I don't disagree with you, but there's a hidden third dynamic here. If we agree some people want to work in offices and some people don't, we'll need to accommodate both. We'll have offices for some and remote for others. However, now there's two groups -- and I'll dig up some studies, but I believe remote workers are passed over for promotions and raises since they're out-of-sight, out-of-mind for the in-office crowd. This is going to pressure a return to the status quo IMO.
I think that there are four groups who will really embrace going back to the office, and I think it will gradually change the underlying narrative about what it means for someone to prefer to be in the office:
1. People who are fantastic team players in an organization that does a good job of facilitating group work. I hate the term “team player”, and I think most teams are a farce, but watching an effective team work is like magic to me. This is the best outcome, imho, but I think that this will be a tiny percentage of the folks who embrace going back in (mainly due to workplace structure and incentives, but that’s a slightly different issue).
2. Extroverts. These folks just need to be around other people if you want them to be productive. This group is a push — neither good nor bad imho.
3. The office politicians. My guess is that this will be the vast majority of people who rush back to work. They look busy, but they don’t do very much, yet they know how to work the system. These folks are a tax on mid- and large-sized companies, and I think that folks who prefer being in the office will be perceived as being this type of person, rightly or wrongly.
4. Folks who have tight living quarters or some sort of taxing home restraints. This could be a small living space that is common in a large city, a family who is not particularly accommodating (e.g., kids or a demanding spouse), etc. I have a friend for whom going to the office and working feels like a break for him and his wife due to having three young kids at home — I totally understand.
Part of the potential stigmatization of being a politico who goes in all the time or someone who prefers WFH can be mitigated by having office time be limited to one or two days a week. This puts everyone on equal footing, while reducing a lot of the burden of working in an office. One issue with this is that it still means that people need to live somewhat in the same area as their workplace, but I think that this type of arrangement increases the radius of reasonable living places as related to distance from workplace by quite a bit.
Note that I am shooting from the hip here. I personally think that a large percentage of the innovative and disruptive companies moving forward will be some form of remote-first work. I think this mainly due to the incredible flexibility in hiring that remote-first provides. That said, it will only happen with folks who are comfortable with the format, and I think that is mostly (although definitely not exclusively) people who are (spitballing here) in their 20s or younger.
I think I'm #1, definitely not #2 or #4 and with honesty a little bit of #3, if only because it's a necessary but not sufficient part of #1.
I've taken the summer off work rather than continue WFH because I just don't see myself or others being very effective and it destroyed my motivation and love for what we were doing. I manage 2 teams of 10 developers and truly believe they do better work when given time to work colocated. Funny enough my best was (and is) the only true 100% remote worker. He's strong technically & domain and I see how much extra effort he puts in to make remote work; I don't believe everyone else has the foundation or work ethic to do the same.
If we don't go back to a majority of colocated working I'll probably find another job or do something independent. If I'm going to work from home I might as well do it my way...
I appreciate your perspective and I'm afraid folks like yourself will be among the most affected long term. Based on everything I see, the "new normal" will be a lot more remote and at least partial working from home. I don't expect a lot of tech companies will go back to 4-5 days of office work as the standard. Where I work admittedly had a fairly significant remote/WFH component but it's pretty clear that it's going to go way up.
The people I know anxious to go back to the office are essentially all number 4. (For context, this is at a company that was already significantly remote/WFH.) People crammed in small urban apartments and people with kids that make it hard to work from home without constant distractions.
To other comments, those in small urban apartments who really want to keep living in the city--especially after restrictions let up--are also the group for whom working at home is also a crappy financial deal. For people who have decent home offices in houses and no longer need to do a long commute, this is a good deal financially. For people living in studios near the office who walked or biked to work, not so much.
>That said, it will only happen with folks who are comfortable with the format, and I think that is mostly (although definitely not exclusively) people who are (spitballing here) in their 20s or younger.
I would have thought the opposite. More senior people, used to working independently, who have nice houses in the suburbs or exurbs like ditching the commute in many cases and don't care about the office socializing. People in their 20s, in many cases, really miss being with their "team" in the office.
> I would have thought the opposite. More senior people, used to working independently, who have nice houses in the suburbs or exurbs like ditching the commute in many cases and don't care about the office socializing. People in their 20s, in many cases, really miss being with their "team" in the office.
Good point.
Most of that type of younger folks are dead weight anyway, imo, and my comment was related to the nature of high-performing, disruptive companies moving forward.
Maybe a clearer way of saying that is that I think a disproportionate percentage of the people who flock to high-performing remote workplace environments will be younger in general.
I definitely have seen an anecdotal correlation between age and effective use of typical WFH media. 60+ typically struggles, 50-60 slightly less. 40-50 seems to be natural if they are tech-oriented people, but closer to 50-60 if not. 30-40 (millennials) mostly get it. Folks in their teens and 20s seem to thrive in it more often than not.
Thanks for the comment. It will be interesting to see how the workplace ecology develops.
The office politicians. My guess is that this will be the vast majority of people who rush back to work. They look busy, but they don’t do very much, yet they know how to work the system
Smart companies will have very easily figured out who those people are over the last few months. Sadly there are few smart companies.
On number 4, if all you need to do is go in one day per week, wouldn’t the radius increase to how far you can get in a roughly two hour flight? This opens up Seattle, Boise, Salt Lake, Las Vegas, Phoenix, LA, San Diego...
