Is Hybrid Work a Good Idea?
-
To be clear, there are some jobs where there are clear, legitimate, reasons to have everyone in a specific location at least once a week. I am not addressing those here. I am using software development and testing as an example. I hope the discussion focuses on whether hybrid work is a good idea within that context or not. If work can be done remotely 1 day a week or more, with the same or better level of quality and productivity as can be done in an office, then what value does hybrid bring? The hypothesis for debate in this posting is that a position should be 100% remote or 100% in-office, and that hybrid detracts from productivity and employee satisfaction. Some common arguments for hybrid: - Face-to-face in the office helps build team relationships. Face-to-face interactions do help build team relationships. But being in-office is not necessary for that. Use conferencing tools like Teams for two or more coworkers having a discussion and require that the video is on. Audio and video together greatly multiply the personal effects of interaction done remotely, to a degree near enough to in-office as to eradicate any in-office value from hybrid for this argument for hybrid. - Being in-office ensures the person is working. Most of us who have worked for years in-office know how easy it is to appear to be working when in the office. In-office is no guarantee of productivity. Setting goals for each worker works much better. If goals are not met, then work with the worker to see if the goals were too optimistic, or if the worker needs some help to produce at a reasonable level. That works whether in-office or remote. - As a manager or team lead, it is easier to walk over to a worker's cubicle or call him/her into my office to help build that manager/employee relationship. The same benefits can be had by scheduling a weekly meeting of 15 to 30 minutes with each of your reports using Teams (or whatever you use for that functionality). With both video and audio, the benefits of building that relationship via one-on-one meetings is just as present with remote as with in-office meetings. Some common arguments against hybrid: - The travel time for the employee is wasted time. A typical hybrid employee wastes 1 to 3 hours every day they travel into the office. Plus the cost of commuting. Getting rid of this pain for the employee improves employee loyalty and reduces turnover. - Tracking each employee's schedule for when to be in the office or worki
The future that I see for working from home on a large scale is the switch to a single pay for all. Right now what is happening is that people from places that pay very well are moving to places that are more affordable and are buying and renting at rates that are commiserate with their pay and are driving housing to a level that the native people can't afford. Case in point: we moved from a townhouse in NE FL 3 years ago and the price of the townhouse in 3 years has increased by 60%.
I don't think before I open my mouth, I like to be as surprised a everyone else. PartsBin an Electronics Part Organizer - Release Version 1.3.0 JaxCoder.com Latest Article: SimpleWizardUpdate
-
It is not a question of "allow" for hybrid. I contend that all three should be supported. I agree that for some folks with a short commute, or single people whose social life revolves around work, hybrid is a very good alternative.
MSBassSinger wrote:
I agree that for some folks with a short commute, or single people whose social life revolves around work, hybrid is a very good alternative.
God help you if your social life revolves around work. As much as I get along with my coworkers, I don't exactly want to hang out with them past office hours. And I'm saying this as someone who actually *is* single, with no social life to speak of, and have been working from home exclusively for > 15 years. Something very, very bad would have to happen for me to go back to an office on a regular basis, even if it was just a 5-minute drive away. As in, early retirement would be much more likely to happen before that.
-
The future that I see for working from home on a large scale is the switch to a single pay for all. Right now what is happening is that people from places that pay very well are moving to places that are more affordable and are buying and renting at rates that are commiserate with their pay and are driving housing to a level that the native people can't afford. Case in point: we moved from a townhouse in NE FL 3 years ago and the price of the townhouse in 3 years has increased by 60%.
I don't think before I open my mouth, I like to be as surprised a everyone else. PartsBin an Electronics Part Organizer - Release Version 1.3.0 JaxCoder.com Latest Article: SimpleWizardUpdate
Mike Hankey wrote:
we moved from a townhouse in NE FL 3 years ago and the price of the townhouse in 3 years has increased by 60%.
That phenomenon has been observed everywhere over the last few years, and I've yet to hear anyone in the real estate business suggest it was caused by people commanding large salaries moving into areas where cost of living is cheaper.
-
To be clear, there are some jobs where there are clear, legitimate, reasons to have everyone in a specific location at least once a week. I am not addressing those here. I am using software development and testing as an example. I hope the discussion focuses on whether hybrid work is a good idea within that context or not. If work can be done remotely 1 day a week or more, with the same or better level of quality and productivity as can be done in an office, then what value does hybrid bring? The hypothesis for debate in this posting is that a position should be 100% remote or 100% in-office, and that hybrid detracts from productivity and employee satisfaction. Some common arguments for hybrid: - Face-to-face in the office helps build team relationships. Face-to-face interactions do help build team relationships. But being in-office is not necessary for that. Use conferencing tools like Teams for two or more coworkers having a discussion and require that the video is on. Audio and video together greatly multiply the personal effects of interaction done remotely, to a degree near enough to in-office as to eradicate any in-office value from hybrid for this argument for hybrid. - Being in-office ensures the person is working. Most of us who have worked for years in-office know how easy it is to appear to be working when in the office. In-office is no guarantee of productivity. Setting goals for each worker works much better. If goals are not met, then work with the worker to see if the goals were too optimistic, or if the worker needs some help to produce at a reasonable level. That works whether in-office or remote. - As a manager or team lead, it is easier to walk over to a worker's cubicle or call him/her into my office to help build that manager/employee relationship. The same benefits can be had by scheduling a weekly meeting of 15 to 30 minutes with each of your reports using Teams (or whatever you use for that functionality). With both video and audio, the benefits of building that relationship via one-on-one meetings is just as present with remote as with in-office meetings. Some common arguments against hybrid: - The travel time for the employee is wasted time. A typical hybrid employee wastes 1 to 3 hours every day they travel into the office. Plus the cost of commuting. Getting rid of this pain for the employee improves employee loyalty and reduces turnover. - Tracking each employee's schedule for when to be in the office or worki
When I was in my longest contract I travelled interstate every month for time in the office. I think it's really helpful, although I love work from home
-
To be clear, there are some jobs where there are clear, legitimate, reasons to have everyone in a specific location at least once a week. I am not addressing those here. I am using software development and testing as an example. I hope the discussion focuses on whether hybrid work is a good idea within that context or not. If work can be done remotely 1 day a week or more, with the same or better level of quality and productivity as can be done in an office, then what value does hybrid bring? The hypothesis for debate in this posting is that a position should be 100% remote or 100% in-office, and that hybrid detracts from productivity and employee satisfaction. Some common arguments for hybrid: - Face-to-face in the office helps build team relationships. Face-to-face interactions do help build team relationships. But being in-office is not necessary for that. Use conferencing tools like Teams for two or more coworkers having a discussion and require that the video is on. Audio and video together greatly multiply the personal effects of interaction done remotely, to a degree near enough to in-office as to eradicate any in-office value from hybrid for this argument for hybrid. - Being in-office ensures the person is working. Most of us who have worked for years in-office know how easy it is to appear to be working when in the office. In-office is no guarantee of productivity. Setting goals for each worker works much better. If goals are not met, then work with the worker to see if the goals were too optimistic, or if the worker needs some help to produce at a reasonable level. That works whether in-office or remote. - As a manager or team lead, it is easier to walk over to a worker's cubicle or call him/her into my office to help build that manager/employee relationship. The same benefits can be had by scheduling a weekly meeting of 15 to 30 minutes with each of your reports using Teams (or whatever you use for that functionality). With both video and audio, the benefits of building that relationship via one-on-one meetings is just as present with remote as with in-office meetings. Some common arguments against hybrid: - The travel time for the employee is wasted time. A typical hybrid employee wastes 1 to 3 hours every day they travel into the office. Plus the cost of commuting. Getting rid of this pain for the employee improves employee loyalty and reduces turnover. - Tracking each employee's schedule for when to be in the office or worki
I'm an employer (and also still programmer myself) and I want my employees to be at the office at least about half of the time. Working from home isn't an issue, and this week and next week I have someone working three days at home and one in the office. Fact is, when he's at home he's less likely to contact me for any questions he has, he'll spend hours figuring it out while in the office he asks me after about fifteen to thirty minutes. We also use the office time for briefings on projects, status updates, other questions he might have, music interchange, a walk in the nearby forest and sometimes drinks and snacks. Granted, most of these things can be done digitally trough Teams, and we sometimes do, but there's simply no substitution for seeing face to face. Let's put it this way, would you only see your family and friends digitally? You wouldn't, because seeing people online just doesn't build the same kind of familiarity and trust as seeing someone in real life. And now you're saying "well, there are these people I work with eight hours a day, and we need to get stuff done, but there's no reason to ever see them in real life." That just sounds like crazy and highly unproductive to me.
Best, Sander Azure DevOps Succinctly (free eBook) Azure Serverless Succinctly (free eBook) Migrating Apps to the Cloud with Azure arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript
-
I'm an employer (and also still programmer myself) and I want my employees to be at the office at least about half of the time. Working from home isn't an issue, and this week and next week I have someone working three days at home and one in the office. Fact is, when he's at home he's less likely to contact me for any questions he has, he'll spend hours figuring it out while in the office he asks me after about fifteen to thirty minutes. We also use the office time for briefings on projects, status updates, other questions he might have, music interchange, a walk in the nearby forest and sometimes drinks and snacks. Granted, most of these things can be done digitally trough Teams, and we sometimes do, but there's simply no substitution for seeing face to face. Let's put it this way, would you only see your family and friends digitally? You wouldn't, because seeing people online just doesn't build the same kind of familiarity and trust as seeing someone in real life. And now you're saying "well, there are these people I work with eight hours a day, and we need to get stuff done, but there's no reason to ever see them in real life." That just sounds like crazy and highly unproductive to me.
Best, Sander Azure DevOps Succinctly (free eBook) Azure Serverless Succinctly (free eBook) Migrating Apps to the Cloud with Azure arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript
Today is my 'office day'. Once a month I cone in for meetings with my boss, the PM and the CEO. Both the PM and CEO have already called off, there's a bit of dodgy weather today, and my direct boss is looking shakey. I'd go home but I'm interviewing this afternoon and there's no way I'm leaving that to HR, they could hire anybody!
veni bibi saltavi
-
To be clear, there are some jobs where there are clear, legitimate, reasons to have everyone in a specific location at least once a week. I am not addressing those here. I am using software development and testing as an example. I hope the discussion focuses on whether hybrid work is a good idea within that context or not. If work can be done remotely 1 day a week or more, with the same or better level of quality and productivity as can be done in an office, then what value does hybrid bring? The hypothesis for debate in this posting is that a position should be 100% remote or 100% in-office, and that hybrid detracts from productivity and employee satisfaction. Some common arguments for hybrid: - Face-to-face in the office helps build team relationships. Face-to-face interactions do help build team relationships. But being in-office is not necessary for that. Use conferencing tools like Teams for two or more coworkers having a discussion and require that the video is on. Audio and video together greatly multiply the personal effects of interaction done remotely, to a degree near enough to in-office as to eradicate any in-office value from hybrid for this argument for hybrid. - Being in-office ensures the person is working. Most of us who have worked for years in-office know how easy it is to appear to be working when in the office. In-office is no guarantee of productivity. Setting goals for each worker works much better. If goals are not met, then work with the worker to see if the goals were too optimistic, or if the worker needs some help to produce at a reasonable level. That works whether in-office or remote. - As a manager or team lead, it is easier to walk over to a worker's cubicle or call him/her into my office to help build that manager/employee relationship. The same benefits can be had by scheduling a weekly meeting of 15 to 30 minutes with each of your reports using Teams (or whatever you use for that functionality). With both video and audio, the benefits of building that relationship via one-on-one meetings is just as present with remote as with in-office meetings. Some common arguments against hybrid: - The travel time for the employee is wasted time. A typical hybrid employee wastes 1 to 3 hours every day they travel into the office. Plus the cost of commuting. Getting rid of this pain for the employee improves employee loyalty and reduces turnover. - Tracking each employee's schedule for when to be in the office or worki
I find Hybrid to be the best option if done properly. On the other hand it is the most complicated to do it well.
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
I'm an employer (and also still programmer myself) and I want my employees to be at the office at least about half of the time. Working from home isn't an issue, and this week and next week I have someone working three days at home and one in the office. Fact is, when he's at home he's less likely to contact me for any questions he has, he'll spend hours figuring it out while in the office he asks me after about fifteen to thirty minutes. We also use the office time for briefings on projects, status updates, other questions he might have, music interchange, a walk in the nearby forest and sometimes drinks and snacks. Granted, most of these things can be done digitally trough Teams, and we sometimes do, but there's simply no substitution for seeing face to face. Let's put it this way, would you only see your family and friends digitally? You wouldn't, because seeing people online just doesn't build the same kind of familiarity and trust as seeing someone in real life. And now you're saying "well, there are these people I work with eight hours a day, and we need to get stuff done, but there's no reason to ever see them in real life." That just sounds like crazy and highly unproductive to me.
Best, Sander Azure DevOps Succinctly (free eBook) Azure Serverless Succinctly (free eBook) Migrating Apps to the Cloud with Azure arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript
You bring up two good use cases - 1) the person whose self-discipline is not strong enough to make them as productive at home as at the office. 2) You also mention this employee tends to work on solving a problem on his own too long before reaching out for help. My practice as a dev manager (one I learned from a Dev Manager I had years earlier) was with new hires, that they worked in office 5 days a week the first month. That aided with learning how we worked, and fitting in. After the first month, if the new hire showed he or she could manage their time, reached out for help when needed, self-starter, etc., then I went to in-office two days a week for a month to two months. That allowed me to track at-home versus in-office performance. Once I could see the new hire was as productive and reliable at-home as on-site, then 100% remote was allowed. Beyond that, I would have a mandatory in-office day at least once a quarter. One of the benefits of having a 100% remote team is being able to widen the number of potential candidates to the entire US, raising my entrance standards, and not be limited to just local. The downside is it requires more of my time to monitor productivity and correct any deficiencies. But that is part of my job when leading and managing a team. Having done it, I know it works. But if your approach works for you, your company, and your employees, why change it?
-
I find Hybrid to be the best option if done properly. On the other hand it is the most complicated to do it well.
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
What are the benefits you see in hybrid over 100% remote? Thanks
-
To be clear, there are some jobs where there are clear, legitimate, reasons to have everyone in a specific location at least once a week. I am not addressing those here. I am using software development and testing as an example. I hope the discussion focuses on whether hybrid work is a good idea within that context or not. If work can be done remotely 1 day a week or more, with the same or better level of quality and productivity as can be done in an office, then what value does hybrid bring? The hypothesis for debate in this posting is that a position should be 100% remote or 100% in-office, and that hybrid detracts from productivity and employee satisfaction. Some common arguments for hybrid: - Face-to-face in the office helps build team relationships. Face-to-face interactions do help build team relationships. But being in-office is not necessary for that. Use conferencing tools like Teams for two or more coworkers having a discussion and require that the video is on. Audio and video together greatly multiply the personal effects of interaction done remotely, to a degree near enough to in-office as to eradicate any in-office value from hybrid for this argument for hybrid. - Being in-office ensures the person is working. Most of us who have worked for years in-office know how easy it is to appear to be working when in the office. In-office is no guarantee of productivity. Setting goals for each worker works much better. If goals are not met, then work with the worker to see if the goals were too optimistic, or if the worker needs some help to produce at a reasonable level. That works whether in-office or remote. - As a manager or team lead, it is easier to walk over to a worker's cubicle or call him/her into my office to help build that manager/employee relationship. The same benefits can be had by scheduling a weekly meeting of 15 to 30 minutes with each of your reports using Teams (or whatever you use for that functionality). With both video and audio, the benefits of building that relationship via one-on-one meetings is just as present with remote as with in-office meetings. Some common arguments against hybrid: - The travel time for the employee is wasted time. A typical hybrid employee wastes 1 to 3 hours every day they travel into the office. Plus the cost of commuting. Getting rid of this pain for the employee improves employee loyalty and reduces turnover. - Tracking each employee's schedule for when to be in the office or worki
MSBassSinger wrote:
Being in-office ensures the person is working.
I can't recall seeing any company require back to work where it did not seem obvious that this was the reason. They might do some hand waving about the rest of it but this is the reason. Even more obvious when companies have been using an offshore workforce for years. ----------------------------- This is somewhat similar to the claims that the 'open desk' policy where there are no offices, no cubes and even no assigned desk leads to 'creativity'. In contrast the only study I have ever seen showed that actual offices (not cubes) lead to a measurable increase in work product.
-
What are the benefits you see in hybrid over 100% remote? Thanks
As others in the thread have told, it is easier to interact socially in presence, non verbal communication (i.e. body language) is way too important to be always avoided. If you want to really connect to people, you better meet them for real. If the conmute is not so long I think getting out of home helps to keep things separated. I notice that I can disconnect better when I am in the office and have to drive back home, than finishing my work day, getting out of my office room and having the kids waiting for me in the corridor.
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
I'm an employer (and also still programmer myself) and I want my employees to be at the office at least about half of the time. Working from home isn't an issue, and this week and next week I have someone working three days at home and one in the office. Fact is, when he's at home he's less likely to contact me for any questions he has, he'll spend hours figuring it out while in the office he asks me after about fifteen to thirty minutes. We also use the office time for briefings on projects, status updates, other questions he might have, music interchange, a walk in the nearby forest and sometimes drinks and snacks. Granted, most of these things can be done digitally trough Teams, and we sometimes do, but there's simply no substitution for seeing face to face. Let's put it this way, would you only see your family and friends digitally? You wouldn't, because seeing people online just doesn't build the same kind of familiarity and trust as seeing someone in real life. And now you're saying "well, there are these people I work with eight hours a day, and we need to get stuff done, but there's no reason to ever see them in real life." That just sounds like crazy and highly unproductive to me.
Best, Sander Azure DevOps Succinctly (free eBook) Azure Serverless Succinctly (free eBook) Migrating Apps to the Cloud with Azure arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript
I haven't been in the office for over a year now. Before that, once or twice a month. I don't want to travel 3 to 4 hours a day to work 6 or 7 hours. I don't need to see my colleagues in real life. When I went to the office, I looked at the schedule and chose a day that most of them where not there. And Covid is still very much around. At this moment 2 of my colleagues are off sick with covid. X| And I am very vulnerable for covid. The doctor said to me 'if you get Covid, it probably will kill you' I am much more productive when I don't have to interact with other people. B.T.W. I haven't seen my family in real life for over 3 years now. We call or WhatsApp each other. And seeing friends digitally saves me beer. :laugh:
-
To be clear, there are some jobs where there are clear, legitimate, reasons to have everyone in a specific location at least once a week. I am not addressing those here. I am using software development and testing as an example. I hope the discussion focuses on whether hybrid work is a good idea within that context or not. If work can be done remotely 1 day a week or more, with the same or better level of quality and productivity as can be done in an office, then what value does hybrid bring? The hypothesis for debate in this posting is that a position should be 100% remote or 100% in-office, and that hybrid detracts from productivity and employee satisfaction. Some common arguments for hybrid: - Face-to-face in the office helps build team relationships. Face-to-face interactions do help build team relationships. But being in-office is not necessary for that. Use conferencing tools like Teams for two or more coworkers having a discussion and require that the video is on. Audio and video together greatly multiply the personal effects of interaction done remotely, to a degree near enough to in-office as to eradicate any in-office value from hybrid for this argument for hybrid. - Being in-office ensures the person is working. Most of us who have worked for years in-office know how easy it is to appear to be working when in the office. In-office is no guarantee of productivity. Setting goals for each worker works much better. If goals are not met, then work with the worker to see if the goals were too optimistic, or if the worker needs some help to produce at a reasonable level. That works whether in-office or remote. - As a manager or team lead, it is easier to walk over to a worker's cubicle or call him/her into my office to help build that manager/employee relationship. The same benefits can be had by scheduling a weekly meeting of 15 to 30 minutes with each of your reports using Teams (or whatever you use for that functionality). With both video and audio, the benefits of building that relationship via one-on-one meetings is just as present with remote as with in-office meetings. Some common arguments against hybrid: - The travel time for the employee is wasted time. A typical hybrid employee wastes 1 to 3 hours every day they travel into the office. Plus the cost of commuting. Getting rid of this pain for the employee improves employee loyalty and reduces turnover. - Tracking each employee's schedule for when to be in the office or worki
Don't underestimate the Power of Schadenfreude.
-
Mike Hankey wrote:
we moved from a townhouse in NE FL 3 years ago and the price of the townhouse in 3 years has increased by 60%.
That phenomenon has been observed everywhere over the last few years, and I've yet to hear anyone in the real estate business suggest it was caused by people commanding large salaries moving into areas where cost of living is cheaper.
The U.S. company I work for is part of the real estate horde of businesses (realtors, settlement companies, insurance, inspections, etc.). It most definitely is a thing that remote workers are moving to cheaper areas. Their salaries are not adjusted down, so they effectively make more money. This is obvious in the CA area where people are moving out of the big cities to their massive suburban sprawl and nearby mountains, if they still want to be close to the office. Colorado and the mid-west have seen a huge spike in housing because of this trend. Long term, this could even have political ramifications as more left-leaning people move to the mid-west to get the cheapest houses and move away from the crowded eastern and western seaboard cities. Some mid-west towns are having issues keeping up with municipal services, like sewage systems and trash collection.
Bond Keep all things as simple as possible, but no simpler. -said someone, somewhere
-
To be clear, there are some jobs where there are clear, legitimate, reasons to have everyone in a specific location at least once a week. I am not addressing those here. I am using software development and testing as an example. I hope the discussion focuses on whether hybrid work is a good idea within that context or not. If work can be done remotely 1 day a week or more, with the same or better level of quality and productivity as can be done in an office, then what value does hybrid bring? The hypothesis for debate in this posting is that a position should be 100% remote or 100% in-office, and that hybrid detracts from productivity and employee satisfaction. Some common arguments for hybrid: - Face-to-face in the office helps build team relationships. Face-to-face interactions do help build team relationships. But being in-office is not necessary for that. Use conferencing tools like Teams for two or more coworkers having a discussion and require that the video is on. Audio and video together greatly multiply the personal effects of interaction done remotely, to a degree near enough to in-office as to eradicate any in-office value from hybrid for this argument for hybrid. - Being in-office ensures the person is working. Most of us who have worked for years in-office know how easy it is to appear to be working when in the office. In-office is no guarantee of productivity. Setting goals for each worker works much better. If goals are not met, then work with the worker to see if the goals were too optimistic, or if the worker needs some help to produce at a reasonable level. That works whether in-office or remote. - As a manager or team lead, it is easier to walk over to a worker's cubicle or call him/her into my office to help build that manager/employee relationship. The same benefits can be had by scheduling a weekly meeting of 15 to 30 minutes with each of your reports using Teams (or whatever you use for that functionality). With both video and audio, the benefits of building that relationship via one-on-one meetings is just as present with remote as with in-office meetings. Some common arguments against hybrid: - The travel time for the employee is wasted time. A typical hybrid employee wastes 1 to 3 hours every day they travel into the office. Plus the cost of commuting. Getting rid of this pain for the employee improves employee loyalty and reduces turnover. - Tracking each employee's schedule for when to be in the office or worki
Yes, for some. Requires discipline/work ethic.
Time is the differentiation of eternity devised by man to measure the passage of human events. - Manly P. Hall Mark Just another cog in the wheel
-
The U.S. company I work for is part of the real estate horde of businesses (realtors, settlement companies, insurance, inspections, etc.). It most definitely is a thing that remote workers are moving to cheaper areas. Their salaries are not adjusted down, so they effectively make more money. This is obvious in the CA area where people are moving out of the big cities to their massive suburban sprawl and nearby mountains, if they still want to be close to the office. Colorado and the mid-west have seen a huge spike in housing because of this trend. Long term, this could even have political ramifications as more left-leaning people move to the mid-west to get the cheapest houses and move away from the crowded eastern and western seaboard cities. Some mid-west towns are having issues keeping up with municipal services, like sewage systems and trash collection.
Bond Keep all things as simple as possible, but no simpler. -said someone, somewhere
Well, maybe I'm only seeing it from my own perspective, which is in Canada, which is facing a housing crisis across all provinces, since our genius of a prime minister has allowed for over a million immigrants to show up in very little time, without having the infrastructure in place (housing, schools, hospitals, etc) to take in such a number.
-
I haven't been in the office for over a year now. Before that, once or twice a month. I don't want to travel 3 to 4 hours a day to work 6 or 7 hours. I don't need to see my colleagues in real life. When I went to the office, I looked at the schedule and chose a day that most of them where not there. And Covid is still very much around. At this moment 2 of my colleagues are off sick with covid. X| And I am very vulnerable for covid. The doctor said to me 'if you get Covid, it probably will kill you' I am much more productive when I don't have to interact with other people. B.T.W. I haven't seen my family in real life for over 3 years now. We call or WhatsApp each other. And seeing friends digitally saves me beer. :laugh:
-
To be clear, there are some jobs where there are clear, legitimate, reasons to have everyone in a specific location at least once a week. I am not addressing those here. I am using software development and testing as an example. I hope the discussion focuses on whether hybrid work is a good idea within that context or not. If work can be done remotely 1 day a week or more, with the same or better level of quality and productivity as can be done in an office, then what value does hybrid bring? The hypothesis for debate in this posting is that a position should be 100% remote or 100% in-office, and that hybrid detracts from productivity and employee satisfaction. Some common arguments for hybrid: - Face-to-face in the office helps build team relationships. Face-to-face interactions do help build team relationships. But being in-office is not necessary for that. Use conferencing tools like Teams for two or more coworkers having a discussion and require that the video is on. Audio and video together greatly multiply the personal effects of interaction done remotely, to a degree near enough to in-office as to eradicate any in-office value from hybrid for this argument for hybrid. - Being in-office ensures the person is working. Most of us who have worked for years in-office know how easy it is to appear to be working when in the office. In-office is no guarantee of productivity. Setting goals for each worker works much better. If goals are not met, then work with the worker to see if the goals were too optimistic, or if the worker needs some help to produce at a reasonable level. That works whether in-office or remote. - As a manager or team lead, it is easier to walk over to a worker's cubicle or call him/her into my office to help build that manager/employee relationship. The same benefits can be had by scheduling a weekly meeting of 15 to 30 minutes with each of your reports using Teams (or whatever you use for that functionality). With both video and audio, the benefits of building that relationship via one-on-one meetings is just as present with remote as with in-office meetings. Some common arguments against hybrid: - The travel time for the employee is wasted time. A typical hybrid employee wastes 1 to 3 hours every day they travel into the office. Plus the cost of commuting. Getting rid of this pain for the employee improves employee loyalty and reduces turnover. - Tracking each employee's schedule for when to be in the office or worki
I pretty much liked going to office to do my work. Way less distractions than I'd get at home. Also, I was a firmware engineer so I had quiet a bit of hardware I had to have to do my job (scopes, jtags, modems, TTY, etc). Heck, when my company went to the open office scheme I was able to keep my office because of the amount of hardware I need to do my job. Plus a fair amount of the equipment was noisy.
-
I haven't been in the office for over a year now. Before that, once or twice a month. I don't want to travel 3 to 4 hours a day to work 6 or 7 hours. I don't need to see my colleagues in real life. When I went to the office, I looked at the schedule and chose a day that most of them where not there. And Covid is still very much around. At this moment 2 of my colleagues are off sick with covid. X| And I am very vulnerable for covid. The doctor said to me 'if you get Covid, it probably will kill you' I am much more productive when I don't have to interact with other people. B.T.W. I haven't seen my family in real life for over 3 years now. We call or WhatsApp each other. And seeing friends digitally saves me beer. :laugh:
I've had a coworker like you, lived about a two hour drive from the office. Nice guy, but no one knew what he was doing and vice versa. He retired last year and his employer simply ditched his clients because no one wanted to work with his code (old VB6 and even dBase software). It's very hard to manage people like you if everyone else is in the office. But why work for a company that's so far away?
Best, Sander Azure DevOps Succinctly (free eBook) Azure Serverless Succinctly (free eBook) Migrating Apps to the Cloud with Azure arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript
-
I'm an employer (and also still programmer myself) and I want my employees to be at the office at least about half of the time. Working from home isn't an issue, and this week and next week I have someone working three days at home and one in the office. Fact is, when he's at home he's less likely to contact me for any questions he has, he'll spend hours figuring it out while in the office he asks me after about fifteen to thirty minutes. We also use the office time for briefings on projects, status updates, other questions he might have, music interchange, a walk in the nearby forest and sometimes drinks and snacks. Granted, most of these things can be done digitally trough Teams, and we sometimes do, but there's simply no substitution for seeing face to face. Let's put it this way, would you only see your family and friends digitally? You wouldn't, because seeing people online just doesn't build the same kind of familiarity and trust as seeing someone in real life. And now you're saying "well, there are these people I work with eight hours a day, and we need to get stuff done, but there's no reason to ever see them in real life." That just sounds like crazy and highly unproductive to me.
Best, Sander Azure DevOps Succinctly (free eBook) Azure Serverless Succinctly (free eBook) Migrating Apps to the Cloud with Azure arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript
hmm yea - if my family and friends were like some of the people I have had to work with, I would only see them digitally and maybe not all if I had any say in it.
Buckrogerz
