The mangement had several years to collect data. Maybe they checked the numbers and found that, yes, people on average are less productive when working from home.

Is that surprising or unexpected somehow?

So why hasn't anyone published that data, or even shared that internally? You know damn well amazon and meta and others have loads of quantifiable data.

If they checked the numbers and it showed that they’d be shouting from the rooftops, not trying to prevent anyone from discussing it.

Why would they? On what other issue do we expect transparency in the internal metrics of large corporations?

Typically you’d get that sort of thing at a quarterly report if it was actually material to the performance of the company and they had actual data. Otherwise it’s just a normal thing as far as I know to support an argument with data if you have it.

Chances that they have actually gathered data are infinitesimally low.

Now, CEOs following fashion trends, OTOH...

> following fashion trends

The older I get, the more often I see cargo cults.

Have they always been there and I just didn't notice?

Always has been.

Sometimes we just start to lose blinkers, sometimes they get sticker, and even both but in different areas :/

Did they gather evidence from Elon's tweets or what are we talking about?

If there were actual concrete data on RTO being empirically better, the Corporate Real Estate world wouldn't have anything to worry about in the next 5 years.

MBA's don't follow scientific method. Engineers do.

How specifically would I know that? Last time I gave somebody the benefit of the doubt I ended up doing their work myself over Christmas. I'm interested to know what I should've done to avoid that.

Well, impossible to say without context. But maybe it is more interesting what you should do afterwards. What did you do afterward?

The project came to an end (hence me having to wrap up their work), so I didn't do much. I'm on a new project now, but I have the same question. If someone keeps insisting their work is coming along great and they'll be checking it in real soon, how do I know if it's true?

Ask for proof. Some employees are lower-performing and some need more structure.

"Can you push your work-in-progress branch so I can take a look?"

If they are consistently under-performing you need to structure them. Split larger tasks into smaller sub-tasks that are more tractable over shorter time periods. If a large task is expected to take 3 weeks, split it into chunks of 1-2 days.

That way if a code review isn't sent out you get a quick signal that progress isn't being made.

Remember that as the manager you have authority. They may chafe at being asked to do intermediate checkins and splitting the work into smaller quanta - that's fine, they can grouse about it with their friends, but they still have to do it.

If they are underperforming even within this structure, have them keep a work log - which is basically a 1:1 asynchronous standup with just you and them. Read this work log daily and, in combination with smaller quanta of work, it should be fairly obvious progress isn't made.

At all points don't hide the ball from them that they are underperforming. Tell them that they are underperforming but give them the resources necessary to improve. Solicit their ideas on how to improve and consider implementing them.

Some employees can be structured to improve this ways. Others cannot - you work with HR on that latter group.

But again: as the manager you do not need to see butts-in-seats to gauge productivity. More importantly, it is on you to set a benchmark for productivity and communicate to your team your expectation that everyone hits it, and alert them in your (frequent!) 1:1s when they are falling short.

> their work is coming along great and they'll be checking it in real soon

This is the process problem in my mind. Why are they working on something that goes weeks without checking in code? They should have smaller actionable chunks that can be checked in at least once a week.

More importantly, take that same employee and put them in an office and do you really think things are going to be different? Alt tab is a thing, looking busy is a thing, and if you're entirely relying on their word that things are going well then you're going to get yourself in trouble regardless of whether you're in an office or remote.

> Why are they working on something that goes weeks without checking in code?

I think it was a couple of days' worth of work, which they told me was nearly finished for a couple of weeks. All I was saying was there was no way for me to know whether that was the true or not. Unless they pushed the code, which they were always supposedly on the cusp of doing. On the last day before the holidays I was very explicit that they needed to push their code by the end of the day, which they said they would but didn't.

Perhaps I need to be more assertive about it, or insist they pushed it live while I watched or something. I do think I'd have found the situation easier if we had a face-to-face relationship, although that's not really what I was trying to argue.

I'm sorry about your Christmas, but that seems like a poor reason to never give the benefit of the doubt going forwards. Situations are situational.

> Situations are situational

Indeed. I suspect a lot of people here work in situations where there's slack in the system and nothing particularly bad happens if the work doesn't get done.

Yeah, no. We have tight deadlines that we're expected to hit and clear milestones for reaching those deadlines. If we miss them hundreds of people throughout the organization will know and ask why, and multi-million dollar sales contracts go out the window.

Ok, but unlike the person I was replying to you seem to be arguing against giving people the benefit of the doubt.

I'm arguing against shrugging and saying "it's because of remote work" when your project is falling apart. Give the benefit of the doubt when there is doubt, but once there's no doubt then build the structure you need to make progress.

Remote != Completely unstructured

> I'm arguing against shrugging and saying "it's because of remote work"

Have I at any point said that?

I was hoping you’d get a response to this. I was confused too.

I think it is more the environment for some people.

Working from home, really does IMO require a Home Office, a space dedicated for work.

I know many people that are more productive at home, all of them have a home office. I know many people that are not productive at home, none of them have a home office, instead are using some Shared Space, like a corner of the living room, the kitchen table, etc.

If you do not have a dedicated home office then likely your home will be filled with distractions,

Living situations impacts this as well, if you lived a alone with no pets vs having a house full of roommates, children, spouses, pets, etc.

So from a Management perspective do they fire all the people that cant work from home, or require everyone to return to office? Or do they have different policies for different people then open themselves up to Workplace legal liability from either discrimination or hostile work place charges

My office is filled with distractions. I sit in open space with tens of people around me. They talk, drink coffee, eat food. Some of them also have pets.

I used to sit near a printer which brought footfall, conversation noise and printer noise all day long. Good riddance to being stuck in an office.

I can't imagine anything that smells like toner is healthy to breathe.