Malcolm Gladwell opposes WFH while he works from his couch for the last 20 years
fortune.com
fortune.com
I don’t mind going to the office because no one is telling me to go to the office. I choose when and whether to go. And it’s also my own office that I’m paying for, and if I want to take a nap because I’m tired and need to rejuvenate for another round of coding, then I lock the door and sleep.
I mainly got the space because my family is home for the summer, and in the first days of having it I reflected that a lot of the joy I get from it is also freedom-related, in the sense of being free from family responsibilities for the day.
Edit: for context my only child is a teenager, and we have 2 dogs.
the teen and dogs will sort it out. Admittedly, the in-house ground level will be 15cm higher, consisting of compacted chip wrappers, pringles tubes and doritos bags combined with .. something covered in hair, and chopsticks.
We are not meant to be alone. Weird things happen when we are alone for too long.
I walk between those spots. I like to take meetings on those walks or just use the time to clear my head. It's great.
It's not about officed or not officed... it's about my ability to find the best spot for me to be in any given moment.
The other thing that working remote has done is that it has disillusioned a lot of people. It’s harder to drink the cool aid when you can easily distance yourself. This has also meant all the corporate lies and bullshit are easily called out. And that is where the management struggles and wants to push for in person work. Employees have taken back a lot of power from the management and that is something that doesn’t sit well with them.
I would be pretty surprised if offset you could anywhere near the cooling of an entire office building considering all that.
I'm coming from the perspective of Texas where it's 100F effectively all day during the summer and I wouldn't move the thermostat from it's usual daytime setting of ~76F past maybe ~80F. Any more and it would take hours to cool back down.
On the other hand, if management can figure out this asynchronous, remote, results-driven world, they gain a lot of flexibility w.r.t to labor. It's hard to find skilled people. If you can hire globally, it should be a big advantage.
I'll decide myself what's better for me "on average"
thanks
[1]: https://asana.com/resources/anatomy-of-work [2]: https://asana.com/resources/anatomy-of-work-summary
Employers will do that anyway no matter you are at the office or not.
As to knowledge workers fending for themselves, it’s mostly a question if a company can make full use of an employees specialization. Employees cost less per hour and prioritize the companies work, but must be paid based on the market rate for their most valuable skills. That basic preference for employees isn’t going away.
You may want to re-read the article. You’re welcome to prefer working at an office, but the article is heartily roasting a person’s hypocrisy: he famously works remotely himself, but advocates a return to the office for others.
As far as the substance of your opinion as expressed, I’ve worked remotely for the vast majority of the last two decades. There have been times (and specific jobs) I could say matched some of what you describe, other times (including my current role) where there’s no resemblance whatsoever.
But importantly, in no case would I want anyone to arbitrarily determine for me what working arrangement would be best for my wellbeing, unless I’ve been deemed incompetent. I’d certainly listen if a friend outside of work said they think I’d benefit from more time working in an office. But I’m definitely not interested in that insight from business leaders, hypocritical authors, or randos on the Internet.
In short: you want to work in an office? Great, go work in an office!
Neither stance should be taken as a given and, additionally, it's going to vary from person to person - I know some people that were chomping at the bit to get back into the office because they exist best in that sort of a structured environment... and I know a lot who looked at their commute and said "Nah, I'll pass."
> “As we face the battle that all organizations are facing now in getting people back into the office, it’s really hard to explain this core psychological truth, which is we want you to have a feeling of belonging and to feel necessary,” he said.
> Gladwell added that it was “not in your best interest to work at home.”
> “I know it’s a hassle to come into the office, but if you’re just sitting in your pajamas in your bedroom, is that the work life you want to live?” he questioned. “Don’t you want to feel part of something?”
This idea that if I don't sit through a boring and pointless commute, then sit in an office all day (no matter how much work may need to be done) in order to feel like I "belong" or that I'm "necessary" is entirely unhinged. The tone here that people just "don't know what's good for them" sounds pretty sanctimonious.
How do we know that Gladwell isn't saying this at the behest of some third party in some way?
Perhaps we'll see more and more public begin to shame working from home and in the end it's just big companies trying to turn the tide.
Aren't we in a recession? What's the basis for this claim?
Power?
The only power employees have is the power to quit en masse. A spasmodic riot. Mutiny—which no manager wants on their watch.
If employees continue to WFH it’s still by the consent of the employer, even if it’s reluctant consent. At least that’s the case in New York, an “at-will employment” state.
Maybe it’s different…in France
"Prepare to be dazzled" is on the cover of Freakonomics, and that's exactly what it is, dazzling. Dictionary definition "brightness that confuses someone's vision temporarily", and that's all that it is. Information that feels right, but is actually just engineered to evoke that feeling, distorting the truth to engage you with the content.
Have not reads the books.
It's not about soundbytes but making a good story for entertainment instead of seeking truth.
This happens very broadly with "popular" science kinds of media. A disturbingly high amount of what you read in them is distorted for presentation and entertainment.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/11/16/hosed
> "But what’s most troubling about “SuperFreakonomics” isn’t the authors’ many blunders; it’s the whole spirit of the enterprise. Though climate change is a grave problem, Levitt and Dubner treat it mainly as an opportunity to show how clever they are."
Dubner and Levitt's podcasts in comparison, are more likely to interview interesting people, and I leave with more things to consider. This isn't to say they are infallible. And you don't have to agree with everything they say or write.
But Galdwell seems more interested in a neat narrative.
10K hours part is good example where people just jump on him for making this bullshit theory about anyone becoming expert by putting mindless 10,000 hours in any skill one wanted to acquire. But reading that book I never got impression that it is some kind of magic.
What I find most funny is that a lot of people who find MG fraud can easily get hoodwinked with some other person/place/technology/thing if they just happen to like it.
The sort of thing he’s getting flak for here is right up that alley… preaches about how working from home is terrible but forces his colleagues to adjust to his desire to not work from an office.
I also happen to have it on good authority that when he did show up to an office he would arrive, and I am not making this up, in pajamas.
Ultimately, we will find that both sides have good points. I'm one that believes that there needs to be a balance where an individual can decide how much work will be done at home while going to the office as needed or desired. 100% at home or 100% at work is not healthy. We need both. What the pandemic has shown is that many of us don't have to be in the office 100% to be productive. Let's find a balance.
Now that I'm 40, that life just isn't for me. I know what I'm a part of, and I don't need to be in an office to delude me into thinking my job is changing the world. Maybe Gladwell is speaking to those 20-somethings and not to me, but he just sounds like a con man.
Sorta interesting that the millionaire class is all about being back in the office, while the rank and file general salaried employee wants no part of it. Wonder why that is? My guesses are that (a) managers want to be seen managing in order to get promotions, and (b) they actually believe that the average employee buys into this "team" bullshit while barely being able to afford day-to-day life. That's dead. They killed it. It's not coming back. Shouldn't have pocketed millions in PPP loans while lobbying against people getting a stimulus check if you didn't want people to notice the star differences between the classes. Also shouldn't have bragged to us about how management, in many of companies that have lost money for years, set aside their quarterly bonuses while still making multiples of what the average employee makes.
It's quite a surprise to hear Gladwell's hypocrisy as he usually comes across as far more considered but i maybe with time he's slipping into bad habits.
I know others can be fulfilled working from home, so I'm not advocating forcing anyone back into the office. But I could see a scenario where companies differentiate into pure wfh and 2 or 3 days/week in the office. I may be weird, but I would chose the latter, all other things being equal.
The reason people like WFH often begins and ends at "No commute". If your commute is roughly an hour you get 2 hours of your day back instantly. Tough sell for come into the office when the options are "feeling part of something" vs getting 2 hours of the day back.
Yes! That sounds awesome, and is in fact what I did during COVID. Well, minus the bedroom part; I at least went downstairs to the couch.
> “Don’t you want to feel part of something?”
Grossssss. I don't need to be brainwashed into being a worker bee for someone else's "vision". I don't need to get emotionally involved with my employer. I'll just do the job and take my paycheck, thank you very much.
While I do think there is something to be said for face to face interactions, valorizing work is just making work your life instead of the thing that makes life possible.
We could definitely use a major civic revival and more backyard barbecues. We could do without sitting in conference rooms.
I feel part of many things. I feel part of my family. I feel like a pet owner. I feel part of a social group. I don't need to feel part of my work. And employees were not more engaged prior to the pandemic. People quit just as often.
> but if you’re just sitting in your pajamas in your bedroom, is that the work life you want to live?
Yes! I am tapping away on a keyboard to made data flow. That's my job. Better to do it in pjs in a comfy bed than a shitty office chair.
Is that actually true about the quitting? But regardless, I don't think that really captures engagement all that well.
You can be barely engaged in a job that doesn't require a lot from you and do it for years and years. And OTOH, I think engagement can sometimes cause people to quit more easily. If you want your work to be a meaningful and important part of your life, you want more from your job, and might leave readily if you're not getting all that you want. Compared to: if your job is mostly just a paycheck for you, you're not really looking to get much out of it other than that paycheck, and so are happy to keep working at the job even if it's not giving you other things, as long as nothing gets too actively bad.
People are quitting a little more often.
They are doing that because offering your employees a 3%-5% raise in a year where inflation is 9.1% is cutting their pay.
Employers would like to pretend that isn't true so they're looking for any other explanation. Work-from-home, low birth rate (retroactively to 1997?), social media, entitlement...
220V, 221V, whatever it takes.
Thanks, the Mr. Mom reference made me smile.
Perhaps not, but he also doesn't speak from a position of authority or experience, then, and maybe shouldn't act as such. If asked, saying something like "I can't really say one way or another, I've been writing on my own for years, not as part of a team" would have been better than what he chose to say instead.
If you like him, fine. If not, also fine. But no matter what, please don't take him seriously as a source of guidance for what is true, and beautiful in the world.
1. It is also a hassle being in the office. I can focus much better at home. Unless the office wants to give everyone their own little sound-proof and well naturally lit room. No one does that though. It would cost at least 2% of the developers salary.
2. I can feel anything I want. I can feel part of something from a distance. We have great tools to communicate. I appreciate that if you start at a company it would be nice to physically meet up, and it is probably good to get together occasionally. But every day in the office is not necessary.
People who are deep into their careers with built-out networks and contacts have no problem with the transition. But for others, it will play out over the next 5 years when they find that they are falling behind. The pendulum will swing the other way and having an office will be seen as a beneficial perk and career booster.
Once the job market turns and jobs are scarce relative to workers, most people will be back in the office or starve.
> “I know it’s a hassle to come into the office, but if you’re just sitting in your pajamas in your bedroom, is that the work life you want to live?” he questioned. “Don’t you want to feel part of something?”
Doing a braindead typical corporate job from home, in one's pajamas, is an alienating experience. The issue is that, above a certain level of intelligence and awareness, having to go in and do that job on-site is even more alienating.
I don't "feel part of something" in corporate work. I haven't since my 20s, when a series of life circumstances forced me to figure reality out very quick.
At the same time, the few jobs that are intrinsically rewarding and useful do not become less rewarding and useful .
To keep hoi polloi motivated, and to keep them overestimating their tiny actual chance (less than 1%, in many circumstances, because it's typically something one is born into) of being invited into the executive circle so they actually do the work (which they are just smart enough to do, but hopefully not smart enough to see the pointlessness of), the office is pretty much necessary. Otherwise, it becomes just too clear, even to people of sub-mediocre apperception, that "work" isn't really about Starbucks at 11:00 and town halls at 4:00, but that it is merely the trade of an intensely valuable and personal commodity--one's time--for the artificially scarce one called "money" (existing largely, in bulk, to measure the asymmetric state services called "property rights") that (a) is owned in the greatest amounts by the literal worst people in the world, but (b) is absolutely necessary if one wishes access to the means of survival.
While it is true that this discussion has been hashed out many times, it is curious to see how the sentiment has shifted even more in favor of work from home, especially given that many of the commenters have now actually worked from home due to the pandemic. Frankly, the comments are now much more insightful and informative than they were say a year or two ago.
On the other hand, you can do this even if you work from the office once per week or even once per two weeks, so this might be the solution.
I don't think all companies need to operate in one particular way, but getting the sense of belonging and meaning out of work some people want I think does generally require the team/org/company they're at to have that culture.
“Force” doesn’t seem like the right model here, any more than any other aspect of requiring to work for a living counts as force. (Which you might think it does, but singling out just office/remote as the part that’s by force doesn’t seem like it makes sense.)
It's my sincere hope that Malcolm continues his slide into irrelevancy.
There's nothing in the natural order that says I must starve if I don't report to a particular building every day and sit at a particular desk when the tools for me to perform the same labor at a place of my own choosing exist. Forcing me to do so in order to maintain an employment contract is coercion, plain and simple, and the sooner society destroys that norm the better.
While there may be many things that you got from a shared workspace, there are only a few of them that aren’t also available remotely.
You probably don’t need to be caricaturing other people’s experience to justify your own. I imagine you’d still be fine to do you without making it suggest anything in particular about the rest of us.
> You probably don’t need to be caricaturing other people’s experience to justify your own.
I don’t follow — whose experiences am I caricaturing? I meant his comments resonate with my own experience of working remotely.
Get some hobbies, maybe a pet?
Sorry, is that just your commentary, or is there something in that article linking work as identity to loneliness?
I agree that using work, or any other one thing as your sole source of identity isn’t healthy. I don’t see how that’s incompatible with finding meaning and belonging from work, any more than it’d be incompatible with finding meaning and belonging in anything else.
> Get some hobbies, maybe a pet?
I have a pet. I have some hobbies, though generally I find that I and others doing the hobby don’t have enough time to devote to it to really develop deep connection from it. Part of its also maybe just the things I’m interested (or not interested) in. I’d like to have more hobbies though, and generally more extra-work life activities. But that doesn’t replace my desire for work to also be meaningful.
The vast majority of people seek meaning and belonging within their personal lives through religion, philosophy, family, and deep friendships. Of all these factors, deep friendships are typically available through the workplace, but I’ve found most work friendships to be shallow and dominated by the shared connection to the workplace. Why spend 20-40 hours per month commuting for that? Imagine all the deep friendships that could be cultivated with that much time every month?
Is there a book / blog / article that talks about Jared Diamond being inaccurate?
Help me learn! Site a source I can read.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAnthropology/comments/1rzm07/wha...
> They are pretty unusual and make a lot of broad claims
That's only the start.
Luckily, since, Covid, Trump & Spotify, I don't wade through the mire to find any jewels, I simply just don't listen anymore.
The Pfizer CEO wanted you to get vaccinated while he waited until he was forced to
These people aren't telling you what they do, they're telling you what they think will be necessary for the future. Office work is a lot more productive, it better integrates employees into the company culture, and companies that implement WFH often struggle as a result of it
Not interested and hard pass.
Wow Malcolm, good job using your imagination! Here’s some paper and crayons, can you draw a picture of it?