7 ms·

Office workers want to push the office on everyone. Remote workers are not trying to push office workers to work from home.

jon-wood 3y ago
We (I squarely place myself in this group) kind of are pushing office workers to adjust how they do things though. If you've got a few remote attendees in a meeting then you're running a remote meeting, for it to be effective for everyone you can't do things like scribbling on whiteboards, and you have to run it from a space where video calling actually works. Post-pandemic I worked with a few project managers who hated this, and would constantly complain about people not coming into the office for meetings because now they had to actually plan things, rather than just finding a random corner and talking things over. I even kind of get it, semi-remote meetings are the worst of both worlds, with the people in a meeting room wanting to draw on a whiteboard, and the people who are remote often struggling with audio from whatever crap microphones are in the room. I suspect, after another few years of having this same discussion every few weeks, things will eventually settle down with some companies choosing to be co-located companies, and others choosing to be fully remote. Similarly to how you might select which company you work for based on what they do, or the personality of the people you interviewed with, people will also take into consideration how they want to work. I very much doubt there'll be many companies which routinely have both remote and co-located employees.
- re-thc 3y ago
  It’s a thing pre-pandemic for larger teams anyway. You often have someone in a different timezone / office maybe in another department and remote or not, it’s a video call. If the problem as you say is that managers are too lazy to plan then they should do their job instead of making it worse for everyone. Unplanned meetings are the worst because you get forced into decisions no 1 has thought over. The managers assume we’re good because they don’t understand the implications.
  - jeffwask 3y ago
    Most of the teams I have worked on for the last decade have been spread across multiple offices which lead to going into a small office for a dozen people to be on different teleconferences in large open areas disrupting everyone. We started working from home naturally pre-pandemic at one of these jobs because it didn't make sense to come in and struggle to hear and communicate for no good reason.
  - jon-wood 3y ago
    I think its unfair to characterise these managers as too lazy to plan, more that previously they could often resolve things by quickly grabbing a few people and talking things over, and now that involves a game of calendar Tetris to get the necessary people on a call at the same time. At least in the case I'm thinking of this was more a corporate failure to adjust to remote work, instead of introducing a culture of asynchronous communication what used to happen in the office just got transplanted into MS Teams, resulting in everyone being almost permanently on video calls.
    - re-thc 3y ago
      > more that previously they could Previously I could dig the ground and find gold too. And previously people would come out with a leaf around their private parts. If the manager can come into the offices with just leaves I'd be happy to accept that it's not their issue. Startup founders originally don't have to manage. Do they get the blame when things go wrong when the company gets bigger? Hint: yes. i.e. we're all forced to adapt. It's not only the managers. > At least in the case I'm thinking of this was more a corporate failure to adjust to remote work That's correct - the corporate includes the managers though - as many chains up as needed.
- ghaff 3y ago
  It's really not a simple live and let live situation especially if some people on a team aren't local at all so they can't drop in one day per week or whatever for meetings. I'm in a very distributed group at a large company so I have no skin in this game. But if you have a largely co-located team with a few remote members, those who are co-located probably really do need to change their work practices to accommodate those who are remote--and those who are remote may have to accept that they'll probably end up not fully participating in their team's activities and decision-making and will have to decide if that works for them.
- 908B64B197 3y ago
  > you can't do things like scribbling on whiteboards, and you have to run it from a space where video calling actually works. Just get a Surface Hub.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    Or just point a camera at the whiteboard.
    - 908B64B197 3y ago
      That's not interactive for everyone else in the meeting. With a Hub, everyone else can just collaborate on the shared whiteboard using their iPads.
      - JohnFen 3y ago
        True, but how often is whiteboard work a shared activity? At least in my experience, that's vanishingly rare. It's almost always just a visual aid for one person communicating with a bunch of others.
- danaris 3y ago
  > We (I squarely place myself in this group) kind of are pushing office workers to adjust how they do things though. Well, sure. We're asking that our reasonable desire to work remotely be accommodated. Some are perfectly willing to be flexible. Others are absolutely livid that you would dare to ask them to change how they do things to accommodate anyone else in any way. I honestly have very little sympathy for that type of person. The "everything was just fine before, just shut up and go back to how it always was" attitude completely ignores the fact that for many, many people, things were not fine before, and WFH has been a godsend for so many.
paulcole 3y ago
Both are putting their preferences above the preferences of others. It’s just what people do.
- ResearchCode 3y ago
  I have never seen a remote worker trying to push an office worker to work from home because it's more efficient. I have seen plenty of office workers trying to push remote workers into the office because of synergies and "water cooler chat". It's not the same thing.
  - paulcole 3y ago
    I never mentioned efficiency or any other justification for remote/hybrid work. We’re talking personal preference here. If someone’s preference is to work in a company where 100% of the employees are in office, then someone at that same company who pushes for remote work or hybrid work is pushing their preference on someone else. But that is 100% fine. Just as it’s fine for someone to advocate against remote or hybrid work. Neither are right or wrong.
    - ResearchCode 3y ago
      I think there is a big difference advocating for what's best for you and letting everyone else do their thing, and trying to control other people to please you better.
      - paulcole 3y ago
        Yes, it’s true that those are different things. But the remote vs. in-office argument isn’t as simple as “do your own thing.” Sure, it can be made that simple, but it doesn’t represent the situation well. Some subset of people who want to work in an office want to do so only with people who only work in an office as well. For these people, “everyone do your own thing” is not a satisfying solution. And it doesn’t have to be! Work doesn’t have to satisfy everyone. If you work with people like this and say, “just do your own thing, it works for me” then you are trying to control other people because it pleases you better. And again, there is nothing wrong with this. You are looking out for yourself, which is fine. It’s then up to your employer to make a decision on policy and then the employees decide if that’s a policy they want to work under.

jon-wood 3y ago

We (I squarely place myself in this group) kind of are pushing office workers to adjust how they do things though. If you've got a few remote attendees in a meeting then you're running a remote meeting, for it to be effective for everyone you can't do things like scribbling on whiteboards, and you have to run it from a space where video calling actually works. Post-pandemic I worked with a few project managers who hated this, and would constantly complain about people not coming into the office for meetings because now they had to actually plan things, rather than just finding a random corner and talking things over. I even kind of get it, semi-remote meetings are the worst of both worlds, with the people in a meeting room wanting to draw on a whiteboard, and the people who are remote often struggling with audio from whatever crap microphones are in the room. I suspect, after another few years of having this same discussion every few weeks, things will eventually settle down with some companies choosing to be co-located companies, and others choosing to be fully remote. Similarly to how you might select which company you work for based on what they do, or the personality of the people you interviewed with, people will also take into consideration how they want to work. I very much doubt there'll be many companies which routinely have both remote and co-located employees.

re-thc 3y ago
It’s a thing pre-pandemic for larger teams anyway. You often have someone in a different timezone / office maybe in another department and remote or not, it’s a video call. If the problem as you say is that managers are too lazy to plan then they should do their job instead of making it worse for everyone. Unplanned meetings are the worst because you get forced into decisions no 1 has thought over. The managers assume we’re good because they don’t understand the implications.
- jeffwask 3y ago
  Most of the teams I have worked on for the last decade have been spread across multiple offices which lead to going into a small office for a dozen people to be on different teleconferences in large open areas disrupting everyone. We started working from home naturally pre-pandemic at one of these jobs because it didn't make sense to come in and struggle to hear and communicate for no good reason.
- jon-wood 3y ago
  I think its unfair to characterise these managers as too lazy to plan, more that previously they could often resolve things by quickly grabbing a few people and talking things over, and now that involves a game of calendar Tetris to get the necessary people on a call at the same time. At least in the case I'm thinking of this was more a corporate failure to adjust to remote work, instead of introducing a culture of asynchronous communication what used to happen in the office just got transplanted into MS Teams, resulting in everyone being almost permanently on video calls.
  - re-thc 3y ago
    > more that previously they could Previously I could dig the ground and find gold too. And previously people would come out with a leaf around their private parts. If the manager can come into the offices with just leaves I'd be happy to accept that it's not their issue. Startup founders originally don't have to manage. Do they get the blame when things go wrong when the company gets bigger? Hint: yes. i.e. we're all forced to adapt. It's not only the managers. > At least in the case I'm thinking of this was more a corporate failure to adjust to remote work That's correct - the corporate includes the managers though - as many chains up as needed.
ghaff 3y ago
It's really not a simple live and let live situation especially if some people on a team aren't local at all so they can't drop in one day per week or whatever for meetings. I'm in a very distributed group at a large company so I have no skin in this game. But if you have a largely co-located team with a few remote members, those who are co-located probably really do need to change their work practices to accommodate those who are remote--and those who are remote may have to accept that they'll probably end up not fully participating in their team's activities and decision-making and will have to decide if that works for them.
908B64B197 3y ago
> you can't do things like scribbling on whiteboards, and you have to run it from a space where video calling actually works. Just get a Surface Hub.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  Or just point a camera at the whiteboard.
  - 908B64B197 3y ago
    That's not interactive for everyone else in the meeting. With a Hub, everyone else can just collaborate on the shared whiteboard using their iPads.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      True, but how often is whiteboard work a shared activity? At least in my experience, that's vanishingly rare. It's almost always just a visual aid for one person communicating with a bunch of others.
danaris 3y ago
> We (I squarely place myself in this group) kind of are pushing office workers to adjust how they do things though. Well, sure. We're asking that our reasonable desire to work remotely be accommodated. Some are perfectly willing to be flexible. Others are absolutely livid that you would dare to ask them to change how they do things to accommodate anyone else in any way. I honestly have very little sympathy for that type of person. The "everything was just fine before, just shut up and go back to how it always was" attitude completely ignores the fact that for many, many people, things were not fine before, and WFH has been a godsend for so many.

paulcole 3y ago

Both are putting their preferences above the preferences of others. It’s just what people do.

ResearchCode 3y ago
I have never seen a remote worker trying to push an office worker to work from home because it's more efficient. I have seen plenty of office workers trying to push remote workers into the office because of synergies and "water cooler chat". It's not the same thing.
- paulcole 3y ago
  I never mentioned efficiency or any other justification for remote/hybrid work. We’re talking personal preference here. If someone’s preference is to work in a company where 100% of the employees are in office, then someone at that same company who pushes for remote work or hybrid work is pushing their preference on someone else. But that is 100% fine. Just as it’s fine for someone to advocate against remote or hybrid work. Neither are right or wrong.
  - ResearchCode 3y ago
    I think there is a big difference advocating for what's best for you and letting everyone else do their thing, and trying to control other people to please you better.
    - paulcole 3y ago
      Yes, it’s true that those are different things. But the remote vs. in-office argument isn’t as simple as “do your own thing.” Sure, it can be made that simple, but it doesn’t represent the situation well. Some subset of people who want to work in an office want to do so only with people who only work in an office as well. For these people, “everyone do your own thing” is not a satisfying solution. And it doesn’t have to be! Work doesn’t have to satisfy everyone. If you work with people like this and say, “just do your own thing, it works for me” then you are trying to control other people because it pleases you better. And again, there is nothing wrong with this. You are looking out for yourself, which is fine. It’s then up to your employer to make a decision on policy and then the employees decide if that’s a policy they want to work under.