Get Your Butt Back To The Office (1 Viewer)

[the moops]

But having them all remote or heavily remote definitely causes issues in connectivity, learning and development, feelings of mentorship and apprenticeship, trajectory to promotions, job satisfaction...we have hard data on all these things across industries.

This thread here is a pretty good rebuttal to this finding

 

[Instinctive]

But having them all remote or heavily remote definitely causes issues in connectivity, learning and development, feelings of mentorship and apprenticeship, trajectory to promotions, job satisfaction...we have hard data on all these things across industries.

This thread here is a pretty good rebuttal to this finding

The thread here is almost entirely people 40+, in individual contributor roles, skewed towards tech-forward work.

I'd venture to say I'm possibly the youngest in it. So I don't find it to be a good rebuttal at all lol. If anything, it mostly confirms those are the exact roles that can do WFH, even if it damages the others' in the company and lowers overall job satisfaction across an entire firm.

 

[AAABatteries]

No insult intended to Instinctive here, but I really don't trust the data and studies that consulting firms put out about stuff like RTO or spans of control. My experience has been that implementing these type of top down policies really hurts morale among the best people I work with. Because if you're smart and you care, a lot of knowledge work can really be done from anywhere. It's the micro-managers who don't trust their team and/or want to bully them that push hardest for RTO. And they will use those studies as their main weapon.

Maybe we're just not the type of employees they want though. Too independent.

It's probably more an issue of poor middle management not wanting to downsize their staff or manage/coach under performing employees.

I could eliminate unnecessary steps and red tape and get by with 25% less reports - Said no middle manager anywhere.

Yeah, or they are poor performers themselves.

Middle management can be a tough spot. Often have to contribute while growing as a leader/manager. If you come down and say that someone needs 7 or 10 people to be a manager instead of 3 or 4, you essentially cut off the pipeline to become one. All those young people sitting in the office can't advance because there is no rung there anymore.

I think the problem is the all or nothing mindset on both sides. I'm not asking to never come to the office, but the problem is most of these decisions end up being a single individual - usually and old, male CEO who is old school. 2/3 days seems to be what works for most white-collar jobs but obviously not all. 0/1/4/5 are totally unnecessary in most cases.

 

[the moops]

But having them all remote or heavily remote definitely causes issues in connectivity, learning and development, feelings of mentorship and apprenticeship, trajectory to promotions, job satisfaction...we have hard data on all these things across industries.

This thread here is a pretty good rebuttal to this finding

The thread here is almost entirely people 40+, in individual contributor roles, skewed towards tech-forward work.

I'd venture to say I'm possibly the youngest in it. So I don't find it to be a good rebuttal at all lol. If anything, it mostly confirms those are the exact roles that can do WFH, even if it damages the others' in the company and lowers overall job satisfaction across an entire firm.

You force the under 40 crowd to go back to the office full time and you think that will improve their job satisfaction? I am skeptical

 

[Joe Schmo]

Any job that is in AI's crosshairs is a job that can be done wfh, imo. I'm in an industry that has pockets of those types of jobs and it baffles me the insistence of the senior execs for everyone to be in office full time post-covid. All it did, imo, was add commute times to peoples days without increasing efficiency or effectiveness.

 

[urbanhack]

Microsoft Teams and the ability to share your screen with someone(s) is a million times more convenient for everyone instead of gathering in a conference room while one person fumbles with their laptop. Just saying.

And then there is pre-meeting chat, post-meeting chat. blah blah blah.

Sorry...i'm 50% more productive at home at about 80% of the time commitment.

 

[Instinctive]

But having them all remote or heavily remote definitely causes issues in connectivity, learning and development, feelings of mentorship and apprenticeship, trajectory to promotions, job satisfaction...we have hard data on all these things across industries.

This thread here is a pretty good rebuttal to this finding

The thread here is almost entirely people 40+, in individual contributor roles, skewed towards tech-forward work.

I'd venture to say I'm possibly the youngest in it. So I don't find it to be a good rebuttal at all lol. If anything, it mostly confirms those are the exact roles that can do WFH, even if it damages the others' in the company and lowers overall job satisfaction across an entire firm.

You force the under 40 crowd to go back to the office full time and you think that will improve their job satisfaction? I am skeptical

I don't think you're getting what I'm trying to say. The Internet is an imperfect medium.

The high achieving under 40 crowd, at firms like MBB, IB, VC, PE, FAANG, F50, etc...are extremely dissatisfied at their level of growth and apprenticeship when remote. Forcing EVERYONE back, taking a hit on the crowd farther into their careers in exchange for a much greater uptick in all others, is the theory. And from what I've seen, many people do actually get fulfillment from the socializing and the providing of mentorship this develops too, so the hit isn't as small as you'd think.

You can be skeptical. I'm just sharing what our research has indicated. No idea if it would apply to, say, a small business. That's not our market. But for major companies, with huge workfo ces, with high achievers, where people are trying to make a career, it's a pretty clear answer.

 

[the moops]

I don't think you're getting what I'm trying to say.

Definitely not for I have no idea what any of those acronyms mean

 

[Instinctive]

I don't think you're getting what I'm trying to say.

Definitely not for I have no idea what any of those acronyms mean

Exactly haha

Basically I listed "top tier consulting, investment banking, any big tech firm, the fortune 50, venture capital, private equity, etc"

 

[bigbottom]

But having them all remote or heavily remote definitely causes issues in connectivity, learning and development, feelings of mentorship and apprenticeship, trajectory to promotions, job satisfaction...we have hard data on all these things across industries.

This thread here is a pretty good rebuttal to this finding

The thread here is almost entirely people 40+, in individual contributor roles, skewed towards tech-forward work.

I'd venture to say I'm possibly the youngest in it. So I don't find it to be a good rebuttal at all lol. If anything, it mostly confirms those are the exact roles that can do WFH, even if it damages the others' in the company and lowers overall job satisfaction across an entire firm.

You force the under 40 crowd to go back to the office full time and you think that will improve their job satisfaction? I am skeptical

I don't think you're getting what I'm trying to say. The Internet is an imperfect medium.

The high achieving under 40 crowd, at firms like MBB, IB, VC, PE, FAANG, F50, etc...are extremely dissatisfied at their level of growth and apprenticeship when remote. Forcing EVERYONE back, taking a hit on the crowd farther into their careers in exchange for a much greater uptick in all others, is the theory. And from what I've seen, many people do actually get fulfillment from the socializing and the providing of mentorship this develops too, so the hit isn't as small as you'd think.

You can be skeptical. I'm just sharing what our research has indicated. No idea if it would apply to, say, a small business. That's not our market. But for major companies, with huge workfo ces, with high achievers, where people are trying to make a career, it's a pretty clear answer.

Well, my experience is anecdotal, but I can say that I know a number of 20 somethings entering careers in IB, financial consulting and accounting and for those who are remote, pretty much none of them seem to be happy with their training, development, mentorship, integration, etc.

And at least one study I saw showed that remote workers were materially more likely to be laid off and/or quit, which I think stems from the above and the lack of personal relationships being developed between management and the workforce. But that is admittedly speculation on my part.

 

[Steve Tasker]

But having them all remote or heavily remote definitely causes issues in connectivity, learning and development, feelings of mentorship and apprenticeship, trajectory to promotions, job satisfaction...we have hard data on all these things across industries.

This thread here is a pretty good rebuttal to this finding

The thread here is almost entirely people 40+, in individual contributor roles, skewed towards tech-forward work.

I'd venture to say I'm possibly the youngest in it. So I don't find it to be a good rebuttal at all lol. If anything, it mostly confirms those are the exact roles that can do WFH, even if it damages the others' in the company and lowers overall job satisfaction across an entire firm.

For what it's worth, I'm fairly certain that you and Desert Power (who commented on your post on the previous page) are roughly the same age; I say that because I'm in the same age cohort.

I don't think I have nearly as strong feelings on remote work than some in here, though.

 

[bigbottom]

But having them all remote or heavily remote definitely causes issues in connectivity, learning and development, feelings of mentorship and apprenticeship, trajectory to promotions, job satisfaction...we have hard data on all these things across industries.

This thread here is a pretty good rebuttal to this finding

The thread here is almost entirely people 40+, in individual contributor roles, skewed towards tech-forward work.

I'd venture to say I'm possibly the youngest in it. So I don't find it to be a good rebuttal at all lol. If anything, it mostly confirms those are the exact roles that can do WFH, even if it damages the others' in the company and lowers overall job satisfaction across an entire firm.

You force the under 40 crowd to go back to the office full time and you think that will improve their job satisfaction? I am skeptical

I don't think you're getting what I'm trying to say. The Internet is an imperfect medium.

The high achieving under 40 crowd, at firms like MBB, IB, VC, PE, FAANG, F50, etc...are extremely dissatisfied at their level of growth and apprenticeship when remote. Forcing EVERYONE back, taking a hit on the crowd farther into their careers in exchange for a much greater uptick in all others, is the theory. And from what I've seen, many people do actually get fulfillment from the socializing and the providing of mentorship this develops too, so the hit isn't as small as you'd think.

You can be skeptical. I'm just sharing what our research has indicated. No idea if it would apply to, say, a small business. That's not our market. But for major companies, with huge workfo ces, with high achievers, where people are trying to make a career, it's a pretty clear answer.

Yes, this is what I’m seeing in my post just above this.

 

[Desert_Power]

But having them all remote or heavily remote definitely causes issues in connectivity, learning and development, feelings of mentorship and apprenticeship, trajectory to promotions, job satisfaction...we have hard data on all these things across industries.

This thread here is a pretty good rebuttal to this finding

The thread here is almost entirely people 40+, in individual contributor roles, skewed towards tech-forward work.

I'd venture to say I'm possibly the youngest in it. So I don't find it to be a good rebuttal at all lol. If anything, it mostly confirms those are the exact roles that can do WFH, even if it damages the others' in the company and lowers overall job satisfaction across an entire firm.

You force the under 40 crowd to go back to the office full time and you think that will improve their job satisfaction? I am skeptical

I don't think you're getting what I'm trying to say. The Internet is an imperfect medium.

The high achieving under 40 crowd, at firms like MBB, IB, VC, PE, FAANG, F50, etc...are extremely dissatisfied at their level of growth and apprenticeship when remote. Forcing EVERYONE back, taking a hit on the crowd farther into their careers in exchange for a much greater uptick in all others, is the theory. And from what I've seen, many people do actually get fulfillment from the socializing and the providing of mentorship this develops too, so the hit isn't as small as you'd think.

You can be skeptical. I'm just sharing what our research has indicated. No idea if it would apply to, say, a small business. That's not our market. But for major companies, with huge workfo ces, with high achievers, where people are trying to make a career, it's a pretty clear answer.

Well, my experience is anecdotal, but I can say that I know a number of 20 somethings entering careers in IB, financial consulting and accounting and for those who are remote, pretty much none of them seem to be happy with their training, development, mentorship, integration, etc.

And at least one study I saw showed that remote workers were materially more likely to be laid off and/or quit, which I think stems from the above and the lack of personal relationships being developed between management and the workforce. But that is admittedly speculation on my part.

Most of the acronyms in the quoted post are sectors are also ones where things like face time and looking/acting the part have always been more valued than others. Conformity or uniformity is definitely easier to enforce in the office than remotely, but I question whether that should be the goal of most workplaces.

 

[Desert_Power]

But having them all remote or heavily remote definitely causes issues in connectivity, learning and development, feelings of mentorship and apprenticeship, trajectory to promotions, job satisfaction...we have hard data on all these things across industries.

This thread here is a pretty good rebuttal to this finding

The thread here is almost entirely people 40+, in individual contributor roles, skewed towards tech-forward work.

I'd venture to say I'm possibly the youngest in it. So I don't find it to be a good rebuttal at all lol. If anything, it mostly confirms those are the exact roles that can do WFH, even if it damages the others' in the company and lowers overall job satisfaction across an entire firm.

For what it's worth, I'm fairly certain that you and Desert Power (who commented on your post on the previous page) are roughly the same age; I say that because I'm in the same age cohort.

I don't think I have nearly as strong feelings on remote work than some in here, though.

Feel like Instinctive rounds to 30 though. I don't anymore

 

[The Z Machine]

I can believe 2 things to be true at the same time:

1) Under 30, high achievers that want to move up the corporate chain quickly feel stymied by the lack of mentorship, community, etc. They can't promote themselves well behind a Zoom screen. These folks express dissatisfaction with their direct managers who don't often see them in person.

2) Over 40, well tenured in career, less ambitious, more family focused professionals absolutely hate the commuting, small talk, intra-office BS. They know that they don't want to be an EVP. They just want to be middle class, get paid decently, have a good Work Life Balance, and good job security. They think that they are more effective at doing the work when not distracted by the things that being in person entail. Plus, they don't want to get out of their comfy pants.

The thing is, most of the #1s turn into #2s in about 15 years of corporate work. Most often when they go through a RIF and see the capriciousness of modern corporate job security. The cynicism builds over the years.

 

[The Z Machine]

BTW, this is exactly what happened in my career. Once I hit 35 and had kids and saw what layoffs can to do a person, I wanted nothing to do with being a higher paid, more vulnerable employee. I knew I wasn't going to skyrocket to the C-Suite, so moving up was more likely to get me RIF'd sooner. Why stick my neck out? My company doesn't really care about me and I can be replaced or my duties given to others very easily.

 

[bigbottom]

I can believe 2 things to be true at the same time:

1) Under 30, high achievers that want to move up the corporate chain quickly feel stymied by the lack of mentorship, community, etc. They can't promote themselves well behind a Zoom screen. These folks express dissatisfaction with their direct managers who don't often see them in person.

2) Over 40, well tenured in career, less ambitious, more family focused professionals absolutely hate the commuting, small talk, intra-office BS. They know that they don't want to be an EVP. They just want to be middle class, get paid decently, have a good Work Life Balance, and good job security. They think that they are more effective at doing the work when not distracted by the things that being in person entail. Plus, they don't want to get out of their comfy pants.

The thing is, most of the #1s turn into #2s in about 15 years of corporate work. Most often when they go through a RIF and see the capriciousness of modern corporate job security. The cynicism builds over the years.

I think you are really dialing this in. And the long term impact on the #1s may not be realized until 10-20 years down the road when they become #2s and are materially less qualified and efficient as the #2s of today.

 

[bigbottom]

But having them all remote or heavily remote definitely causes issues in connectivity, learning and development, feelings of mentorship and apprenticeship, trajectory to promotions, job satisfaction...we have hard data on all these things across industries.

This thread here is a pretty good rebuttal to this finding

The thread here is almost entirely people 40+, in individual contributor roles, skewed towards tech-forward work.

I'd venture to say I'm possibly the youngest in it. So I don't find it to be a good rebuttal at all lol. If anything, it mostly confirms those are the exact roles that can do WFH, even if it damages the others' in the company and lowers overall job satisfaction across an entire firm.

You force the under 40 crowd to go back to the office full time and you think that will improve their job satisfaction? I am skeptical

I don't think you're getting what I'm trying to say. The Internet is an imperfect medium.

The high achieving under 40 crowd, at firms like MBB, IB, VC, PE, FAANG, F50, etc...are extremely dissatisfied at their level of growth and apprenticeship when remote. Forcing EVERYONE back, taking a hit on the crowd farther into their careers in exchange for a much greater uptick in all others, is the theory. And from what I've seen, many people do actually get fulfillment from the socializing and the providing of mentorship this develops too, so the hit isn't as small as you'd think.

You can be skeptical. I'm just sharing what our research has indicated. No idea if it would apply to, say, a small business. That's not our market. But for major companies, with huge workfo ces, with high achievers, where people are trying to make a career, it's a pretty clear answer.

Well, my experience is anecdotal, but I can say that I know a number of 20 somethings entering careers in IB, financial consulting and accounting and for those who are remote, pretty much none of them seem to be happy with their training, development, mentorship, integration, etc.

And at least one study I saw showed that remote workers were materially more likely to be laid off and/or quit, which I think stems from the above and the lack of personal relationships being developed between management and the workforce. But that is admittedly speculation on my part.

Most of the acronyms in the quoted post are sectors are also ones where things like face time and looking/acting the part have always been more valued than others. Conformity or uniformity is definitely easier to enforce in the office than remotely, but I question whether that should be the goal of most workplaces.

For what it’s worth, my input was from the perspective of the dissatisfied entry level folks I know, not the corporate overlords who may value conformity as you suggest.

 

[Ilov80s]

I can believe 2 things to be true at the same time:

1) Under 30, high achievers that want to move up the corporate chain quickly feel stymied by the lack of mentorship, community, etc. They can't promote themselves well behind a Zoom screen. These folks express dissatisfaction with their direct managers who don't often see them in person.

2) Over 40, well tenured in career, less ambitious, more family focused professionals absolutely hate the commuting, small talk, intra-office BS. They know that they don't want to be an EVP. They just want to be middle class, get paid decently, have a good Work Life Balance, and good job security. They think that they are more effective at doing the work when not distracted by the things that being in person entail. Plus, they don't want to get out of their comfy pants.

The thing is, most of the #1s turn into #2s in about 15 years of corporate work. Most often when they go through a RIF and see the capriciousness of modern corporate job security. The cynicism builds over the years.

I also wonder what role a general breakdown of local community has in this. If you are in your 40s with with spouse, kids, etc. then you do have a purpose and community outside of work. If you are younger and single, you might not have that. This country has done a poor job maintaining non-career related social systems/communities for adults once they leaving HS, college.

 

[AAABatteries]

I can believe 2 things to be true at the same time:

1) Under 30, high achievers that want to move up the corporate chain quickly feel stymied by the lack of mentorship, community, etc. They can't promote themselves well behind a Zoom screen. These folks express dissatisfaction with their direct managers who don't often see them in person.

2) Over 40, well tenured in career, less ambitious, more family focused professionals absolutely hate the commuting, small talk, intra-office BS. They know that they don't want to be an EVP. They just want to be middle class, get paid decently, have a good Work Life Balance, and good job security. They think that they are more effective at doing the work when not distracted by the things that being in person entail. Plus, they don't want to get out of their comfy pants.

The thing is, most of the #1s turn into #2s in about 15 years of corporate work. Most often when they go through a RIF and see the capriciousness of modern corporate job security. The cynicism builds over the years.

I think you are really dialing this in. And the long term impact on the #1s may not be realized until 10-20 years down the road when they become #2s and are materially less qualified and efficient as the #2s of today.

I think Z nailed it and not to go off on a tangent but the opportunities to learn and become qualified and efficient are exponentially greater today with the Internet and AI than anything most of the crowd in here had during our early careers. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Desert_Power]

But having them all remote or heavily remote definitely causes issues in connectivity, learning and development, feelings of mentorship and apprenticeship, trajectory to promotions, job satisfaction...we have hard data on all these things across industries.

This thread here is a pretty good rebuttal to this finding

The thread here is almost entirely people 40+, in individual contributor roles, skewed towards tech-forward work.

I'd venture to say I'm possibly the youngest in it. So I don't find it to be a good rebuttal at all lol. If anything, it mostly confirms those are the exact roles that can do WFH, even if it damages the others' in the company and lowers overall job satisfaction across an entire firm.

You force the under 40 crowd to go back to the office full time and you think that will improve their job satisfaction? I am skeptical

I don't think you're getting what I'm trying to say. The Internet is an imperfect medium.

The high achieving under 40 crowd, at firms like MBB, IB, VC, PE, FAANG, F50, etc...are extremely dissatisfied at their level of growth and apprenticeship when remote. Forcing EVERYONE back, taking a hit on the crowd farther into their careers in exchange for a much greater uptick in all others, is the theory. And from what I've seen, many people do actually get fulfillment from the socializing and the providing of mentorship this develops too, so the hit isn't as small as you'd think.

You can be skeptical. I'm just sharing what our research has indicated. No idea if it would apply to, say, a small business. That's not our market. But for major companies, with huge workfo ces, with high achievers, where people are trying to make a career, it's a pretty clear answer.

Well, my experience is anecdotal, but I can say that I know a number of 20 somethings entering careers in IB, financial consulting and accounting and for those who are remote, pretty much none of them seem to be happy with their training, development, mentorship, integration, etc.

And at least one study I saw showed that remote workers were materially more likely to be laid off and/or quit, which I think stems from the above and the lack of personal relationships being developed between management and the workforce. But that is admittedly speculation on my part.

Most of the acronyms in the quoted post are sectors are also ones where things like face time and looking/acting the part have always been more valued than others. Conformity or uniformity is definitely easier to enforce in the office than remotely, but I question whether that should be the goal of most workplaces.

For what it’s worth, my input was from the perspective of the dissatisfied entry level folks I know, not the corporate overlords who may value conformity as you suggest.

I don’t think we’re in disagreement here. Integrating is tough, and it is tougher remote.

My point is more that not every industry is equal and the ones mentioned above are famously high-pressure finance/consultancy, so the lessons from there may not apply across industries or even to other parts of their firms.

 

[Ilov80s]

I can believe 2 things to be true at the same time:

1) Under 30, high achievers that want to move up the corporate chain quickly feel stymied by the lack of mentorship, community, etc. They can't promote themselves well behind a Zoom screen. These folks express dissatisfaction with their direct managers who don't often see them in person.

2) Over 40, well tenured in career, less ambitious, more family focused professionals absolutely hate the commuting, small talk, intra-office BS. They know that they don't want to be an EVP. They just want to be middle class, get paid decently, have a good Work Life Balance, and good job security. They think that they are more effective at doing the work when not distracted by the things that being in person entail. Plus, they don't want to get out of their comfy pants.

The thing is, most of the #1s turn into #2s in about 15 years of corporate work. Most often when they go through a RIF and see the capriciousness of modern corporate job security. The cynicism builds over the years.

I think you are really dialing this in. And the long term impact on the #1s may not be realized until 10-20 years down the road when they become #2s and are materially less qualified and efficient as the #2s of today.

I think Z nailed it and not to go off on a tangent but the opportunities to learn and become qualified and efficient are exponentially greater today with the Internet and AI than anything most of the crowd in here had during our early careers. Just my 2 cents.

AI provides a lot of opportunities but also provides pitfalls as well. Early studies already show that by not doing the typical day to day work, people aren't keeping their critical thinking skills sharp for when they do encounter special circumsances. Plus the kids are using AI to avoid thinking and working altogether. It's a major problem in schools and I don't know what the answer is. AI can be a great teaching tool but it's greatest power is in allowing people to avoid thinking and creating. My early observations from school about it's long term impact are very worrisome. I do support the idea of younger staff working in person with older staff and having that mentoring, community. Not as a blanket policy ofc.

 

[Instinctive]

I can believe 2 things to be true at the same time:

1) Under 30, high achievers that want to move up the corporate chain quickly feel stymied by the lack of mentorship, community, etc. They can't promote themselves well behind a Zoom screen. These folks express dissatisfaction with their direct managers who don't often see them in person.

2) Over 40, well tenured in career, less ambitious, more family focused professionals absolutely hate the commuting, small talk, intra-office BS. They know that they don't want to be an EVP. They just want to be middle class, get paid decently, have a good Work Life Balance, and good job security. They think that they are more effective at doing the work when not distracted by the things that being in person entail. Plus, they don't want to get out of their comfy pants.

The thing is, most of the #1s turn into #2s in about 15 years of corporate work. Most often when they go through a RIF and see the capriciousness of modern corporate job security. The cynicism builds over the years.

I think you are really dialing this in. And the long term impact on the #1s may not be realized until 10-20 years down the road when they become #2s and are materially less qualified and efficient as the #2s of today.

I too think we've zeroed in on the crux of it.

I'll just add what is now a personal opinion, not something I've read any research about: I think a key phrase is that the older and big "I'm just as productive as home" crowd doesn't see a lot of second order effects.

Hypotheses I have:

the WFH folks have less cross pollination, so solutions and ideas are less innovative/creative. The number of problems I've solved because I ran into someone and we chatted for 5-10 minutes and they had an idea" which I never would have reached out to them otherwise, but which solves a real issue...not zero.

There are a lot of bad actors. I'd be shocked if most people in most jobs are actually more productive from the employers perspective I've WFH, vs what the employee thinks.

Distractions - I think kids/spouses/pets change this equation a lot. Using myself as an example, when I WFH, time that might go to a side project or to make something distinctive instead of merely good often gets sacrificed to instead make a nice lunch and eat it, or to give a kid a meal I wouldn't otherwise, or to chat with my wife for a bit when I wouldn't be calling her at 1pm from the office. MAYBE commute time going away combats this...but I am highly suspicious that the commute time becomes work time. It's just more personal time.

PS @Desert_Power my age does round to 30! It's not just a choice HAHA

I could keep going but my Costco pizza is ready now so...got to go! xD

 

[Instinctive]

But having them all remote or heavily remote definitely causes issues in connectivity, learning and development, feelings of mentorship and apprenticeship, trajectory to promotions, job satisfaction...we have hard data on all these things across industries.

This thread here is a pretty good rebuttal to this finding

The thread here is almost entirely people 40+, in individual contributor roles, skewed towards tech-forward work.

I'd venture to say I'm possibly the youngest in it. So I don't find it to be a good rebuttal at all lol. If anything, it mostly confirms those are the exact roles that can do WFH, even if it damages the others' in the company and lowers overall job satisfaction across an entire firm.

You force the under 40 crowd to go back to the office full time and you think that will improve their job satisfaction? I am skeptical

I don't think you're getting what I'm trying to say. The Internet is an imperfect medium.

The high achieving under 40 crowd, at firms like MBB, IB, VC, PE, FAANG, F50, etc...are extremely dissatisfied at their level of growth and apprenticeship when remote. Forcing EVERYONE back, taking a hit on the crowd farther into their careers in exchange for a much greater uptick in all others, is the theory. And from what I've seen, many people do actually get fulfillment from the socializing and the providing of mentorship this develops too, so the hit isn't as small as you'd think.

You can be skeptical. I'm just sharing what our research has indicated. No idea if it would apply to, say, a small business. That's not our market. But for major companies, with huge workfo ces, with high achievers, where people are trying to make a career, it's a pretty clear answer.

Well, my experience is anecdotal, but I can say that I know a number of 20 somethings entering careers in IB, financial consulting and accounting and for those who are remote, pretty much none of them seem to be happy with their training, development, mentorship, integration, etc.

And at least one study I saw showed that remote workers were materially more likely to be laid off and/or quit, which I think stems from the above and the lack of personal relationships being developed between management and the workforce. But that is admittedly speculation on my part.

Most of the acronyms in the quoted post are sectors are also ones where things like face time and looking/acting the part have always been more valued than others. Conformity or uniformity is definitely easier to enforce in the office than remotely, but I question whether that should be the goal of most workplaces.

For what it’s worth, my input was from the perspective of the dissatisfied entry level folks I know, not the corporate overlords who may value conformity as you suggest.

I don’t think we’re in disagreement here. Integrating is tough, and it is tougher remote.

My point is more that not every industry is equal and the ones mentioned above are famously high-pressure finance/consultancy, so the lessons from there may not apply across industries or even to other parts of their firms.

For example: I think in particular they don't apply to smaller businesses with more invested employees who care about getting the thing done and have more at stake in doing it well.

 

[eighsse2]

This thread was ahead of its time.

 

[BassNBrew]

I can believe 2 things to be true at the same time:

1) Under 30, high achievers that want to move up the corporate chain quickly feel stymied by the lack of mentorship, community, etc. They can't promote themselves well behind a Zoom screen. These folks express dissatisfaction with their direct managers who don't often see them in person.

2) Over 40, well tenured in career, less ambitious, more family focused professionals absolutely hate the commuting, small talk, intra-office BS. They know that they don't want to be an EVP. They just want to be middle class, get paid decently, have a good Work Life Balance, and good job security. They think that they are more effective at doing the work when not distracted by the things that being in person entail. Plus, they don't want to get out of their comfy pants.

The thing is, most of the #1s turn into #2s in about 15 years of corporate work. Most often when they go through a RIF and see the capriciousness of modern corporate job security. The cynicism builds over the years.

I also wonder what role a general breakdown of local community has in this. If you are in your 40s with with spouse, kids, etc. then you do have a purpose and community outside of work. If you are younger and single, you might not have that. This country has done a poor job maintaining non-career related social systems/communities for adults once they leaving HS, college.

If I was a 20 something I'd much rather be doing my work on my sofa with the afternoon Champions League game on and then socializing with my soccer, trivia, kickball buddies after hours than some old dude with kids during the day.

 

[Desert_Power]

I work in a relatively high-pressure part of Finance myself (although I'm very lucky with the culture at my current firm) and I mostly manage folks in their first role or two. Really is a mixed bag on how motivated they are. The best ones at networking and integrating with the broader team are the usually the weakest at their actual jobs. And the ones that are really good at their jobs want to spend their afternoons back at home. I have to frequently coach the latter group that doing so hurts their case towards promotion in the eyes for Senior Leadership, if that is their desire.

And a lot of them really don't seem to want to go out to happy hours. Something else I believe is backed up with generational stats about them drinking less.

I also encourage everyone to watch Office Space despite it coming out before many are born...

 

[Ilov80s]

I can believe 2 things to be true at the same time:

1) Under 30, high achievers that want to move up the corporate chain quickly feel stymied by the lack of mentorship, community, etc. They can't promote themselves well behind a Zoom screen. These folks express dissatisfaction with their direct managers who don't often see them in person.

2) Over 40, well tenured in career, less ambitious, more family focused professionals absolutely hate the commuting, small talk, intra-office BS. They know that they don't want to be an EVP. They just want to be middle class, get paid decently, have a good Work Life Balance, and good job security. They think that they are more effective at doing the work when not distracted by the things that being in person entail. Plus, they don't want to get out of their comfy pants.

The thing is, most of the #1s turn into #2s in about 15 years of corporate work. Most often when they go through a RIF and see the capriciousness of modern corporate job security. The cynicism builds over the years.

I also wonder what role a general breakdown of local community has in this. If you are in your 40s with with spouse, kids, etc. then you do have a purpose and community outside of work. If you are younger and single, you might not have that. This country has done a poor job maintaining non-career related social systems/communities for adults once they leaving HS, college.

If I was a 20 something I'd much rather be doing my work on my sofa with the afternoon Champions League game on and then socializing with my soccer, trivia, kickball buddies after hours than some old dude with kids during the day.

Well of course but there are a lot of young people who describe themselves as pretty isolated and lonely. Plus I do believe there is something to be said for in person involvement and investment. It depends a bit on the job role of course.

 

[BassNBrew]

I can believe 2 things to be true at the same time:

1) Under 30, high achievers that want to move up the corporate chain quickly feel stymied by the lack of mentorship, community, etc. They can't promote themselves well behind a Zoom screen. These folks express dissatisfaction with their direct managers who don't often see them in person.

2) Over 40, well tenured in career, less ambitious, more family focused professionals absolutely hate the commuting, small talk, intra-office BS. They know that they don't want to be an EVP. They just want to be middle class, get paid decently, have a good Work Life Balance, and good job security. They think that they are more effective at doing the work when not distracted by the things that being in person entail. Plus, they don't want to get out of their comfy pants.

The thing is, most of the #1s turn into #2s in about 15 years of corporate work. Most often when they go through a RIF and see the capriciousness of modern corporate job security. The cynicism builds over the years.

I think you are really dialing this in. And the long term impact on the #1s may not be realized until 10-20 years down the road when they become #2s and are materially less qualified and efficient as the #2s of today.

I too think we've zeroed in on the crux of it.

I'll just add what is now a personal opinion, not something I've read any research about: I think a key phrase is that the older and big "I'm just as productive as home" crowd doesn't see a lot of second order effects.

Hypotheses I have:

the WFH folks have less cross pollination, so solutions and ideas are less innovative/creative. The number of problems I've solved because I ran into someone and we chatted for 5-10 minutes and they had an idea" which I never would have reached out to them otherwise, but which solves a real issue...not zero.

There are a lot of bad actors. I'd be shocked if most people in most jobs are actually more productive from the employers perspective I've WFH, vs what the employee thinks.

Distractions - I think kids/spouses/pets change this equation a lot. Using myself as an example, when I WFH, time that might go to a side project or to make something distinctive instead of merely good often gets sacrificed to instead make a nice lunch and eat it, or to give a kid a meal I wouldn't otherwise, or to chat with my wife for a bit when I wouldn't be calling her at 1pm from the office. MAYBE commute time going away combats this...but I am highly suspicious that the commute time becomes work time. It's just more personal time.

PS @Desert_Power my age does round to 30! It's not just a choice HAHA

I could keep going but my Costco pizza is ready now so...got to go! xD

Just installed a new grill burner and cleaned the grill in actual daylight and non-freezing temps. Guess I'll get a salad from the fridge and run a load of wash before getting back to answering e-mails and online research.

 

[nirad3]

I'm sure my industry/company is fairly unique just because of what we do and where we do it, but I - for one - will be BENT if I'm required to come in more than the 2x/week I am currently set at. I actually come in some weeks 3x/week just to get out of the house; 2 days a week (Monday and Friday) being at home all day is plenty of time for me to get "other" things done.

That all said, if they absolutely require 3x/week I will just feel more "boxed in", and who's to say 3 days doesn't turn into 4 or even a full return to 5? I'd be looking for a new job if it came to 4x/week.

My contemporaries are both remote. Many of my equivalents in another department are also fully-remote, just because of the nature of what we do (construction projects and then asset management of said properties) nation-wide.

I see absolutely no upside in being in-office for my role. Our higher-ups stress "collaboration", but it's few and far between where I'm actually collaborating with someone face-to-face / in-person / in-office.
'

 

[Instinctive]

I can believe 2 things to be true at the same time:

1) Under 30, high achievers that want to move up the corporate chain quickly feel stymied by the lack of mentorship, community, etc. They can't promote themselves well behind a Zoom screen. These folks express dissatisfaction with their direct managers who don't often see them in person.

2) Over 40, well tenured in career, less ambitious, more family focused professionals absolutely hate the commuting, small talk, intra-office BS. They know that they don't want to be an EVP. They just want to be middle class, get paid decently, have a good Work Life Balance, and good job security. They think that they are more effective at doing the work when not distracted by the things that being in person entail. Plus, they don't want to get out of their comfy pants.

The thing is, most of the #1s turn into #2s in about 15 years of corporate work. Most often when they go through a RIF and see the capriciousness of modern corporate job security. The cynicism builds over the years.

I think you are really dialing this in. And the long term impact on the #1s may not be realized until 10-20 years down the road when they become #2s and are materially less qualified and efficient as the #2s of today.

I too think we've zeroed in on the crux of it.

I'll just add what is now a personal opinion, not something I've read any research about: I think a key phrase is that the older and big "I'm just as productive as home" crowd doesn't see a lot of second order effects.

Hypotheses I have:

the WFH folks have less cross pollination, so solutions and ideas are less innovative/creative. The number of problems I've solved because I ran into someone and we chatted for 5-10 minutes and they had an idea" which I never would have reached out to them otherwise, but which solves a real issue...not zero.

There are a lot of bad actors. I'd be shocked if most people in most jobs are actually more productive from the employers perspective I've WFH, vs what the employee thinks.

Distractions - I think kids/spouses/pets change this equation a lot. Using myself as an example, when I WFH, time that might go to a side project or to make something distinctive instead of merely good often gets sacrificed to instead make a nice lunch and eat it, or to give a kid a meal I wouldn't otherwise, or to chat with my wife for a bit when I wouldn't be calling her at 1pm from the office. MAYBE commute time going away combats this...but I am highly suspicious that the commute time becomes work time. It's just more personal time.

PS @Desert_Power my age does round to 30! It's not just a choice HAHA

I could keep going but my Costco pizza is ready now so...got to go! xD

Just installed a new grill burner and cleaned the grill in actual daylight and non-freezing temps. Guess I'll get a salad from the fridge and run a load of wash before getting back to answering e-mails and online research.

I see the bolded but FWIW I'm not WFH right now I'm on paternity leave. So the joke doesn't quite land as much as at first glance.

 

[BassNBrew]

I'll have people working for me over an hour away. If they are doing their jobs they are looking at things and meeting people, not sitting at a desk. Also like them to answer the phone the rest of the time. I could care less if it's in their garden, on the throne, or sitting in the office. Previous operation insisted on in office everyday.

I actually wouldn't have started a company if it wasn't for return to office. Previous company was bought out and their first edict was return to office 5 days in 30 days. We all left and started our own company. 90% of their acquisition walked making their purchase basically worthless.

That said, I realize this is highly job and industry dependent. When I was plant manager and development engineer work from home wouldn't have worked.

 

[BassNBrew]

I can believe 2 things to be true at the same time:

1) Under 30, high achievers that want to move up the corporate chain quickly feel stymied by the lack of mentorship, community, etc. They can't promote themselves well behind a Zoom screen. These folks express dissatisfaction with their direct managers who don't often see them in person.

2) Over 40, well tenured in career, less ambitious, more family focused professionals absolutely hate the commuting, small talk, intra-office BS. They know that they don't want to be an EVP. They just want to be middle class, get paid decently, have a good Work Life Balance, and good job security. They think that they are more effective at doing the work when not distracted by the things that being in person entail. Plus, they don't want to get out of their comfy pants.

The thing is, most of the #1s turn into #2s in about 15 years of corporate work. Most often when they go through a RIF and see the capriciousness of modern corporate job security. The cynicism builds over the years.

I think you are really dialing this in. And the long term impact on the #1s may not be realized until 10-20 years down the road when they become #2s and are materially less qualified and efficient as the #2s of today.

I too think we've zeroed in on the crux of it.

I'll just add what is now a personal opinion, not something I've read any research about: I think a key phrase is that the older and big "I'm just as productive as home" crowd doesn't see a lot of second order effects.

Hypotheses I have:

the WFH folks have less cross pollination, so solutions and ideas are less innovative/creative. The number of problems I've solved because I ran into someone and we chatted for 5-10 minutes and they had an idea" which I never would have reached out to them otherwise, but which solves a real issue...not zero.

There are a lot of bad actors. I'd be shocked if most people in most jobs are actually more productive from the employers perspective I've WFH, vs what the employee thinks.

Distractions - I think kids/spouses/pets change this equation a lot. Using myself as an example, when I WFH, time that might go to a side project or to make something distinctive instead of merely good often gets sacrificed to instead make a nice lunch and eat it, or to give a kid a meal I wouldn't otherwise, or to chat with my wife for a bit when I wouldn't be calling her at 1pm from the office. MAYBE commute time going away combats this...but I am highly suspicious that the commute time becomes work time. It's just more personal time.

PS @Desert_Power my age does round to 30! It's not just a choice HAHA

I could keep going but my Costco pizza is ready now so...got to go! xD

Just installed a new grill burner and cleaned the grill in actual daylight and non-freezing temps. Guess I'll get a salad from the fridge and run a load of wash before getting back to answering e-mails and online research.

I see the bolded but FWIW I'm not WFH right now I'm on paternity leave. So the joke doesn't quite land as much as at first glance.

Unless you gave birth, you should be in the office....Old School

 

[Pip's Invitation]

We are 3 weeks into everyone who lives within 50 miles has to come into the office at least twice a week.

Someone near me is asleep at their desk and snoring.

 

[Desert_Power]

They're currently taking apart cubes around me as we standardize and get rid of actual individualized cubes. Because everyone loves coming into a boring workstation without any of their own stuff.

Also lost one of my team to a job that allows him to remote and live his nomadic life. Annoying.

 

[TLEF316]

Our CEO announced a new RTO policy about a month ago. It was rumored for weeks and then they finally dropped the hammer.

We were 3X a week in office for most people. Unfortunately....a lot of people weren't sticking to it (specifically outside my office and region)

Now we're default 5x a week. Yeah...... every division is doing things slightly differently, but basically if you aren't on some sort of performance improvement plan and your boss' boss approved, you can get ONE work from home day. Anything beyond that has to go all the way up to the Division president for approval....for "consistency between regions". We've basically been told that "I have a long commute" isn't an acceptable reason. Any agreements from before the announcement (or even before COVID...like me) are voided.

Here's the fun little wrinkle.....all the new offices that have been built out since COVID were built out with hybrid work in mind (including our flagship offices in NYC and Chicago). Simply put...there aren't enough seats. Our NJ office is like 25 desks short. If you dont book a desk in NYC 2 weeks out you run the risk of not having a desk anywhere near your team....maybe even on another floor. Apparently our Chicago office is at least 100 desks short. In NYC, we have full blown VP's sitting in 6x6 foot huddle rooms because there aren't enough offices. We had an Executive VP visiting our branch a few weeks back and he was sitting in a restaurant style booth in the cafeteria.

The whole situation is a joke. Everyone is livid. We're gonna lose a TON of people this Spring/Summer once bonuses get paid out. All because our CEO got a little pissy over some people not following the rules....and he thinks that we should be following the same rules as Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan (pay me GS types bonuses and I'll work whereever you want me to)

At this point, I'm probably gonna have to scrape together a 4 day week through some combo of NYC (which I'm currently doing 3x every 2 weeks), the NJ branch (if any desks are ever available) and using my buddy's desk in our other NJ office on days he isn't there (totally defeating the purpose of "collaboration"). I'm probably gonna have to pop in on some Fridays just because that will be the only day desks will be available.

Good times. Follow the rules (along with going the extra mile.....taking a full PTO day and working in the morning.....taking calls while I'm on vacation...etc.) for 5 years and that's what you get. "Punished" because the 25 year olds in Boston thought they were getting away with something.

Bonuses got paid last week, had our first departure yesterday. AVP level person in their 40's. She and I had a discussion last week and she was clearly pissed about the 4 days a week (I obviously didn't know that would be the last time I spoke with her)

Every one of our competitor has large offices in NYC and NJ and they're all advertising fully remote or hybrid positions on Linkdin. So this will likely be the first of many departures (just in time for 7/1, which is the 2nd busiest time of the year)

Was planning to go into the office on Wednesday this week but forgot to book a desk until last Thursday. Too late....all the desks were taken. So had to swap things around and go in yesterday instead. Office was half-empty, so I'm guessing there are STILL people calling the company's bluff and not doing the 4 day thing.

 

[SWC]

I think you are really dialing this in. And the long term impact on the #1s may not be realized until 10-20 years down the road when they become #2s and are materially less qualified and efficient as the #2s of today.

sometimes i need to do a number 2 and i feel like if you are at home in your own loo then it is a lot more pleasant than if you are in some clinical stall where at any minute a stranger might walk in take that to the bank bromigos

 

[Judge Smails]

Multiple sides to this:

1) for some roles to have real career development you need to be in an office. I’m in Sales. Nothing like being in an office as a young rep and hearing what top reps say on the phone, see how they work, bounce ideas off of them, etc. Invaluable

2) hard to ascend at a company without developing relationships with leadership and having your work/effort seen

3) I do believe some are more productive working from home. Some. Even with distractions, pets, kids, errands. Less water cooler talk and BS in person meetings. Some people have the discipline to get ****e done at home. Others do not

4) long commutes are an absolute killer with respect to quality of life. You may have no choice early in your career. But I’ll never do a lengthy commute again

 

[Capella]

I think you are really dialing this in. And the long term impact on the #1s may not be realized until 10-20 years down the road when they become #2s and are materially less qualified and efficient as the #2s of today.

sometimes i need to do a number 2 and i feel like if you are at home in your own loo then it is a lot more pleasant than if you are in some clinical stall where at any minute a stranger might walk in take that to the bank bromigos

I was in the bathroom the other day and some guy came in and took a leak that smelled so bad I almost suggested he go see somebody. Revolting. I fn hate being in the office.

 

[nirad3]

I've stated it in this thread (most likely) and other spots, but I usually come in between 2-3 days a week. Tuesdays and Thursdays are required by my company, but I typically come in on Wednesdays, too, as it's nice and quiet (and sometimes the lights shut off automatically, which is quite nice and relaxing). I've been hearing rumors of us going to 3 days a week and possibly even 4. 4 is going to be a non-starter for me, unfortunately. My contemporaries are both fully-remote. I am not going to come in 4 days a week just because I happen to live locally. Nuh uh. If we go to 3, I would probably bellyache a little bit still, just because I like the flexibility of staying home on Wednesdays if I don't feel like having that quiet day in the office. Plus, on said Wednesdays, I usually leave the office well before 3pm. That likely wouldn't be the case if everyone was here. Oof.

 

[Max Power]

I think you are really dialing this in. And the long term impact on the #1s may not be realized until 10-20 years down the road when they become #2s and are materially less qualified and efficient as the #2s of today.

sometimes i need to do a number 2 and i feel like if you are at home in your own loo then it is a lot more pleasant than if you are in some clinical stall where at any minute a stranger might walk in take that to the bank bromigos

I was in the bathroom the other day and some guy came in and took a leak that smelled so bad I almost suggested he go see somebody. Revolting. I fn hate being in the office.

Recently walked in on a guy cracking and eating hard boiled eggs in our bathroom/locker room. You can't help some people.

 

[bigbottom]

My office has been at 4 days in office for a while now. Just got word that management and above is moving to 5 days a week in office. Basically no more remote work for leadership.

 

[Pip's Invitation]

We are 3 weeks into everyone who lives within 50 miles has to come into the office at least twice a week.

Someone near me is asleep at their desk and snoring.

He's doing it again!

 

[beer 30]

I think the problem is the all or nothing mindset on both sides. I'm not asking to never come to the office, but the problem is most of these decisions end up being a single individual - usually and old, male CEO who is old school. 2/3 days seems to be what works for most white-collar jobs but obviously not all. 0/1/4/5 are totally unnecessary in most cases.

I'm old and am a staunch support of get your *** back to the office. That said, we have whole departments that are permanent WFH. I get that it's not one size fits all and I'm malleable enough in my opinions to hear out someone's argument about wanting/needing to WFH. It's just been my experience when it was an option here that the folks who take advantage of WFH, truly take advantage of the situation. Case in point, got an email this morning (Tuesday) for something I asked to get done last Friday, "These are done". Thanks...for nothing. That's been my experience more often than not with WFH peeps here.

Not saying all are like that but the subset I work with are mostly like that so the folks that are here in the office get more work because it gets done but then it turns into the paradox of these folks reach critical mass because they are doing all this work and losing capacity so less gets done while we still entertain the WFH folks.

 

[beer 30]

We are 3 weeks into everyone who lives within 50 miles has to come into the office at least twice a week.

Someone near me is asleep at their desk and snoring.

He's doing it again!

Record it and play it back later cranked up

 

[Dr. Manhattan]

I think the problem is the all or nothing mindset on both sides. I'm not asking to never come to the office, but the problem is most of these decisions end up being a single individual - usually and old, male CEO who is old school. 2/3 days seems to be what works for most white-collar jobs but obviously not all. 0/1/4/5 are totally unnecessary in most cases.

I'm old and am a staunch support of get your *** back to the office. That said, we have whole departments that are permanent WFH. I get that it's not one size fits all and I'm malleable enough in my opinions to hear out someone's argument about wanting/needing to WFH. It's just been my experience when it was an option here that the folks who take advantage of WFH, truly take advantage of the situation. Case in point, got an email this morning (Tuesday) for something I asked to get done last Friday, "These are done". Thanks...for nothing. That's been my experience more often than not with WFH peeps here.

Not saying all are like that but the subset I work with are mostly like that so the folks that are here in the office get more work because it gets done but then it turns into the paradox of these folks reach critical mass because they are doing all this work and losing capacity so less gets done while we still entertain the WFH folks.

I can tell you that I am the opposite. When I WFH I would start earlier, finish later and generally work through my lunch. I now have to be in office Tue-Thur.

When I am in the office I make it a point to leave at 5pm, I rarely log in after hours (as I'd have to set up my workstation at home only to take my laptop back to work the next day), I take my full lunch offsite and due to the commute am not in as early as I'd start if I were remote.

Their loss.

 

[Grahamburn]

We are 3 weeks into everyone who lives within 50 miles has to come into the office at least twice a week.

Someone near me is asleep at their desk and snoring.

He's doing it again!

I'm sure he's crushing the work day at home.

 

[Capella]

Case in point, got an email this morning (Tuesday) for something I asked to get done last Friday, "These are done". Thanks...for nothing. That's been my experience more often than not with WFH peeps here.

But wouldn’t be or she have done this in the office too? How does wfh change that?

 

[beer 30]

I think the problem is the all or nothing mindset on both sides. I'm not asking to never come to the office, but the problem is most of these decisions end up being a single individual - usually and old, male CEO who is old school. 2/3 days seems to be what works for most white-collar jobs but obviously not all. 0/1/4/5 are totally unnecessary in most cases.

I'm old and am a staunch support of get your *** back to the office. That said, we have whole departments that are permanent WFH. I get that it's not one size fits all and I'm malleable enough in my opinions to hear out someone's argument about wanting/needing to WFH. It's just been my experience when it was an option here that the folks who take advantage of WFH, truly take advantage of the situation. Case in point, got an email this morning (Tuesday) for something I asked to get done last Friday, "These are done". Thanks...for nothing. That's been my experience more often than not with WFH peeps here.

Not saying all are like that but the subset I work with are mostly like that so the folks that are here in the office get more work because it gets done but then it turns into the paradox of these folks reach critical mass because they are doing all this work and losing capacity so less gets done while we still entertain the WFH folks.

I can tell you that I am the opposite. When I WFH I would start earlier, finish later and generally work through my lunch. I now have to be in office Tue-Thur.

When I am in the office I make it a point to leave at 5pm, I rarely log in after hours (as I'd have to set up my workstation at home only to take my laptop back to work the next day), I take my full lunch offsite and due to the commute am not in as early as I'd start if I were remote.

Their loss.

When we were doing the COVID thing this was how I was. Usually start around 7am and finish up around 7pm but I was also supplying my company with air scrubbers so I was busy the whole time I was at home. I found much easier to get my work done at the office though because there always seemed to be a distraction at home. A portion of that is due to I didn't have a door. Not being able to shut out the chatter of home life is a huge distraction.

 

[beer 30]

Case in point, got an email this morning (Tuesday) for something I asked to get done last Friday, "These are done". Thanks...for nothing. That's been my experience more often than not with WFH peeps here.

But wouldn’t be or she have done this in the office too? How does wfh change that?

Because I can walk up to his cube and perch my happy *** there until it gets done. He can chose to just not respond to Teams/Zoom/Email/Messaging when he's WFH.