I don’t get it. Companies want to make money. Study after study proves that WFH generates greater productivity on average and, therefore, more output and more money. Surely, it must be costing more to maintain massive office buildings and overpay useless middle managers to lord over employees?
being devils advocate here, they probably are blinded by the reports of workers who are inefficient at remote work. I want remote work as much as the next guy, I am deeply passionate for it; but I can see why management teams would want inhouse. Easier to monitor and punish mentor the under-performers if you are physically present in the building. The higher ups don’t generally care about stats, they only care about what issues are being brought to their plate/causing more work for them… and the underperforming workers are a pretty big additional work for them.
Just anecdotally, I noticed that more junior team members were FAR more willing to ask me for help with something after we were pulled back to the office. That can be mitigated with thoughtful collaboration efforts when operating fully remote, but I didn’t even know they needed help until they could just pop by my desk and ask for something. And they started doing it frequently.
But to be clear, I greatly prefer full remote for myself and again, thoughtful approaches to team management can solve or mitigate a bunch of the remote work downsides, probably.
It’s good for companies that rent office space, but not for companies that own those offices. This is corporate landlords throwing a shitfit, and they have a lot more money and own more news outlets than companies who rent.
I don’t get it. Companies want to make money. Study after study proves that WFH generates greater productivity on average and, therefore, more output and more money. Surely, it must be costing more to maintain massive office buildings and overpay useless middle managers to lord over employees?
These companies want to reduce headcount. This is an easy way to do so.
being devils advocate here, they probably are blinded by the reports of workers who are inefficient at remote work. I want remote work as much as the next guy, I am deeply passionate for it; but I can see why management teams would want inhouse. Easier to monitor and
punishmentor the under-performers if you are physically present in the building. The higher ups don’t generally care about stats, they only care about what issues are being brought to their plate/causing more work for them… and the underperforming workers are a pretty big additional work for them.how the mentoring would be different if the under-performers are in the building or they work from home?
Just anecdotally, I noticed that more junior team members were FAR more willing to ask me for help with something after we were pulled back to the office. That can be mitigated with thoughtful collaboration efforts when operating fully remote, but I didn’t even know they needed help until they could just pop by my desk and ask for something. And they started doing it frequently.
But to be clear, I greatly prefer full remote for myself and again, thoughtful approaches to team management can solve or mitigate a bunch of the remote work downsides, probably.
And if your employees live in a lower COL area, you can literally pay them less.
It’s good for companies that rent office space, but not for companies that own those offices. This is corporate landlords throwing a shitfit, and they have a lot more money and own more news outlets than companies who rent.