Odd, I've seen the EXACT opposite. The folks who spend half their day chatting around the water cooler instead of working prefer to be in the office all the time.
I won't comment on whether or not that means they're good at their jobs because some people can just get their job done in a couple hours every day. But I WILL say that claiming people "least engaged" enjoy working from home is rather silly. Our most successful folks prefer working from home because there are fewer distractions and they get more accomplished in a work day.
That being said, I think most people enjoy a balance because at some point you can't really build a team spirit without some face-to-face time every now and again. Whether that's in an office or just doing a team dinner.
If you think about it, that is how we are trained to work from childhood. You go to school for lessons (go into the office for meetings), then you go home to do your homework and projects. A college schedule is like this, where you are "in the office" for 12 hours a week, (assuming a full load of 12 credit hours), and doing actual work for the rest of the hours in a week.
On the contrary, people who are self motivating and focused on productivity are likely far more engaged than those who require an office environment to get things done and focus on merely being present. The engaged individual doesn't ask to get back to work, they already are working.
This suggests a potentially disturbing trend -- companies or managers that will start implicitly punishing employees for working remotely.
My guess is that even at companies that officially support partial remote time employees will start to feel some pressure for taking advantage of it.
Adam Neumann once asked his executive assistant if she 'enjoyed her vacation' after coming back from maternity leave. Now they have a different CEO, obviously, but I can see the parallel -- any kind of situation that deviates from butts in seats at the office will be frowned upon.
> This suggests a potentially disturbing trend -- companies or managers that will start implicitly punishing employees for working remotely.
> My guess is that even at companies that officially support partial remote time employees will start to feel some pressure for taking advantage of it.
I'm sure it's not the same in all sectors, but in the govt realm I was feeling this before the pandemic, with the pandemic flipping it completely (for now, at least). We have a long approval chain to get authorization to work remotely, with an explicit time code to go with it. I felt almost guilty requesting up to 2 days a week remotely and almost never took more than 1.
Then the pandemic hit and management discovered that a lot of people didn't need to sit in a cubicle 5 days a week to get their jobs done. There's even rumblings from higher up the chain to emphasize getting work done where it's most efficient; hopefully that translates to a better attitude towards working remotely.
> This suggests a potentially disturbing trend -- companies or managers that will start implicitly punishing employees for working remotely.
Unfortunately, a company where any significant proportion of staff actually works from an office will implicitely have remote workers at a disadvantage — pass-by discussions with actual decisions might never reach them, so they'd be missing a lot of context (at best, they'd get decisions without the reasoning).
Basically, remote work requires full team to switch to remote-friendly practices, like relying on written forms of discussion. Basically, the office should only be a place for chit-chat and building the team spirit. Some people need more of that, and others need less.
Since I am working from home, half day I am writing code, other half day I am doing machining on mill and lathes.
My performance on code related work has shot up, you need an escape to increase your productivity. Sitting at a desk all day will not make you productive.
This is a sales pitch that lacks empathy. It's obviously in his best-interest to promote an office culture, but this pitch makes him sound like a psychopath (the clinical definition).
There’s a thing to be done, and hopefully, some sort of timeframe to complete it. There are a number of ways to contact all the people involved. End of story.
Where in all of this is a central office necessary? I stay engaged by the quality and quantity of work, not by useless office politics (which happen regardless) and seeing people whose only connection is that we work for the same company.
Those people are there to solve specific issues and if one arises that needs their attention, well, I can reach them.
I know he meant it to show as a negative but I think it is fine in decent number of scenarios. The companies who have lot of "least engaged" employees, may be they can look at their work culture. Or better concern themselves more with outcomes instead of outlays.
This way "disengaged" employees like me would rather produce results remotely instead of buying into, motivation, engagement, or workplace well-being bullshit while suffering claustrophobic workplaces.
OP takes the one line in the article that can be perceived as a personal attack and uses it as the post title.
Why not use a title that actually represents the primary argument in the article?
That is, the WeWork CEO is saying that some time in the office is paramount for collaboration and efficiency. The question is just how much time is optimal. 3-days a week or 5-days a week.
> OP takes the one line in the article that can be perceived as a personal attack and uses it as the post title.
OP literally took the headline from the WSJ article, consistent with the "Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." guidance. Your ire is more properly directed at the WSJ headline author.
Too bias - This statement is over-generalized and exaggerated. You can share observations, but to extract what is underlying - it needs a backup data. During a pandemic, most big tech let their employee work from home.
WFH means that you are able to get tasks done by yourself with lots of autonomy. IMHO
Hybrid remote is the worst of both worlds. The best remote employees will move to fully remote companies so they can move out of the B-team. Over time Sandeep will be right when he says: "Those who are least engaged are very comfortable working from home."
Nice template: make an outrageous statement, get press time, create an issue for vacuous debate, ride the wave on misconceptions about worker efficiecny while WFH, gaslight everyone back into overpriced real estate, make bank.
[+] [-] muttled|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lwhi|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tw04|4 years ago|reply
I won't comment on whether or not that means they're good at their jobs because some people can just get their job done in a couple hours every day. But I WILL say that claiming people "least engaged" enjoy working from home is rather silly. Our most successful folks prefer working from home because there are fewer distractions and they get more accomplished in a work day.
That being said, I think most people enjoy a balance because at some point you can't really build a team spirit without some face-to-face time every now and again. Whether that's in an office or just doing a team dinner.
[+] [-] derekp7|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dvfjsdhgfv|4 years ago|reply
Of course and he knows it as well. But you are not the target of this piece, it's the CEOs of companies that he's renting his space to.
[+] [-] himinlomax|4 years ago|reply
Do you make a living from people having to go to an office?
[+] [-] _y5hn|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jjk166|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cedricd|4 years ago|reply
My guess is that even at companies that officially support partial remote time employees will start to feel some pressure for taking advantage of it.
Adam Neumann once asked his executive assistant if she 'enjoyed her vacation' after coming back from maternity leave. Now they have a different CEO, obviously, but I can see the parallel -- any kind of situation that deviates from butts in seats at the office will be frowned upon.
[+] [-] sco1|4 years ago|reply
> My guess is that even at companies that officially support partial remote time employees will start to feel some pressure for taking advantage of it.
I'm sure it's not the same in all sectors, but in the govt realm I was feeling this before the pandemic, with the pandemic flipping it completely (for now, at least). We have a long approval chain to get authorization to work remotely, with an explicit time code to go with it. I felt almost guilty requesting up to 2 days a week remotely and almost never took more than 1.
Then the pandemic hit and management discovered that a lot of people didn't need to sit in a cubicle 5 days a week to get their jobs done. There's even rumblings from higher up the chain to emphasize getting work done where it's most efficient; hopefully that translates to a better attitude towards working remotely.
[+] [-] necovek|4 years ago|reply
Unfortunately, a company where any significant proportion of staff actually works from an office will implicitely have remote workers at a disadvantage — pass-by discussions with actual decisions might never reach them, so they'd be missing a lot of context (at best, they'd get decisions without the reasoning).
Basically, remote work requires full team to switch to remote-friendly practices, like relying on written forms of discussion. Basically, the office should only be a place for chit-chat and building the team spirit. Some people need more of that, and others need less.
[+] [-] wolfretcrap|4 years ago|reply
My performance on code related work has shot up, you need an escape to increase your productivity. Sitting at a desk all day will not make you productive.
[+] [-] moogly|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] not2b|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] abakker|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crftr|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] akomtu|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryneandal|4 years ago|reply
The ability to walk away when you aren't being productive and soft reset is one of the most valuable aspects of working from home, IMO.
[+] [-] scatters|4 years ago|reply
Why can't you do that in the office?
[+] [-] benjaminjosephw|4 years ago|reply
This, right here, is proof that clever spin and intelligent marketing is always going to be more effective than just pumping cash into advertising.
[+] [-] lwhi|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drivingmenuts|4 years ago|reply
Where in all of this is a central office necessary? I stay engaged by the quality and quantity of work, not by useless office politics (which happen regardless) and seeing people whose only connection is that we work for the same company.
Those people are there to solve specific issues and if one arises that needs their attention, well, I can reach them.
[+] [-] geodel|4 years ago|reply
This way "disengaged" employees like me would rather produce results remotely instead of buying into, motivation, engagement, or workplace well-being bullshit while suffering claustrophobic workplaces.
[+] [-] fairity|4 years ago|reply
Why not use a title that actually represents the primary argument in the article?
That is, the WeWork CEO is saying that some time in the office is paramount for collaboration and efficiency. The question is just how much time is optimal. 3-days a week or 5-days a week.
[+] [-] sokoloff|4 years ago|reply
OP literally took the headline from the WSJ article, consistent with the "Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." guidance. Your ire is more properly directed at the WSJ headline author.
* - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[+] [-] emmap21|4 years ago|reply
WFH means that you are able to get tasks done by yourself with lots of autonomy. IMHO
[+] [-] sytse|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] geodel|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raxor53|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chad_strategic|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notsureaboutpg|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] windex|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chad_strategic|4 years ago|reply
Yet WeWork major competition is work from home.
[+] [-] villgax|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thrower123|4 years ago|reply