News

Those two are not as related as they at first seem.

For one, the plumbing required is different, as in literally offices don't tend to have bathrooms with toilets and showers inside every office space. Also the lighting would be cut off for all the inside units. Communal bathrooms and no windows works for work but not as good for home.

For another, a lot of the varying housing crises (there are multiple types) relate to affordability bc of being bought up by corporate interests. Another type relates to weird zoning laws of what types of homes are allowed to be built in certain areas - and for these at least, there's nothing stopping good homes from being made except again profits.

So it's not impossible, but there are challenges. Mainly, how can already rich people find a way to make even moar monay? Oh yeah and something something the poors get whatever too.

Those residential units will be worthless too if all the offices close. Why live in the big city and pay huge rents if you work remote? Just move to a cheap area and buy a nice house.

This is evidence that you need to adjust your training methods.

Some companies see a real benefit from water tank conversations

There are real benefits to water cooler spontaneous talk. However, they don't overcome the detriments to having all your staff commute all the time on the off chance one will occur to produce a positive result.

face-to-face meetings, and the ability for managers to ask someone in person on a moment’s notice to do things.

These are largely dead in hybrid scenarios, because those that would be meeting face to face don't work in the office on the same day. So the practical result to hybrid is the worker loses productivity from the commute to come into the office for one or two days an sits at a desk alone all day in video meetings with their coworkers just like they'd do at home. The next day their coworker does the same while the original worker is WFH that day.

Hybrid is always worse than either fully remote or fully in office. You end up with people coming into the office and sitting on Zoom or posting on Slack, and people at home missing out on conversations that don't happen there. So you have to do twice as much work to keep everybody on the same page.

I know I'm an outlier here, but the evidence is mounting that fully WFH is the least productive, and hybrid seems to be the most productive.

For perspective, I was 100% WFH for about 10 years. A couple of years ago I got a new job (huge compensation boost, and massive perks boost).

Lucky for me, which was one of the reasons I looked into it, my work is a 15 minute bike from where I live, they offer free breakfast and lunch every day, and a gym. So there are plenty of personal incentives for me to go into the office.

But what I find so surprising is that virtually everyone in my office thinks that hybrid is the best for productivity. Literally every person I've talked to about this agrees (quietly, of course, they don't want to lose it) that the spontaneous meetings, the overhearing what other people are talking about (and jumping in with your own knowledge), the ability to quickly turn around and chat with another person, makes collaboration, and by extension productivity, way higher.

My biggest thing is that, as a senior software dev, the junior devs come to me for help quite frequently. When we're in the office, I would say the average is about 3 times a day. When one or both of us is WFH, it probably doesn't even average to one. There is something about sending a message or an email or requesting a zoom meeting that seems to be enough of a hurdle to ask what is a simple question. So they end up spinning their wheels a lot longer.

Now, don't get me wrong, I get that WFH is a huge benefit to the employee. Which is why I did it for so long, with two young kids it was a god send to be home all the time if they needed to come because they were sick or if I needed to run out to the doctors with them. And, of course, commuting just absolutely blows (I think that's the biggest drawback of any non-FWFH schedule). So I do support it.

However, I think we need to be realistic about its benefits. Companies want people back in the office because, generally speaking, people are more productive.

We have hybrid and it actually really works. We hire countrywide and if you don't live near an office you are fully remote. But if you do live near an office you can go in anytime. I don't like going to the office, but if I need to print or ship, or need to meet a client or coworker it's nice to have the option. Also anytime I have an issue, I can pop in the office to check out new hardware, or work if my home is unsuitable due to whatever ( power outage, noisy maintenance, over 90 degrees since we don't have AC, sick kid). However, I think hybrid only works if there is no minimum requirement on time in office. If it is at the teams discretion the home office becomes an amenity. We also downsized from something like 200 cubes to around sixty, so that helps too.

Hybrid does make sense. There are people who work better in an office ( like myself ) and there are people who are better working from home ( like my coworker ). The company i work for believes hybrid is the way to go so that you can supply an office for people like me, but also hire people who work remotely. However, nobody is saying you need to have an office that can house 100% of you employees. 60% is good enough as not everyone will be in the office at the same time. Money saved!

That said, some meetings are better to have in person so once in a while a required in person meeting is needed.

I believe in the words of my company : everyone, everywhere. And that includes an office or, which has happened, from working from spain, germany or thailand which are all remote locations in no way connected with the company. These were people who legit lived abroad or were looking after a vacation home of a friend