News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by matchbok on Friday December 01, 2023 @10:09AM (#38487577)
I love how it has to be some massive conspiracy, not the well-known fact that junior employees and productivity both take a hit with full-time remote work. A lot of these orgs are coasting and the impact won't be known for a while.
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by tnel77 on Friday December 01, 2023 @10:23AM (#38487763)
I didn’t know it wasn’t possible to mentor junior employees remotely. It’s impossible to assign a mentor, actively check-in on their progress, encourage collaboration, etc. over a computer.

I guess I’ll have to tell the junior I’m mentoring that we are doomed.

Annnnnnyways, I’ve been having a great time mentoring a junior engineer at my company. We regularly meet to discuss his work and I constantly stress “please bother me if you have questions.” I reach out once a day to ensure he’s good to go and he often reaches out a few times a day for questions. We assign him work that is challenging, but within his skill set and abilities.

In summary, anyone saying juniors will suffer either has no idea how to mentor remotely or are just lazy. Adapt or die.

Edit: I will add that my company flies all remote employees into the office once a year for the sole purpose of team building. We did our hackathon in person and focused on building those bonds that can help people work better together. It’s technically optional, but who wants to turn down a free mini-vacation?

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by randomdata on Friday December 01, 2023 @10:29AM (#38487850)
The lessons from academia suggest that some students thrive in a remote environment, while others completely fall to pieces. It could be that teachers fear losing their jobs to technology if they are not a prominent fixture in an in-person classroom, thus making that up, but it is also quite plausible that different people are actually different.

Finding a student/junior who is able to do well in your business environment at a distance does not imply that it is scalable across all workers businesses need to hire.

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by dfxm12 on Friday December 01, 2023 @10:37AM (#38487968)
Very few business environments are remote though. Almost every one is hybrid, practically all of them if you consider the ones that were in-person or hybrid before the pandemic. Looking at the comments in this thread, too many people seem to be arguing against a "mandatory remote work" strawman.

If you truly need an in-person job or employee, you can find one.

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by randomdata on Friday December 01, 2023 @10:42AM (#38488031)
> people seem to be arguing against a "mandatory remote work" strawman.

Not at all. Even if there was such a thing as "mandatory remote work", that does not preclude going to an office. Remote work allows working from anywhere.

The premise is that, absent of job obligation, there is little reason for the seniors to show up at the same place as the juniors. If such obligation is placed on them then you have an RTO mandate.

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by concordDance on Friday December 01, 2023 @10:31AM (#38487873)
> I didn’t know it wasn’t possible to mentor junior employees remotely.

Might be possible, but most can't do it from what I've seen.

So if you go full wfh your pool of people who can mentor shrinks by a large factor (4x is my bet).

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by no_wizard on Friday December 01, 2023 @11:18AM (#38488426)
IMO most people can't mentor effectively to begin with, its simply a little more obvious when its remote.

This is solved by having a structured mentorship program and guidelines, and really good onboarding.

Of course, this means businesses have to invest in this sort of thing, and of course, they don't, because they implicitly got it for free by having seniors covering for juniors for so many decades it obfuscated the problem

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by foobarian on Friday December 01, 2023 @11:03AM (#38488248)
Way back (talking multiple decades) on my first day at $JOB, my manager took me on a walk and introduced me to about 30 other engineers across multiple teams. A bit of smalltalk and bit of shop talk with each one. I still connect to 15 out of those individuals even today. I wish there was a way to replicate that for the remotes these days, because I felt that was pretty awesome.
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by no_wizard on Friday December 01, 2023 @11:16AM (#38488406)
There are, like remote happy hours, travel blocks, team get togethers etc.

These are solved / solvable issues. Socialization at work can be facilitated in a myriad of ways, even remotely. Games are popular way of doing it, virtual happy hours, team building activities etc.

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by ghaff on Friday December 01, 2023 @11:34AM (#38488662)
There are. I admit to finding them annoying for the most part and I usually avoid.
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by photonbeam on Friday December 01, 2023 @01:40PM (#38490507)
Remote happy hours are hard because everyone is at the same audio volume /distance.

I wish I could emulate walking-over-there on zoom

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by no_wizard on Friday December 01, 2023 @04:58PM (#38493050)
you could use fluid rooms in Zoom, lets you go in and out to talk to someone

There needs to be a normalization of "peeling off" the main chat room

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by dukeyukey on Friday December 01, 2023 @10:35AM (#38487940)
I (generally) haven't heard people saying it's impossible, but it absolutely adds friction.
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by tnel77 on Friday December 01, 2023 @10:38AM (#38487974)
It undeniably takes more effort for me to reach out via Slack than it does for me to swing by a cubicle. Maybe I have gotten lucky with my experience, but I plan on continuing to mentor new hires. It’s certainly possible that I’ll change my opinion as I get a larger sample pool, but I’m happy with the experience so far.
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by convolvatron on Friday December 01, 2023 @10:46AM (#38488092)
I used to kind of think this, but for me reaching out slack has turned into something I really appreciate. I can asynchronously ask someone to get in touch with me. they do when they are ready. i dont interrupt them. i can continue doing other things. there is no set meeting time, we can just have a little chat with zero effort, say goodbye and go back to work.

at the end of the day after doing this I do feel more tired, but I get plenty of self-scheduled productive little discussions.

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by away271828 on Friday December 01, 2023 @11:07AM (#38488299)
I've mentored someone remotely and it seems to have gone pretty well. Doesn't hurt that they person is very good. And, yes, chat is invaluable.

I still feel you're losing something without in-person (including social) interaction. I know for me personally, I would say I have much weaker connections to many people I've never met in person. That said, there are a bunch of other factors involved with building new connections as well that aren't purely about being virtual.

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by matchbok on Friday December 01, 2023 @04:14PM (#38492510)
Annnnnnyways the leaders at top companies, included Zoom, seem to disagree. I guess you are smarter than them. :)
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by matchbok on Friday December 01, 2023 @04:19PM (#38492585)
You only like it now because salaries haven't adjusted to the fact that the pool of candidates who can do you job goes up considerably if you are full-time remote. Long-term, wages will stagnate as opportunities in non-USA countries open up. There is no reason for your company to pay you a USA salary if you are full-time remote. And they won't, eventually.
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by ctoth on Friday December 01, 2023 @10:13AM (#38487634)
It's more than three years since most people started working from home. Can you estimate when you expect these impacts to start showing up?
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by Filligree on Friday December 01, 2023 @10:19AM (#38487711)
Speaking for myself, I’m getting the hang of training people remotely. It takes more structure, and it took a year to learn how, but it’s totally doable.
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by duckmysick on Friday December 01, 2023 @11:02AM (#38488227)
Can you share what worked and what didn't when it comes to training people remotely?
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by Filligree on Friday December 01, 2023 @01:42PM (#38490533)
Checklists are the big one. We've got a big spreadsheet of general areas that people should know, each with a lecture attached, but those are for self-study; I go over each one in detail with each new hire in a series of sessions typically lasting ~3 months, at 2-3 sessions per week.

Separately, I hold what amounts to office hours 3 times per week, where anyone who feels like it can show up to ask questions—but new hires are encouraged to do so until absolutely certain they don't need to, and also to keep track of questions between sessions.

There's more, but this is the part that's easy to explain.

What didn't work... crucially, waiting for newbies to ask questions doesn't work; they won't. You need to actively go looking, and also bring up areas they might not even know they ought to ask about.

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by duckmysick on Saturday December 02, 2023 @04:40AM (#38497383)
Thanks for the answer. I see the theme is you have to be proactive instead of passively dump info hope for the best. It makes total sense.
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by cm2012 on Friday December 01, 2023 @10:18AM (#38487699)
Seriously. GDP and productivity are super high right now.
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by dfxm12 on Friday December 01, 2023 @10:33AM (#38487905)
And wages? ...just slightly higher :|
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by red-iron-pine on Friday December 01, 2023 @11:18AM (#38488427)
that's been happening since the 1970s :/
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by tessierashpool on Friday December 01, 2023 @10:34AM (#38487913)
It's more than three years since most people started working from home.

a lot more than three years. remote work goes back decades before covid.

GitHub, Shopify, and Stripe all started as remote companies.

the really annoying thing is not the legions of people who believe it all started in 2020. the really annoying thing is that there's a ton of excellent literature on how to do it, and when it suddenly became mainstream in 2020, the newcomers ignored all that literature.

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by insom on Friday December 01, 2023 @11:06AM (#38488283)
Shopify only went remote in March 2020, after being strongly anti-remote for a long time. You're right that they have leaned into 100% remote since the pandemic, however.

There were remote employees before (especially in Production Engineering and much of Support), but R&D was almost all in person.

(Source: I miss the productivity of the Elgin Street office ...)

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by tessierashpool on Friday December 01, 2023 @01:44PM (#38490554)
I'm talking about the period from 2006 to 2008 or so. source: that's when I met Tobi and a few other early people.
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by matchbok on Friday December 01, 2023 @04:16PM (#38492534)
Nobody knows. What will catch up soon is any country in the USA time zones discovering they can do you job for 20% pay. People who think they will be able to work remotely while making top-city salary are delusional.
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by Niksko on Friday December 01, 2023 @11:57PM (#38496022)
I disagree with GP. The impact on employees (junior or otherwise) and the hit to productivity exists, it's just a result of under investment in remote-first working practices. Anything between fully remote and fully in office / everyone in the office on the same days per week is going to be shown to be disaster.

I think the effects are going to start presenting now, but because it's a new phenomenon for most organizations, it won't be recognized for another year or so. The next 2-5 years are going to be littered with stories along the lines of 'progress ground to a halt and nobody could put their finger on why, so we tried a bunch of stuff that didn't work and eventually realized it was a lack of any remote strategy'

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by monkmartinez on Friday December 01, 2023 @10:16AM (#38487685)
The "well-known" fact you speak of is what my wife's boss uses to justify return to office. It's definitely not the massive investment in office furniture, office remodel, and meeting spaces that have been gussied up for impressions of success. No way it's that! /s

The fact that senior employees are leaving for remote work ensures junior people are all they have left! Junior people are, shockingly, not as productive as senior people... who would have thought?

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by smith7018 on Friday December 01, 2023 @10:26AM (#38487813)
Those investments in office furniture, remodels, etc. are already sunk costs though. Why would they be used to justify RTO? If anything, it's more expensive to have people come in and use (read: destroy) furniture and equipment.

This is a genuine question. The RTO push has befuddled me for awhile because the money that's already gone into the offices (like the leases) were decided on awhile ago and will be paid out regardless if people come in or not. Perks like free lunch and snacks also cost more when you force people to come in. So I don't really understand the financial aspect of it.

Maybe it's management needing people in office to justify their jobs for some reason? I don't know.

Edit: I'm staff-level for what it's worth. I've also noticed that this article doesn't actually reflect reality; nearly every job listing I saw this year said that the applicant will have to be in the office 1-5 days a week.

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by tessierashpool on Friday December 01, 2023 @10:32AM (#38487888)
Those investments in office furniture, remodels, etc. are already sunk costs though. Why would they be used to justify RTO?

you answered your own question. sunk costs fallacy.

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by smith7018 on Friday December 01, 2023 @12:46PM (#38489673)
Industry-wide? I guess I'm naive for thinking that some companies must have some smart people in the room and point out the fallacy
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by ghaff on Friday December 01, 2023 @01:25PM (#38490297)
I know a lot of people here think executives are idiots but I really have trouble believing that any CEO is sitting there thinking "Damn. If I don't get people back into the office, all these office chairs we spent good money on will go to waste."
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by smith7018 on Friday December 01, 2023 @03:02PM (#38491510)
Exactly. Same with "Damn. We have to drive away our best talent to fill occupancy in the office we already signed a lease on despite rent being a fixed cost that isn't impacted by occupancy." Like, it just doesn't make sense to me.
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by ghaff on Friday December 01, 2023 @03:39PM (#38492024)
I do understand to the degree tax incentives get involved. But, whether having deluded themselves or not, I do believe most execs pushing RTO are doing so for reasons they think are sound for collaboration, cultural, or other rational reasons.
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by I_Am_Nous on Friday December 01, 2023 @10:22AM (#38487753)
I moved to a new role in my company a year and a half ago, and it's taken me this long to be confident enough to take responsibility for things that I'm not told explicitly to do. That's really the line between junior and senior in my opinion, both feeling like you have the power to make changes in addition to permission to do so. That transition is hard no matter if you are in the office or not (in the office, for my example) but it really can't happen if a junior is suddenly the senior tech because the real seniors all left.
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by toomuchtodo on Friday December 01, 2023 @10:12AM (#38487619)
~$120B in enterprise value of remote first or full remote companies indicates this isn’t accurate. Remote may pose development and pipeline challenges, but they’re clearly surmountable.
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by usefulcat on Friday December 01, 2023 @10:14AM (#38487650)
Why do you seem to think that those two things are mutually exclusive?
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by vidarh on Friday December 01, 2023 @10:13AM (#38487630)
The comment you replied to didn't suggest any conspiracy. They merely suggested that board members on the boards of multiple organisations sometimes will do things that favour one of the companies but is detrimental to the others.

As for your "well known fact", I'm not convinced it's either well-known, nor necessarily a fact (I can buy it happens some places, but would question whether it's an inherent limitations or an issue with management in organisations who don't know how to handle remote work)

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by wongarsu on Friday December 01, 2023 @10:20AM (#38487726)
A conspiracy would involve people working together, conspiring, towards some secret goal. What GP stipulates works just as well if you assume everyone is working on their own in their own best interest.

Going by the principles of capitalism or game theory it would be more surprising if this wasn't true and board members overwhelmingly worked for the good of the company instead of their personal wealth

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by EA-3167 on Friday December 01, 2023 @10:10AM (#38487597)
If that's a "well-known fact" then could I trouble you for some sources to that end?
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by johnfn on Friday December 01, 2023 @10:13AM (#38487638)
Just talk to a few? I know plenty of junior developers who've told me that their professional life suffered during remote work over covid.
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by red-iron-pine on Friday December 01, 2023 @11:26AM (#38488544)
you mean the pandemic that completely upended the entire global economy and society?

the one that made entire industries basically vanish? the one that no one was prepared for?

like, I been 100% remote since 2015 for orgs that were already equipped for that, and life went on just fine when COVID hit. Jr. Devs at orgs that weren't equipped for remote definitely suffered, in the same way that not having winter tiers or chains would screw you when a sudden blizzard hits Texas.

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by johnfn on Friday December 01, 2023 @11:49AM (#38488892)
> in the same way that not having winter tiers or chains would screw you when a sudden blizzard hits Texas.

Doesn't this just prove the point, though? You seem to be saying it takes additional resources and time to make WFH work as effectively as normal, in-office work. Many workplaces are resource-constrained and may not be able to implement those practices.

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by EA-3167 on Friday December 01, 2023 @12:23PM (#38489352)
How do those resources compare to the cost of maintaining offices, the costs to workers of commutes and being more or less forced into expensive and crowded urban centers, and the environmental cost of the commute and the property maintenance?
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by llogiq on Friday December 01, 2023 @10:45AM (#38488083)
So professional work during a worldwide pandemic with all the hardship that entailed suffered...from working remotely? I don't buy that.
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by ethanbond on Friday December 01, 2023 @10:35AM (#38487941)
I know plenty who said the reverse. Uh oh!
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by johnfn on Friday December 01, 2023 @11:42AM (#38488774)
Why is it surprising that different people could have different reactions to WFH? Some people liked it. Other people hated it.
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by ethanbond on Friday December 01, 2023 @02:22PM (#38490994)
The original claim that’s being supported is:

> the well-known fact that junior employees and productivity both take a hit with full-time remote work

Not “some people were less productive, others were more productive,” which is obviously the actual truth.

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by Kiro on Friday December 01, 2023 @10:16AM (#38487678)
Let's be real. The reason we all love WFH is because we can slack off. It's so easy to game the system and make it look like we're working when we're not.
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by dogleash on Friday December 01, 2023 @11:41AM (#38488766)
>The reason we all love WFH is because we can slack off.

Don't insult me like that.

I won't pretend I don't know people who only work 4 hours a week, but stop acting like you know me.

I love work from home because I can get actual quiet. Not music downing out distractions. Quiet.

If you want to insinuate that I don't work, or perpetuate a culture that assumes I will not work as hard because there's no hall monitor, then get bent.

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by ubercow13 on Friday December 01, 2023 @10:28AM (#38487842)
I don't think it's any easier, it's just less unpleasant because you don't have to pretend to be working as actively while slacking off.

And if this is true it just proof of the merits of WFH. If everyone is 'slacking off' and productivity is basically unchanged, it just shows what a waste of everyone's lives working in the office was.

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by taylodl on Friday December 01, 2023 @10:28AM (#38487836)
Stop projecting your personal failings onto the rest of us. My productivity has never been greater - and I started this career journey in the 80's.

Add in the new AI tools and productivity is getting another bump.

I guess you're just getting left behind.

We won't miss you.

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by pcthrowaway on Friday December 01, 2023 @10:32AM (#38487897)
Funny, I have bittersweet feelings about WFH because it was so much easier for me to slack off in office. All I needed was a butt in chair for 8 hours a day.

WFH I'm expected to track my productive time and ensure it adds up to 8 hours. Maybe some people can get away with fudging their records but I think there's a pretty widespread understanding that coworkers who regularly have lengthy periods where they're neither responding to DMs nor producing output aren't actually working for the full workday.

In office, if I spent an hour to go for a walk and to a coffee-shop during my 8 hour workday, it was understood that I was probably doing some backround processing while stretching my legs.

WFH if I disappear for an hour, it's assumed I'm not working (and I'm certainly not tracking that as productive work time)

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by SketchySeaBeast on Friday December 01, 2023 @10:34AM (#38487925)
Not any more than when I was in the office. Let's be real here - it's a rare individual who can do deep and productive knowledge work for 8 hours straight. All work from home means is that now when I take a break it's to do something productive, like a load of laundry, or really relaxing, like taking a walk, instead of trying to surreptitiously browse the internet for a bit.
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by doubled112 on Friday December 01, 2023 @10:49AM (#38488127)
Sometimes I have an epiphany loading the dishwasher. That should count as billable time, no?
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by ksenzee on Friday December 01, 2023 @10:28AM (#38487838)
If you’re justifying this to yourself because you think everyone else is slacking off at home, you might want to rethink. I am not slacking off—my productivity is at least as good at home as it was in the office, even on days when I’m not at the computer a full eight hours. Judging from what we get done, other people on my team are also not slacking off. But if someone were regularly slacking off, I’d be able to tell—and I’m not even a manager, just a principal who listens at standup. At least wait for a better job market if you insist on playing roulette with your career.
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by red-iron-pine on Friday December 01, 2023 @11:59AM (#38489024)
studies have repeatedly shown that office workers -- and most workers in general -- are productive for about 6 hours a day. and that's on the high end.

there are a lot of do-nothing, go-nowhere meetings that fill the gap and make it appear like things are happening.

WFH just shows that the emperor has no clothes and that a lot of time is spent doing BS tasks. there is still a ton of BS, but I can be chopping veggies and prepping a crockpot meal while on pointless 30+ people calls.

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by Clubber on Friday December 01, 2023 @10:29AM (#38487851)
It's pretty easy to spot people who aren't working. We hired a guy and it was pretty obvious he was doing multiple jobs. We fired him in a week. Unfortunately my boss got cold feet and his replacement had to be in-office.
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by SantalBlush on Friday December 01, 2023 @10:26AM (#38487802)
The three big reasons for me are: 1. No more commute. 2. No need to move for a new job. 3. Way more real estate options. No longer needing to live inside a major metropolitan area near my job means I can save hundreds of thousands on a house, or pay much cheaper rent. It's a no-brainer.
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by zarathustreal on Friday December 01, 2023 @10:29AM (#38487846)
Sorry to have to be the one to throw ice water on you here: most of your colleagues are in fact working hard and enjoy WFH because they enjoy spending time with their family and working from a comfortable work environment.

If we want to talk about conspiracies, let’s talk about management’s belief that everyone producing value is secretly trying to game the system

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by j4yav on Friday December 01, 2023 @01:09PM (#38490058)
I've personally never worked harder or had better results since working for all-remote companies.
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by op00to on Friday December 01, 2023 @01:23PM (#38490280)
I took two hour lunches, with alcohol. I would wander into random university lectures instead of meetings. Do not underestimate my ability to fuck off from work no matter the location.
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by aerhardt on Friday December 01, 2023 @10:20AM (#38487729)
Well-known facts eh.