They want to build that familial model where you live and die for your teammates and wfh hampers that because you aren't forced to trauma bond with a bunch of strangers. Facebook/Google learned early on that building campuses that look and act like colleges increased worker retention and productivity because they built their whole lives around the company. Shopping, Doctors, Recreation all happened on campus. All your new friends were made on campus after they forced relocation.

That's because commuting to all those errands is a waste of time. Remember this was invented before everything gkt Amazon Primed and Uberized.

> That's because commuting to all those errands is a waste of time.

Only in the eyes of the employer. People have always taken time out of their day for things like buying food, cooking for yourself, exercising, etc. Those things aren't burdens when your employer isn't demanding complete control over your life. And they are only "perks" in a culture where they do.

Meh - I much prefer having those things done for me or made simpler. I’ve got exceptional work/life balance compared to my peers (I rarely work more than 40 hours/week and usually work 30-35) in SV. But I still would like my workplace to make things easier.

I go to the grocery store quite often and find it just a huge waste of time. We get things delivered more often but I’m not a meal planner type so it doesn’t work well. Commuting for 10-15 minutes each way to get to nearest Whole Foods is a PITA. Having someone plan meals for me is a huge timesaver at every step. Same with exercise. Great if the equipment is right there, pound some weights just before eating lunch or play a game of basketball, etc. don’t need to manage a membership, coordinate with friends over fifty messages, etc.

Totally could do those things outside of work but they take more time. Gotta go to the gym from my house or work. Gotta go to a specific park and hope there’s a pickup game that I can jump into. Etc.

I am a manager and do have a concern for company culture. Culture is how the teams work together - socially, professionally. It's harder to maintain culture remotely. It switches from something that "just happens" with a bit of care to something that has to be actively fostered.

It's easy do dehumanize a voice on the phone. Many people don't want to even use cameras for video calls. How much empathy do you have for a voice on the phone versus a human being you interact with in person on a daily basis?

I think the benefits of remote work far outweigh the work that needs to be done to maintain culture remotely, but it is a new challenge that doesn't have a lot of good understanding around how to make it work.

> I am a manager and do have a concern for company culture. Culture is how the teams work together - socially, professionally. It's harder to maintain culture remotely.

The main aspects of firm culture that make difference in a day to day life are minimizing company politics, avoiding blame-game, honest interaction and manager's support. In my experience, it is the manager who contributes the most towards either improving these or screwing them up. None of these things require you to be physically present in office. Rest of stuff like events, group lunches etc are nice to have but not having them won't impact you as much as a political and toxic work environment would.

> How much empathy do you have for a voice on the phone versus a human being you interact with in person on a daily basis?

Since when basic human decency became incumbent upon seeing someone in flesh in front of you? Are you saying that people can't behave professionally unless they are not physically in office? How do fully remote companies work?

> Many people don't want to even use cameras for video calls.

For the same reason people hate meetings - resolutions to that are also the same that apply to face-to-face meetings.

> I think the benefits of remote work far outweigh the work that needs to be done to maintain culture remotely, but it is a new challenge that doesn't have a lot of good understanding around how to make it work.

Agreed on that - a good starting point would be not use culture as a justification to force people to be in office.

> How much empathy do you have for a voice on the phone versus a human being you interact with in person on a daily basis?

Judging by the toxic office culture at some traditional (non-WFH) companies, lack of empathy has little to do with only hearing "a voice on the phone" vs interacting with "in person".

"Company culture" does not arise from physical presence. I've been at this for a long time, and have worked for all types of companies: mandated office presence, flexible WFH, and fully remote. All had company cultures, and the worst were the ones that forced people into an office. Being together in an office does not do anything productive. It does not create camaraderie or a culture, and the mythical hallways conversations that you hear about do not actually happen.

> it is a new challenge that doesn't have a lot of good understanding around how to make it work.

It's been going on for decades now. Time to catch up. Good WFH culture is matter of effective management. Skills required:

- good communication (knowing how to use the tools we have, like IM, video, and yes, even email)

- being responsive (this is a habit that must be cultivated in many cases)

- focus on goals and achievements instead of distractions like seeing someone in a hallway and assuming that if they seem to be working, they must be working

I don't want to work with sociopaths who can't be kind to a voice on the phone.

Your exaggeration and dismissal is perfect evidence of your inability to empathize with the struggles of people you haven't met in real life.

> Your exaggeration and dismissal is perfect evidence of your inability to empathize with the struggles of people you haven't met in real life.

Calm down, you're overreacting. A single sentence is hardly "perfect evidence of inability to empathize" with others. Talk about "exaggeration"...

I somewhat agree with lupire: If someone only has empathy with their coworkers – who they're interacting with daily – if they can physically see them, then that's saying something.

I would think that if anyone is overreacting it's the person who thinks people who struggle to identify with remote workers are sociopaths. I haven't made any black and white statements or used absolute terms such as "no empathy". I know people in general struggle with nuance, but come on - I'm making it easy here.

> I know people in general struggle with nuance, but come on - I'm making it easy here.

Your posts contain one personal attack after the other. Really: please take a step back and relax.

> I don't want to work with sociopaths who can't be kind to a voice on the phone.

Sociopaths are an outliers and rare. But most people empathize less with people they have not met in person (prof: the internet, even before social media).

Add deadlines and stress to that, and you have otherwise normal people behaving worse than they would otherwise. Source: me, working with remote teams for past 20 years.

Like the person above said, you (or someone) have to be actively on the lookout for such issues, or things can get get bad really fast (I am talking days and weeks not months).

In MBA speak, company culture is a euphemism for median tenure / employee churn rate.

Remote work lowers switching costs for employees, and makes it harder to distribute and monitor the consumption of corporate “sweeteners”.

It tilts favor in the direction of companies that are actually fulfilling to work for, and not merely “sticky” (in the high fructose corn syrup way). I think executives are right to be worried, to the extent they fall in the latter camp.

As to why they’re worried about it: if you have high churn, it means your training costs and hiring costs are much higher. And this directly impacts profitability and productivity, which like you say is what they “actually” care about.

The culture of all companies is a hierarchy of power and control. Any time the status quo changes those who gain the most from it like JP Morgan will fight against it for no other reason than the status quo being good for them.

Company culture is just a way of saying we want to control you out of work and we want you to like it.

If you've worked at a few different companies, you'll notice how different they are in so many things. Communications, privacy, leadership, expectations, formality, processes.

A lot is embedded in that, some execs give it a 'very high' importance.

"Company culture" has always been an elusive thing for me. The more you try to be specific about it, the more the generalist corp-speak terms shimmer, flutter and dissolve into nothing. The only places where there was some "culture" (in my experience) were some of the tiny startups I worked at. Nobody talked it up, it just existed.

So my rule of thumb for that is, if they're talking about Corporate Culture, it means there is none.

"How can we know people are working if we can't physically see they are sitting in their chair".

I too am not sure what these buzzword means. To me, however, it looks company culture bullshit is controlling my time instead of work. So this way they can keep me feeling guilty if I take break, go to doctor's appointment, or myriad little bit of things when there is no work/meeting pending. If it were just about work that'd be done well within reasonable and agreed upon timelines.

The hilarious thing about office for me was most meeting including daily morning meetings still happen over webex. So nothing of that in-place collaboration crap.

We even had those staged bullshit videos with management where they tried to show how they were in office during pandemic. Basically if they can manage to work from office with their executive compensation then anyone with 1/10th or 1/100th of salary should be able to do that.

To me, as a eng manager in bigger company, seeing massive WFH while also hiring many new engineers over the last year, cultural concerns are around (note: this is not my balanced view on WFH, but rather replying specifically to cultural impact): - establishing true role models and context, i.e. when 2 colleagues call each other to talk about design challenges, what everyone else sees is the final outcome and not the thought process. New hires in particular miss this, as this is how they learn to think for themselves, and see who in the group is good for what type of discussions (ie someone is more looking to happy path, or edge cases, or testability or performance or operational readiness, etc). Yes, this in theory could be motivated by forcing always group discussions, but that's not how ad-hoc discussions usually happens naturally - Also from the previous example, outcome is not enough to judge who contributed how really (perhaps somebody had specific concerns around long term scale, tech dept, but was not captured in the outcome, which would manager know to appreciate, or someone may have rather aggressive tone in 1-1 deep tech discussions without realizing it, which you don't get a chance to hear). This has ripple effect on everything from everyday 1-1s and practical help/mentoring to ultimately performance evaluation. (Cultural values are ultimately about who do you promote, fire, and to some extent hire) - Having a hallway discussions and lunches/coffee breaks with people from a wider group, is to me crucial for getting context, anything from sparking new ideas, connecting the dots to hearing lessons learned on other people's work. With WFH you culturally need to be much more explicit on what and why do you want to talk about which missed the point. At the same time as newer, younger folks are coming to an office and go to lunch together, they start creating their own subculture and the whole experience of new company looks like bigger, much more prolonged internship work. They don't get to hear war stories, or context around why is company doing X and Y. - It's much harder to meet and know new people in peer teams, there is never time for explicit 1-1s with them, and meetings are always strict to agenda. Giving peer feedback is more focused on aspects that could be easily seen or measured (through email, code, meeting contributions) which could be good but also bad if not careful.

These are some examples that can degrade culture if missed for too long, so they definitely require more explicit actions from everyone.

[Edited wording]

Company culture - the hierarchical structure, languages, values, and histories that allow a company to control and organize hundreds or thousands of people. Without culture, people will think and act as independent agents or contractors.

Culture is the cumulative result of many small preferences and demeanors. It’s easier for people to transmit and adopt those when they are physically proximate.

Thanks, that definition fits how people seem to use the term.

Still, I'm curious as to why maintaining current culture is seen as important. Is there a loss of productivity / profitability associated with the non-transmission of culture?

If you think your current culture gives you a productivity advantage, and the way you’ve cultivated that culture is very in-person, wouldn’t you worry about losing it?

As much as it can be corporate BS, I do think there are companies that have a culture that gives them an edge over the competition.

I worked at one place where the culture was very much about treating everyone as valuable contributors regardless of level, and pretty much every Friday you could chat with the CEO (and most of the VPs) over beers if you felt like it. As a junior it made a huge difference in how much mental energy I put into innovating and helping others succeed. Just as an example, I could see that kind of thing being hard to maintain in a remote context with thousands of employees.

Yes; if the attitudes and habits common in the business are effective ones, then losing them may cause some harm. For example, a software company might have seen a benefit from junior developers watching how senior developers get help when they’re stuck, and observed a connection between that lower defect rate, more highly rated features, etc., and they might be noticing their juniors have had more trouble raising their hand during COVID. That’s just one example of how a company might perceive cultural transmission and its potential link to success.

Most leaders feel like they have more control when everyone is in person.