SBA executives ‘beyond doubt’ that teleworking employees are more productive | Hacker News Reader

SBA executives ‘beyond doubt’ that teleworking employees are more productive

federalnewsnetwork.com

106 pointsdtmmax33110 comments

The SBA is referring specifically to their own employees doing SBA work, not necessarily telework in general.

Interestingly, they attribute the additional productivity to the fact that their telework employees are simply working more hours:

> “It doesn’t matter to me where your eight-, 10-, 12-hour day is, but as long as we’re getting coverage from that perspective,” Rivera said.

> While some federal managers have expressed skepticism with telework productivity, Deputy CIO Luis Campudoni said employees are, if anything, putting in longer hours than they normally would working in the office.

> “From an eight-hour workday that you would normally experience in the office, now, without asking the workforce, certainly get 10-12 hours of work done on a daily basis. It’s because of that flexibility, people appreciate that,” Campudoni said.

I would also expect productivity to go up if everyone was working 25-50% more hours under the new system. I don't know if that's sustainable though. If these jobs are paid hourly and the extra hours aren't mandatory then the employees aren't necessarily getting a bad deal. However, if the extra hours are unpaid or the 12-hour days become mandatory, this could fall apart fast.

I'm okay with spending the X% percent of hours I would be commuting doing productive work, and double-okay with my employer reaping the productivity benefits from it.

People who have an unenjoyable commute, like stop-and-go-traffic, probably feel this way. But people who commute while exercising (bicycle riders) or consume books/podcasts/news while commuting probably wouldn't be so inclined.

I'm perfectly capable of consuming books/podcasts/news on my own and not because of a mandatory commute that is simultaneously exhausting, expensive and dangerous.

I'd say people who have an "enjoyable" commute is likely in the vanishing minority. And then they can simply reproduce their commute in their leisure time.

Surely anyone can do these activities in their leisure time. My point was that if someone's commute is spent largely doing things like reading or listening to podcasts, one would not share GP's inclination to spend part of one's prior commute time working, and have one's employer reap the benefits of that.

I have commuted on trains at various times and used my commute time in this way. Also, where I live in CA there are lots of people who bike to work (pre-COVID) and enjoy the forced exercise of their commute. Perhaps this is unique to warm-weather locations, where biking is easy for most of the year?

I had a boss who finished an online master's degree on his train commute every day.

It was a good way for him to timebox the work, and stay consistent day-in-day-out without having to burn through a ton of self-discipline.

The good part about not commuting is that even if you enjoyed that time, you still _have_ that time to do what you want, you don't necessarily have to work.

Sure, but OP mentioned being willing to let his work bleed over into what would have been his commute time. Your perspective is totally valid, but is not consistent with OP's willingness to spend a commute time doing more work with no additional comp.

Why - its not like your getting paid for it.

Exactly. You're not getting paid to commute. But you are getting paid to work when you would otherwise be commuting. If you're salary, its a wash. If you're hourly, you make more.

If my salaried job used to make me commute, then work 8 hours, then commute home, I think it's a mistake to think that they were only paying me for the middle part.

When I negotiated the position and considered my options, you bet I considered the commute as part of the deal.

um no salaried means you don't have fixed hours you might want to read this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ragged-Trousered_Philanthr...

Your also subsidizing your employers office costs so will they be paying 25% of your property taxes that's the going rate in the UK like when I had to use one room for all my dialysis supplies.

I think a lot of it has to do with the nature of the work.

I know where I currently am, my hours have smeared to cross 12 hours of the day. I have meetings as early as 8 AM, and as late as 7 PM, routinely (sometimes even later). That's to accommodate people in other timezones.

But, my middle of the day is oftentimes empty. I'll use that time to go out to a botanical garden, or play a game, or work on personal pursuits, or nap.

It's hard to say whether I'm more productive or not; I changed jobs mid-pandemic and so I don't have much to compare to (and I left my prior job because I was bored; I'm a manager, and wasn't feeling productive, but that's because everything I was empowered to change I had running so smoothly it didn't need my attention, and all I was doing was small boring implementation stuff so the team could have the interesting work).

But I can say that the extra hours aren't really helpful toward being productive (and that I've taken steps to keep them from being harmful). So I'm not sure that people doing stuff across 12 hours of the day really equates to 12 hours of work.

I don't understand why we can't just all agree that some people are more productive at home and others are not. It depends on personality, type of role and type of business.

We're literally talking about hundreds of millions of people here, so pretty much any universal statement is going to be wrong.

Because, at least in tech, many who insist that one or the other are absolutely superior are motivated by unstated resentments against higher cost of living near their employers' offices, or sometimes by cultural or political aversion to the majority culture in those areas.

There's nothing wrong with either of those motivations, but often the WFH versus office debate is a smoke screen for one of them.

The problem is that a lot of people are productive WFH but until very recently, this contingent had little to no sway or voice. With the pandemic, for the first time there's a major shift to WFH and now some companies want to start reigning that in. People who much prefer WFH are fighting not to lose the momentum of the last year.

Yeah. I highly doubt there’s going to be some massive shift where offices will suddenly disappear. People that prefer working from an office should just work from an office once they’re vaccinated and local pandemic restrictions end.

I think one reason we argue about this is we're trying to understand which factors affect WFH success, and if/how we can control them.

For example, your post seems to assume that wfh aptitude is a fixed quality of each worker. But after more discussion, it seems clear that the home office environment is a major consideration as well.

I see this as exacerbated by the lack of anywhere to go and do work for people stuck in quarantine.

Some people despise work-from-home in it's current manifestation, but might not hate it at all if they could rent a quiet coworking space near their gym or something. Instead everybody's stuck at home, so the people who don't necessarily enjoy being at home all day are losing their minds.

I am more productive but my team as a whole is less productive. Highly individual tasks are great for this whole setup but anything requiring high degrees of coordination seems to have suffered.

I think coordination was terrible in the beginning. But over time folks have worked out lots of things.

I've seen gradual, but sustained improvement in WFH skills.

For example, teleconferencing skills. People have learned to share their screens, then people gradually adapted to have an agenda on-screen to show and step through, people figured out how to send links and files during a meeting. Even silly stuff like how to contact someone who forgot about a meeting.

And some of it is more democratized. Regular folks are figuring out how to do peer-to-peer meetings, which were normally organized and driven by managers. This also goes for other tools like wiki, shared documents, teams, calendars, email, slack.

Another thing is a gradual spool up of WFH support. It took a while for people to figure out a webcam that works, or a microphone or headset. Or a chair, or a room setup, or just a rhythm.

I’ve experienced the opposite - as others have noted, making communication just a bit more structured and accessible to others in our org helped get clearer on what/how/why AND incorporate voices often left out because they are not the loudest in the room (or don’t want to speak up in a large public setting). Just on the merits of inclusion, video conferencing has been a big win for me.

Yes, there are adjustments and downsides, but net net, I feel a lot more confident that my team are being heard and no one is overlooked because of social tendencies, etc.

Agreed. It's very much dependent on managers shaping corporate culture to foster effective communication habits, but once established, it very much helps productivity. I work with several teams in any given week and I find myself most productive when we use a private channel for dedicated discussion (which I can scan through later very quickly as a form of documentation), while the few meetings I have are dragged out, ineffective, and extremely inefficient since they bottleneck communication to a single speaker at any given time, preventing parallel discussion in separate threads. Also in a meeting I can't just turn off my ears and look up something to check and if needed ask questions, I have to keep my attention on the speaker, which harms feedback and discussion even more.

Both Yahoo and IBM rolled back their very flexible WFH strategies. I don't think super flexible WFH is a lasting trend, because it's obvious that is doesn't work for most of the people. I personally love WFH and I know a lot of HN do too, but I think human nature is that it probably won't work very well for most companies.

Doesn't work for "most of the people" is highly dependent on the company and position.

It works very well for 80% of the positions at my company. I'm sure there are companies for which it only works for a small percentage. The ultimate YMMV.

I find most of my work goes well but anything that requires coordination a lot of time gets wasted waiting to hear from people.

These don't seem like the greatest examples - eliminating WFH didn't turn Yahoo around (it might've done them in, who knows) and IBM is...well IBM.

What the last year has done was to force knee-jerk 'butts in seats' mentality managers to experiment with remote work. It sure seems like the bottom line results haven't proven remote work to be a failure, and while some old timers may force everyone back to the office, I think many are going to be a lot more open to remote work where they never would've considered it in the pre-pandemic era.

From what I recall of talking to a couple Yahoo employees at the time, they felt that Yahoo had a significant issue with tracking/accountability that was a large driver in the decision to roll those policies back and demand butts in seats.

Tracking as in literally tracking where people are and what they do? Shouldn't they only be interested in outcomes? I'd hate to work with someone constantly looking over my shoulder.

Which is a shame, because this is more a sign of manager/lead incompetence on how to measure productivity than anything else. When your most important metric is measuring how long an ass keeps a seat warm, you should think real hard about why that's a serious issue.

Not all employees live in big houses where they can have a separate own room only for work. Different level of distraction will have an effect on productivity - there is a massive difference between working home alone and from a busy cafe.

If it doesn't work for most people, then most people can work from an office. It doesn't justify a blanket ban.

>because it's obvious that is doesn't work for most of the people

According to who?

The biggest changes I've seen is that whenever I meet something new that I'm not familiar with, I learn way faster in the tranquility of my home than in the office.

That means I get productive more quickly and thus more productive. In the last year I was able to pick up a lot of technologies that I've been putting off for years because I couldn't find quiet time to sit down and bang my head against the documentation.

Oh great, we can have this debate again.

WFH is either the greatest thing ever, or the worst, depending on many factors(kids, quiet space, your need for socialization, your career positioning, etc).

WFH part time is either the greatest thing ever or the worst, depending on if you need to maintain an extra office and remain living in an expensive tech hub.

I think the solution has to be some kind of hybrid arrangement. Anyone who is fighting strongly for 100% remote teams doesn't understand that some folks just don't have a good situation to work from home. Likewise, an aggressive office-only policy fails to see how adding flexibility to people's work lives can be a huge boon to productivity and happiness.

People around the world are different, companies are structured differently, work cultures vary. We should not try to "homogenize" everything. And as such, why use data from a global set to apply it to a local set?

If teleworking works for your company, great keep doing it! If it doesn't, don't do it. And lets not demonize when a company makes a decision that is right for them in their particular case.

For our company, we've made the decision to not allow teleworking, and it is only approved temporarily on a strict case by case basis. I think it has helped our work culture and productivity over the many years.

I am _ridiculously_ more productive at home.

When I hear folks complain about the pains of working from home, what I often hear are their stories about how they were needlessly disruptive to their coworkers.

Having impromptu hallway meetings mean that your peers, and subordinates, must keep an ear open for such events should they risk being left out of important decision making processes.

Having watercooler conversations means that your office-mates must take effort to overcome their human desire for social communication in order to focus on their task at hand.

And so on.

Generally, I find having a team that works wholly remote means that we schedule communications clearly and are able to maintain the focus on our work before us.

I think WFH works well because it takes extra effort to reach out to someone and therefore is used more as a necessity. For me, the office has lent itself to a number of one-off tasks that didn't end up being important that distracted working on the recurring production items that make a larger impact. Removing the starting and stopping lends itself to more productivity and being able to answer the phone as opposed to having to step out of the office after going down the elevator has been great.

I agree! Having a _minimal_ barrier to communication acts as a filter, in a similar way that requiring registration acts as a quality filter for a forum. Folks must gather interest in the meeting, rather than interrupt and demand focus; this, at minimum, gives them some time to reconsider the concepts that they want to raise with their coworkers.

Not just any minimal barrier. Extroverts wired to speak spontaneously (i.e., have high Foxp2 gene expression) are the most likely to disrupt others for non-functional reasons. Requiring verbal communication to be initiated through written means is a great way to increase the signal-to-noise threshold for communication. Meanwhile, those who are not spontaneously verbal have a relatively low barrier (a sentence in chat).

Thank you, I have never seen that explanation and it certainly maps to behaviors that I've seen.

Interesting! Do you have further reading I might be able to consume?

That seems pretty dismissive of the people who have trouble working from home because they have more distractions at home. Not everybody can be child free, single, and live in a quiet place.

I have a wife and two children six and under. Working from home has far less distractions than any office I've ever been in.

Do you have an office? My working space at home is a small corner of the living room, a few feet from the kitchen and dining room. There is no better space.

Also, does your wife also work? I just can’t fathom how it isn’t distracting. My kids are two and five, so someone pretty much always has to be watching the two year old. You can’t fully focus on something while watching them. Even my daughter, who is five and can play by herself, is going to need something multiple times an hour; food, a different toy, to go to the bathroom, help getting something, etc.

If you work remotely, you can relocate to a much lower cost of living area. This way you can get much more space, including a dedicated office. This also can lower costs enough that only one parent has to work, making the other available to watch the kids.

Well, two parents working means the kids would be in daycare normally, that wouldn’t change with WFH or not. This is more of a pandemic issue than a WFH issue.

Also, the choice of whether one or both parents work is about more than just money. For one thing, it is basically choosing to end your career; we might not wish it to be so, but getting back in the workforce after being out for years is very difficult, and will require moving down the career growth ladder quite a bit.

This is all true, but there's also a not insignificant group of people that do have both parents working solely for the money and wfh allows those people to move to a one income household since work is no longer coupled to real estate market.

Nope. I work next to the front door, the house television is above my computer monitors and the couch is behind my chair. There is no door to this space.

My wife is a physiotherapist, and due to health privacy regulations cannot share space while talking to clients, which is constant and ongoing. So when the kids are home they're with me, behind me, playing with lego/duplo.

The difference between my daughters' jabber and my coworkers' jabber is that I can safely ignore my daughters. I cannot ignore my coworkers.

That's lovely for you. I too have an ideal work from home scenario. But I'm not everybody, and my experience is not representative of all scenarios. There are a lot of people who feel less productive at home for a variety of reasons that don't fall into your artificial bucket of pathological disruptors.

Your description of ideal working conditions sounds so robotic to me. Schedule everything! No off the cuff conversations! Screw the human desire for socializing, we've got shit to do!

Right now my team is comprised of no one that I've met in person. I feel absolutely no connection to them and feel so incredibly disconnected from my work. Like I've been playing the same video game for 8 hours a day for a year and nothing I'm doing is real.

I'm quite scared of hybrid or full remote solutions for my company. I don't want to switch companies right now but if they go full or hybrid WFH I might have to, just to keep my sanity.

Curious:

Do you do regular video calls? Do you ever discuss anything aside from work? Even during a "work" discussion, do people make jokes, laugh, etc?

Do you have chat (slack) channels, and are they active? Does anyone ever spontaneously post something like "hey, anyone feel like talking about x that I'm trying to sort out?" Is chat pure business or do people ever discuss anything else?

These are all kind of leading questions, but the things that I think are key to making it work.

Sure, we have all that. And maybe I'm just wired differently. I haven't made any real connections or friendships with my virtual coworkers over the past year. In the past when I joined a new IRL team, I'd have some budding friendships after a few team lunches.

Maybe it's because there are hardly any actual real personal bonding moments. For example, lunch with 10 talking heads on a VC is insane to me since you can't have more than one conversation at once, and any conversation you have has to be with the entire group. You can't pick up on something someone said, realize someone else has the same interest as you and go sit next to them and talk it out. You have to have the 1:1 conversation in front of the whole group, or leave the group.

That's just one example of why it seems so difficult to make real, genuine friendships at work now.

We actively talk over slack. There's a #random channel, a #stonks channel, et al. There's plenty of banter.

But _anyone_ can mute those and focus. I _cannot_ mute a coworker talking loudly next to my desk.

> I _cannot_ mute a coworker talking loudly next to my desk.

Maybe my team was more respectful. Any prolonged conversation can and was taken to a conference room or common area.

I also wear noise canceling headphones most of the day, and find the general muted drone of office noises nice. People listen to recorded audio of cafes and stuff, it's basically the same for me.

But to be clear: I'm not saying everyone should have the same preferences as me. I'm just letting my voice and concerns be heard, since I've heard plenty of people go on about how they think WFH/remote work is better.

Noise cancelling isn't enough. If I know someone is discussing topics important to my deliverables then I have to pay attention.

I'm not sure how that's different than someone sending a direct message to someone in a chat. Except now you'd definitely have no idea if someone was discussing something important and you were missing it.

With vocal interaction people expect an immediate response. With text interaction they are willing to tolerate a delay.

It's funny that you described wfh as "robotic" yet you literally have to use robot assisted noise cancellation in your office. I don't mean that to be snarky, just an observation.

I find wfh much more "human" as I can be around friends and family, go for walks, eat healthier... Probably the biggest gain is not having a boss watch me all day. That seems superbly unnatural to me.

We also _write_ actively over Slack. I write into my text editor as well, I don't feel a difference. I'm staring at the same freaking screen all day, interfacing with individuals that couldn't feel more irreplaceable. Maybe they're advanced ML text and video synthesis models, I don't know.

Every day feels the same, like three weeks old chewing gum. Work is effective and incredibly empty. I don't know what we're working on. I don't care what we're working on.

The (forced) WFH revolution seems to really be a field day for introverts, nomads, misantropists and sociopaths. I'm happy for them, but I couldn't be much unhappier myself than right now.

If I had the qualifications and could afford it, I'd rather quit and work as a hospital assistant with real humans than stay one day longer in homeoffice.

It's sort of telling that you lump introverts, nomads, misanthropists and sociopaths together.

Telling about what? I was enumerating groups of people who don't particularly value being around other people. Maybe I'm wrong with sociopaths in that regard though, as they might actually enjoy that for all the wrong reasons.

I realize how this categorization can be seen as disingenious though. Sorry for that, I didn't mean to be — I'm just completely burned out.

If anything, it gives me a little bit better of an impression of (the exact opposite of?) what introverts must probably suffer through in an office environment full of extroverts like me.

It's telling about your feelings and perspective of people who are happy with the current situation.

Your problem isn't working from home, it's that you're only at home and lacking normal human interaction. Normally, if you were working from home you would be able to spend time with other people after work.

Have you considered going to a coworking space? I have a feeling that if you need the human interaction, getting it from a coworking space may fill the void. My guess is that you'll find you don't really need to be that socially in tune with your coworkers, as long as you're getting some human interaction elsewhere.

I prefer socializing with my family and friends over my coworkers. I don't like commuting to an office. I hate fluorescent lights and windows I cannot open for fresh air. If that makes me an introvert/nomad/misanthropist/sociopath, then so be it.

What is disconcerting about hybrid? This seems to be the solution that strikes a good balance between your needs and the needs of your other coworkers who probably appreciate the increased flexibility.

Have you ever tried to have a party at two locations?

It doesn't work.

That’s... not at all the same concept. There are a lot of companies pre-pandemic that had hybrid offices. Many global companies have had zoom rooms and other teleconferencing solutions for years.

Using this logic, employers' offices and branches in other cities shouldn't work either, but they do.

Remote and hybrid companies also show that they work, too.

Separate offices tend to have separate clients and/or separate products.

I love not having a connection to my coworkers personally. I have some connection to the handful of people I directly collaborate with (like people who work on the same codebase), but that's it. And those interactions are far from daily, but enough that I have casual rapport. Nothing meaningful or personal required, but still a good working relationship.

I spend ~35% of my weekly waking hours with my coworkers. Despite my objection, I completely understand people who want WFH/remote. But I absolutely don't understand people with your sentiment.

I spend my waking hours with people too, if that helps explain the sentiment.

I'm definitely full & happy on the "people I have meaningful relationships with" front without coworkers adding on.

Spending 1/3 of my waking adult life with people who happen to have the same employer as me just isn't appealing. It's so easy to find people I have more in common with.

Different strokes for different folks, but I work to make money, not friends. If I don’t need the money I wouldn’t be there. I prefer to socialize outside of work.

I do my job, my coworkers do their job, and then we can close our laptops at the end of the day and engage with our lives and not think about each other.

> When I hear folks complain about the pains of working from home, what I often hear are their stories about how they were needlessly disruptive to their coworkers.

What I hear are complaints about the consequences of the pandemic. That people have to work and babysit their kids during school. That both they and their partner are forced to share a workspace. That they miss changes of scenery, or that their home workspace isn't adequate enough to get work done.

Before the pandemic, I would regularly rotate venues for where I got my work done. I'd go to different coffee shops and libraries. If I got bored of those places, I'd make it a point to go into different venues in different neighborhoods. When it was nice and warm out, I'd get work done in beach towns and enjoy the sea breeze. Several times a year, I'd book a hotel or short-term rental and work from a completely different city. At one point I rented a co-working space.

During the pandemic, most of those places are closed. I can't travel, and I don't want to. If I want to enjoy the sea breeze, I better have enough battery life and reception to get my work done in a park. Yet I'm lucky in that I'm not forced to share my personal work space at home with others, and I'm not forced to be a babysitter on top of the job I'm paid to do.

Quarantine work from home isn't work from home.

https://www.hanselman.com/blog/quarantine-work-is-not-remote...

I agree.

>What I hear are complaints about the consequences of the pandemic

How so (rhetorically asked)?

> That both they and their partner are forced to share a workspace. That they miss changes of scenery, or that their home workspace isn't adequate enough to get work done.

These all seem like problems that arise from WFH. Especially two people working from home. Inadequate workspace and isolation at home.

> Before the pandemic, I would regularly rotate venues for where I got my work done. I'd go to different coffee shops and libraries.

Yeah, if you can work from a coworking space (either formal or informal) that solves quite a few of those problems. That's different. Although I don't want to subsidize my employer's office rent, but I'm happy to direct their funds to a location I prefer.

The other point I note is that you work on a laptop. You talk about taking it with you and other clues. How do you work on a small screen, touchpad, and a laptop keyboard. I'm honestly curious, because I've tried it many times and there must be some tricks I need to start employing. The lack of dual screens alone seems like it would kill productivity. (And sea air seems like it would kill your electronics.)

> These all seem like problems that arise from WFH. Especially two people working from home. Inadequate workspace and isolation at home.

WFH doesn't mean you're stuck at home. I'm someone who likes WFH but doesn't like working from my home. This is why, in pre-pandemic times, I'd purposely work from different locations of my choosing.

The pandemic necessitates that WFM means working from your home and only your home, and that isn't always ideal.

> Although I don't want to subsidize my employer's office rent, but I'm happy to direct their funds to a location I prefer.

Before the pandemic, many of the employers I worked with didn't have a problem with paying for coworking spaces.

> How do you work on a small screen, touchpad, and a laptop keyboard. I'm honestly curious, because I've tried it many times and there must be some tricks I need to start employing.

Beyond using a vertical mouse and offloading a lot of compute to my home and cloud clusters, I don't have any good advice to give, unfortunately. I've been using laptops for decades and they're just my preferred way to work.

> (And sea air seems like it would kill your electronics.)

As long as it isn't humid out, you're good. What it really kills are cars that are parked outside. They'll begin to rust after a year or two, brakes will need to be replaced sooner, etc.

> WFH doesn't mean you're stuck at home.

It does if you're addicted to dual-monitors and other non-mobile setups. Maybe that, more than kids, is the discriminator between people who love WFH and those who cannot stand it.

> Beyond using a vertical mouse

I just bought a new mouse near the beginning of the pandemic. I looked at vertical mice, but ended up getting a more standard one with a nicely molded in-hand shape. I suppose if I had been in a store I would have tried it. Thanks for reminding me I wanted to check one out in person.

I'd add to the list "things that could be fixed if this turns out to not be temporary".

If the only place you have to set up your workspace is your kitchen table then yeah, that sucks hard. But most people I know living in tiny bachelor suites and stuff where this becomes necessary are doing so because that was what they could get/afford a reasonable distance from the office.

If your WFH transitions to permanent, then you can solve this. You don't need that downtown suite anymore. If enough people transition to WFH to take the pressure off of the downtown rental market, then even if you _want_ to stay downtown chances are you can get more space pretty cheaply.

If you don't have a proper desk, enough monitors, a good chair, or other equipment... That's basically a one time cost if you transition to WFH. Bug your employer to pay for it or let you take home some of the now unused office equipment. I know for me I've saved over $15k in the past year not having to go downtown. I can buy a new Herman Miller chair basically every month and throw the old one in the trash and still be breaking even.

Living in the city allows me to go to restaurants, drink as much as I like, and safely walk back home. I can go to a concert and not have to worry if I’ll miss the last train. I can reduce my carbon footprint by driving less. Moving everyone out of the cities and into the suburbs would be an environmental disaster.

The suburbs and rural areas are going to boom (in relative terms) if remote working becomes normalized in even 30% of the tech workforce.

Yep, so stay downtown! Chances are rents are going to go down as a bunch of people empty out, so you can likely pick up some more space and/or access to a co-working space post-COVID pretty cheaply.

People like me in the city proper because I have to commute to downtown, but otherwise have no desire to be in the city will move further out to one of the substantially sized suburbs that meet all my needs besides work and never come back.

People downtown that want to be nearby and have access, but don't necessarily feel the need for living upstairs from their favourite bar will take my place, and on and on.

Instead of density having to concentrate in a few small few areas, it can disperse and even out and I find it hard to not see that as being to pretty much everyone's benefit.

There are a lot of people who don't have nice home situations. Screaming babies, cramped spaces, constant interruptions - that sort of thing. For a programmer/tech worker that has a decent place to live, I'm not surprised you think it's easy.

During the ~6y I've worked at home, in my <900 sqft space, I've had two children and have had my whole family at home for months at a time due to the pandemic.

Even so, it has never been nearly as disruptive and distracting as any office I have previously worked in.

It may depend on the person and the job.

Pre-pandemic I lasted only 4 months at a remote job. I kept asking to meet them (they were in Atlanta, me in Long Island, but most of them were scattered), meeting stakeholders in person gives me a charge which aids my focus and overall productivity. Anyway they kept deferring, and then one day sort of out of the blue and without warning (literally... the day prior the supervisor's supervisor did a call with me and it went well), the supervisor and a longstanding coworker both just started grilling me hard and when they didn't like my answers (note that I was still learning the very complex application codebase at this point) the supervisor basically decided it's not working out.

This past year has terrified me with the idea that all tech work will now be done remotely. Fortunately I'm working on my own projects directly for clients but unfortunately it's not paying very well at the rate I'm being productive (which is "not very"). I am FAR more productive when working physically with other people (who also know intuitively when to not interrupt because they're also programmers).

Why did you take a job that you knew was remote but insist on meeting the stakeholders in person? You shouldn’t have taken that job with that expectation.

They agreed to meet before I was hired, after I started, so they set up the expectation and then stalled on follow-through

I'm roughly 6 years into working from home; the pandemic isn't really a new experience for me.

The first year was concerning because it was different and weird, but it rapidly became normal. Now, I reflect on how _slow_ office work was and find myself frustrated for my past self.

That’s great for you, but I don’t like feeling like a pariah or digital monk

How do you check during the hiring process to tell whether new hires will intuitively know when not to interrupt?

Have you often worked on teams where everyone intuitively knows when to not interrupt someone?

Every office I've ever worked in has always had people who interrupt me while I'm trying to focus. If you've got a way to exclusively hire mind-readers that can effectively avoid this, I'm curious to hear how you've managed it.

The handful of development shops I’ve worked in, I don’t recall ever being frustrated by interruptions. These were also startups, where perhaps an entirely different mindset exists. There was kind of an ebb and flow.

In the real estate office I now work out of sometimes (they offered me a free desk due to my project work)? It is CONSTANTLY annoying.

I advocated for remote work pretty aggressively. I've been doing it now for about a year due to the pandemic, with the option of doing it permanently at my current employer.

I'm not sure I'm that enthusiastic about it anymore. Life just seems a lot more boring to me. Every day is the same and it's become incredibly repetitive. I've been getting somewhat depressed about having this repetitive lifestyle for the next N years. I hadn't really felt this way before. It could be unrelated to remote work of course.

Let it be said:

The pandemic is a poor facsimile of remote work. Iow, working from home to quarantine is fundamentally not the same as remote work.

In remote work, you can grab lunch with a friend, have a beer after work, or meet your grandparents. These things matter.

Devil is in the details:

"From an eight-hour workday that you would normally experience in the office, now, without asking the workforce, certainly get 10-12 hours of work done on a daily basis. It’s because of that flexibility, people appreciate that,”...

Employees are working 50% more. That's why it's "more productive".

Personally, I'm at my desk way earlier, and way later than I should be. It's hard to disconnect when everything is still there. The time I spent on commuting is now spent working - rather than on a hobby and such. I'm certain I'm not the only one, and sure maybe some of you can "disconnect" and get more time to yourself or your family. Statistics from my employer (a very large multinational) says the same, too. Emails getting sent more on off hours, people logged in more.

I see another thing on WFH vs going to work is 'just a job' vs 'career'. In my 'job' where I am doing about same thing for last 5 years and will be similar in foreseeable future. So all office gossip, impromptu meeting, new project ideas coming while talking to boss and so on does not happen and neither I particularly care.

But these things do seem to matter to those who are just starting career, or have ambition to grow in current place by going beyond doing assigned tasks.

The big thing they seem to have done is a good job scaling up.

But likely the primary reason they were able to scale up so rapidly was that in the midst of a pandemic, there were millions of workers looking for jobs and after the twin impacts of the Great Recession and the pandemic in less than a decade, a much larger cohort who were likely more predisposed towards the safety of a government job than pretty much anytime in the past half century.

If we gave managers/business owners the choice of

(1) a traditional in-office, no WFH environment and a smaller profit, OR (2) a partial/full WFH setup and a larger profit,

my gut sense (I can't back it up) is that a huge percentage of businesses would forgo profit for the psychological benefit of seeing their employees daily. Maybe it makes them feel more in control, or more important, or just loneliness.

Reading this makes me happy. I almost read this as the door is open for more people to apply and work remote. That to me means someone who would have never considered working for SBA or moving to work there, can now be employed from anywhere there is internet.

Maybe this is how we revitalize towns that were wiped out by outsourcing the labor pool (read China manufacturing)?

If nobody ever needs to be in an office it would seem like there is more temptation to hire outside the US for these jobs too.

That's true in general, but probably untenable for SBA jobs specifically (just from the optics of it).

I assumed we were thinking more generally if it was a strategy to revitalize flagging towns.

Does it matter though?

I mean that literally, does actual data matter? The data in support of telecommuting has been around for years if you want to find it, heck you even pay employees less in some circumstances as they can live in lower COL areas (plus cost savings in fewer offices/smaller offices/rental instead of ownership/etc).

But the reality is that a certain type of employee rises through the ranks: Those who have a strong aptitude towards interpersonal connection (i.e. extraverts). They're also a loud[er] group. They benefit more from in-person than telecommuting, and they also often make the decisions.

Do you really expect a group of decision makers, who gained power via their interpersonal skills, wanting to give up that skill advantage and potential turn their business into a meritocracy?

COVID was a rare blip, because it tipped the scales just enough to make their position untenable, but in five years I do not anticipate any broad change in landscape. Heck even before a lot of people had a chance to get vaccinated many businesses are RUSHING back into the office, why? The same inexplicable reason we're there to begin with.

It was a world-wide pre/post test to be sure. I think that most companies will be better off to go back into the offices because the alternative is to carefully think through the work and write a lot of things down.

People would rather talk than write, on average.

> It was a world-wide pre/post test to be sure. I think that most companies will be better off to go back into the offices because the alternative is to carefully think through the work and write a lot of things down.

Companies that do this will be at a distinct advantage over companies that rely on informal, ad-hoc, in-person conversations. There are many companies that have been started during the pandemic that are remote first and have the process to back it up. I don't think in-person companies can compete between lack of access to talent, undocumented communication, office politics, employee stress and fatigue due to commuting, living in a high cost of living area and the previously mentioned politics...

I'd also say a lot of management is actually unneeded, which also comes to light in remote first companies.

It's strange that you're being down-voted, considering how important business intelligence is to success, and the concerns about commuting, housing costs et al are likewise well-founded.

I think there's folks who simply miss the social environment of an office, and are loathe to consider that perhaps they were counter-productive for their coworkers.

Trying to get some people to understand adding version numbers to filenames instead of

tpsreport-final-final-iralymenit-fianly-freds-changes.xlst

Seems to be really hard - let alone doing minutes and action points correctly

Reply on news.ycombinator.com