Hacker News Reader

Comment by WoodenChair | Hacker News Reader

Anecdotally, knowing many people that work from home, there is definitely abuse of the system. And those people are ruining it for the rest of us! But it would be absurd to think that if everyone was really more productive at-home, companies would still be forcing everyone back in the office. I don't believe the conspiracies—most workplaces really do want collaboration and productivity. The only bit I'll buy is that some are doing it as a form of soft layoffs. But I find it hard to believe that every company doing this would act against its own interests in terms of productivity.

View on HN

I've seen many absurd things working for various companies. I've personally seen millions of dollars set on fire over pet projects and egos, or petty power struggles. A sufficient justification to force people back into the office is because it gratifies a powerful man's ego to see people working in front of him.

Yes, absolutely.

There are known incentive mechanisms behind the behavior which are neurobiological and neuroimmunobiological!

This review paper from 2017 is really quite something. Aggression, Social Stress, and the Immune System in Humans and Animal Models by Takahashi, Flanigan, McEwen & Russo — https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/behavioral-neuroscience...

Stress begets inflammation. Inflammation is suffering. Subjugating others secretes antiinflammatory cytokines; “Winning” is relief.

A stark and beautiful quote from the paper: “In animals with hierarchical societies, aggressive behavior is thought to help individuals gain and maintain higher social status (Box 2). It has been shown that aggressive behavior, especially the experience of winning, has rewarding properties in animals and repeated aggressive experience may lead to compulsive, pathological aggression that is highly reinforcing (Fish et al., 2002; Falkner et al., 2016; Golden et al., 2016, 2017).”

>But I find it hard to believe that every company doing this would act against its own interests in terms of productivity

Ever worked in a company?

Are you actually going to reply to the substance of my comment or just do a Reddit like sarcastic reply? Yes, I am middle age and have worked for multiple companies. I've seen co-workers, friends, and even family abuse the opportunity to work from home. Which as I said is unfortunate because it hurts everyone who uses it wisely.

Show me or gp that there is no evidence of abuse. Anecdotally, I've seen it.

> I am middle age and have worked for multiple companies

Same. If you never saw a company kill teams productivity with completely retarded decisions and petty office drama, I think you might just have been lucky.

I think your original comment is entirely valid. It seems anyone who questions WFH gets downvoted.

I’m involved with several startups, and I can assure you there are clear advantages to people spending time together. WFH or not, people meeting and strategizing in person is incredibly valuable.

I also think people need to make a better distinction between remote and distributed teams. Because of the above opportunity to meet in person from time to time, and also because of the additional communication challenges of a distributed team with multiple time zones.

There’s an assumption that all work can be perfectly partitioned and assigned to people. But more often than not, innovation requires constant exploration of ideas and negotiation of resources being invested. more cohesive teams are way more likely to innovate.

>The only bit I'll buy is that some are doing it as a form of soft layoffs. But I find it hard to believe that every company doing this would act against its own interests in terms of productivity.

WRT "in terms of productivity"?

Companies do this all the time, and especially when they lay people off. (soft or otherwise)

There's absolutely a loss of productivity as everyone has to sort out the logistical changes while doing the things they normally do.

>But it would be absurd to think that if everyone was really more productive at-home, companies would still be forcing everyone back in the office.

To draw this conclusion one would have to assume that companies are measuring productivity correctly.

Or that the companies are acting rationally, and we know that's never always true.

> To draw this conclusion one would have to assume that companies are measuring productivity correctly. Or that the companies are acting rationally, and we know that's never always true.

So is your argument that bad management is so endemic that every company is making a poor decision about its productivity when it orders workers back to the office? I think some companies want to do soft layoffs. And I think others actually see real benefits of working in-person.

We don't have to take such extreme positions. Doubtless some people are more productive at-home, some people are less productive at-home. And some companies are actually seeing productivity decreases when their teams are remote.

Not management, upper management. Executives make RTO decisions. Companies aren't a democracy, we're talking handful of people per company, max. That includes companies with tens of thousands of employees.

Those people are typically egotistical and irrational. They have big ideas about what makes a good company and they execute them. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. They don't require rationale for office work.

They like seeing their engineers in office and so it is done. Why? I dunno. Maybe that's the way it's always done. Maybe that's the way it should be done. We do it right here, not like those other companies.

In actuality, it's because the CEO is a man-child who likes it and then conversation ends there. Does it cost money? Of course. I've seen millions burned in office politics; this shit is nothing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com