Younger firms and CEOs also tend to be more enthusiastic about hybrid work arrangements, meaning they’ll get more popular over time as existing business heads retire, he added.
So don’t worry, those fragile ego managers will die out over time.
I don’t want hybrid, I want full remote. Hybrid means I still have to live in a stupid expensive city to have a decent job. Full remote means I can go live where I want.
I was on hybrid. I hated it. I was so much more productive at home where I could be comfortable and distraction-free. If you want work friends, fine. Go to the office. Never again for me.
My employer went fully WFH for their engineering/tech teams just before the pandemic. Our CEO specifically stated the desire was to hire the best engineering talent no matter where in the world they were, and not make anybody feel left out.
In roughly the last year or so they have encouraged employees who live less than an hour away from an office to come in a couple times a month. So I guess that technically we’re hybrid as well now. But they again made it clear that it’s only if it’s within a reasonable distance.
I personally haven’t set foot in one of our offices since 2019. The office closest to me is 2+ hours away in another state. I have coworkers on my team that would have 6+ hour drives. And then there are employees living in other countries throughout Europe & Asia who certainly aren’t going to commute to our Berlin office…
Hybrid is perfectly fine as long as the employer doesn’t try to blindly force it on everybody without exception.
Hybrid work in a giant organisation - on Wednesdays my whole team is in the office, but of the ten of us, no three are in the same site, so it’s on WebEx anyway
I don’t understand why this got downvotes, there is even research supporting this.
edit:Maybe it’s the common misunderstanding of what it means to be “antisocial” in psychology? Many are still not aware it has nothing to do with keeping to yourself or other socially neutral behaviours.
Just require employers to pay for 60 minutes of travel time a day every time employees have to go to the office no matter where the employee lives and you’ll see they’ll start sweating.
I would almost* like to see that litigated again. Last time the argument was “people have had to travel to their workplace before starting since time immemorial, so no change now”
But now that for many jobs the work location is arbitrary that argument wont be so easy.
*“Almost” since the money would still be on the other side
I wish we didn’t need these things to go to court for them to change, but it would require an extremely progressive government in power for that to happen in any country…
That’s what I meant, why should we need to go to court to get that right recognized when it should be the government changing the law without court intervention?
Doesn’t mean fragile ego management and oh my real estate is devalued jackasses won’t fight for return to office tooth and nail.
At the end of the article:
So don’t worry, those fragile ego managers will die out over time.
I don’t want hybrid, I want full remote. Hybrid means I still have to live in a stupid expensive city to have a decent job. Full remote means I can go live where I want.
This… I recently took a fully-remote position, but my wife is hybrid so we’re still tied down.
I was on hybrid. I hated it. I was so much more productive at home where I could be comfortable and distraction-free. If you want work friends, fine. Go to the office. Never again for me.
deleted by creator
My employer went fully WFH for their engineering/tech teams just before the pandemic. Our CEO specifically stated the desire was to hire the best engineering talent no matter where in the world they were, and not make anybody feel left out.
In roughly the last year or so they have encouraged employees who live less than an hour away from an office to come in a couple times a month. So I guess that technically we’re hybrid as well now. But they again made it clear that it’s only if it’s within a reasonable distance.
I personally haven’t set foot in one of our offices since 2019. The office closest to me is 2+ hours away in another state. I have coworkers on my team that would have 6+ hour drives. And then there are employees living in other countries throughout Europe & Asia who certainly aren’t going to commute to our Berlin office…
Hybrid is perfectly fine as long as the employer doesn’t try to blindly force it on everybody without exception.
Also hybrid meetings suck.
We did all of our meetings via Zoom whether we were in the office or not.
Hybrid work in a giant organisation - on Wednesdays my whole team is in the office, but of the ten of us, no three are in the same site, so it’s on WebEx anyway
Oh don’t worry, just as many of the young managers have a fragile ego. You’re just going to see it come out differently.
Yeah, no.
Narcissists and antisocial types have weaseled their way into positions of power since time immemorial.
They will continue to do so.
I don’t understand why this got downvotes, there is even research supporting this.
edit: Maybe it’s the common misunderstanding of what it means to be “antisocial” in psychology? Many are still not aware it has nothing to do with keeping to yourself or other socially neutral behaviours.
There’s always a few downvoters in each thread downvoting innocuous comments. Luckily the points are made up and the votes don’t matter.
Don’t forget car companies and oil lobby will fight it really hard so we can keep burning our planet
We should tax busniess who could have workers WFH but don’t let them to cover the societal costs they impose lien traffic and pollution
Just require employers to pay for 60 minutes of travel time a day every time employees have to go to the office no matter where the employee lives and you’ll see they’ll start sweating.
If only
I would almost* like to see that litigated again. Last time the argument was “people have had to travel to their workplace before starting since time immemorial, so no change now”
But now that for many jobs the work location is arbitrary that argument wont be so easy.
*“Almost” since the money would still be on the other side
I wish we didn’t need these things to go to court for them to change, but it would require an extremely progressive government in power for that to happen in any country…
Government doesn’t help much with court, except where they change the law
That’s what I meant, why should we need to go to court to get that right recognized when it should be the government changing the law without court intervention?