn't mean, however, that humans work better in an office environment. There are huge drawbacks to that environment that may very well exceed the benefit of physical proximity.

"Humans work better together" is a very different assertion than "humans work better in offices".

	▲	jleyank 5 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Given how I’ve worked and the developers I’ve worked with over the decades, marketeers or managers might work better in bunches but peace and quiet serves the developers. Offices with a door, few interruptions, etc. Rands has talked about being in the zone when working and anything that favours that should be provided by companies interested in software people.
	▲	nomel 5 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> That is, at best, very weak evidence supporting your conclusion. Please see the definition of "assume" to help you interpret what I wrote in a way that's closer to what I wrote/was trying to communicate. Please also see the last sentence, that you missed entirely: > It would be very interesting to see their rational. This sentence strongly implies, nearly directly states, that I, in fact, do NOT know their rational. What's your opinion? Why do you think they're all converging on the same policies? Do you think they're acting irrationally in opposition of data, or without data?

▲

closeparen 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Then the work should be set up so that your teammates and project collaborators actually work from the same office, and not in the space that was most convenient to procure or in lower-cost offshore markets. But executives would pretty much always rather have you take video calls from your desk than incur any cost or inconvenience on their end. They're not acting like they believe this.

▲

5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

wiseowise 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I think it's safe to assume the data points to the same conclusion: in whole, humans work better together. It makes you wonder if it's a fundamental part of our evolution, or something. ;)

Is that why we invented machines and AI that will replace humans?

▲

5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]