Hacker News Reader

Comment by BryantD | Hacker News Reader

I don't think all of them will -- it's probably significant that Twitter was already thinking about this. However, I know my CEO never would have run this experiment without the pandemic. Now, he has data he didn't have before, and he's publicly said that this changed his mind.

The trigger event was the forced experiment. Studies convinced me, but I don't have to take responsibility for the health of a whole company so it's easier for me to advocate for risks. Seeing how your company actually behaves in a 100% WFH world is better evidence than a study.

View on HN

Oh I agree with you. I work for a company making software for utilities. Our company policy doesn't allow working remotely at all! Engineers (not developers) need to work on systems that are isolated and staged in our campus. There's no chance that they can work remotely. Rules for other teams are slightly relaxed, it depends on the managers to let their teams work remotely for some time. Since the pandemic started, the company has had to adapt and make a mechanism for these engineers to work remotely. The engineers aren't as productive (from what some colleagues told me), but they can manage. On the other hand, our VP has been reporting that there's been 0 effect on software development teams and are happy to consider bringing us back to office much later.

counterpoint - everyone's company is competing against every other competitor who is also doing WFH. they're all on the same playing field. if folks think F2F helps productivity, they'll force that, especially if they know that some competition will stay with WFH.

I don't think that's a counterpoint. It depends on executives continuing to believe F2F is superior.

The evidence already existed that WFH is, generally, better. See Stanford's Bloom 2013.

But executives are afraid to take big risks like that. They doubt studies. They overindex on personal experience. Which this gave them.

Now that they see what WFH actually produces, their worldview shifts to what was already true. You get talent that's more productive. Lower costs so you can afford more talent, or, alternatively, more expensive talent. Fewer geographic restrictions so you can recruit a bigger pool of talent.

Once you're convinced WFH works, these advantages can give competition an edge. An executive doesn't want to be on the wrong side of that edge.

But they have to see it first.

There's no reason they go back to thinking F2F is better, unless it actually is, and currently no evidence suggests that is true.

possibly shouldn't have used the word 'counterpoint'.

c19 has given people an experience of "almost everyone WFH and the company didn't end".

"There's no reason they go back to thinking F2F is better, unless it actually is". It IS better for some people individually - we see it here on HN in comments from people who prefer to be able to go to an office. There isn't a "one size fits all" approach.

To the extent that we see more WFH across the board, I think it'll be driven far more by "get rid of the office expense" - hard $ savings - vs "everyone's more productive!". They'll be "productive enough", relative to the cost savings of less (or no) office space.

Just my 2c, obviously.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com