Thank you, Tomas, for another great article. Here are some observations from my work experience at a large incumbent company and a government agency.
(1) Knowledge workers hate cubicles but, inexplicably, cubicles have become the norm. Telework is great for escaping the cubicle environment where people use speakerphones and raise their voices in "shouting matches" with concurrent users of speakerphones.
(2) Knowledge work is difficult to measure, and knowledge workers frequently resort to appalling tricks such as writing documents that are too long and creating PowerPoint slides that have too many irrelevant graphics and "eye charts" instead of clear summaries.
(3) Managers [in large incumbent companies] don't know how to rate knowledge work. Their main heuristics are: (a) whether an employee comes in early and leaves late, (b) the gross volume of an employee's products (documents, PowerPoints), and (c) whether a manager (or his boss) likes this employee.
(4) When I teleworked one day a week, I was required to be continuously connected to a chat and respond immediately. This state of constant readiness has largely depleted the advantages of escaping the commute and the cubicle.
(5) Hybrid solutions seem optimal, BUT they are usually more complex and carry a large overhead. As you wrote in the article, a hybrid worker can't move to a low-cost-of-living area. Coordinating meetings and deliverables of hybrid workers is more difficult than having either "office" or "remote" employees. Managing, rating, and promoting hybrid employees is more difficult. For example, an employee who comes to the office on the same days as her manager does gains some privileges due to subconscious sense of connection.
To avoid the decks thing and other pitfalls, I like measuring inputs, outputs, and outcomes separately. But you're right that otherwise knowledge work's productivity is so hard to measure. I look forward to good studies in this space! I'm sure there will be some.
A thought-provoking article, but I think it is a bit one-sided as it doesn't discuss several factors in favor of working from the office:
1) Employees need socialization and like leaving home (at least from time to time).
2) Long-term productivity such as creativity and integration of complex projects may be less effective when working remotely.
3) When working remotely, employees miss the exchange of ideas that takes place in corridor/water-cooler/cafeteria informal meetings.
4) It's harder to build a company culture when employees are remote. Remote employees may be less attached to the company and more prone to hopping between jobs.
Thank you. I didn't go into the details of these points, so let me take this as an opportunity to dive a bit deeper there.
1. I think socialization was convenient in the office, not good. It's easy to hang out with people selected to be approximately like you and with a broadly shared goal. That doesn't mean it's great. With all the spare time, you can hang out with a group you choose. Also, not being in the office doesn't mean you can't create these relationships. But it's early, so we're still figuring out how. A key is ~quarterly offsites.
2. Creativity: That's the typical intangible that I'm not sure about at all. Maybe you're right. Maybe not. Not too much evidence either way. And unlikely we won't get better at that on remote. But we'll not get better in the office.
3. Same as 2. I don't buy the watercooler theory. Maybe. Maybe not. I think if we're thoughtful about it we'll be better in remote than the office. That's one guess.
4. Same thing: unclear. I believe that's more a result of experience and fear than remote potential.
The hopping might be true though.
But it's all opinions. On these, I would rather want to see studies. They will tell us!
Rural / suburban areas that already have good schools will see an influx, and will grow much faster. They will make good schooling part of their strategy.
Thanks for the excellent article, I was somewhat of a remote working sceptic but have been convinced. The state monopoly NHS tried (with no consultation or discussion) to insist that GPs go back to face to face appointments a couple of weeks back. They were forced to back down by revolting doctors. It will be fascinating to watch the evolution of hybrid and remote working in medicine. I know doctors who already work entirely remotely for Aboriginal communities in Australia.
Great interesting article Tomas. An observation: now that some companies hire to work 100% remote (and using here the same definition of your article) that does not necessarily mean that you can reside everywhere. I received a job offer in January 2021 from the software company RedHat, the condition was: you can work from everywhere in the country where you reside. It is not only done by RedHat, but becoming popular in EU - some companies justify with taxation reasons
Yes! Taxation is one issue. The other is time zones.
On taxation, I think this is transient. Companies will figure out how to get the best candidates from everywhere, independent from taxation. And ppl will move around. But it will never be fully solved, and it will take a while.
Similarly, time zones will be less important as async work takes over, but it will take time and some sync work will always be needed
As always, your articles are incredibly well-written, enlightening and inspiring (your covid articles were amazing, insightful and incredibly important). However, as a knowledge worker at a successful, wonderful tech company which has been all remote during the pandemic, I think you are exaggerating the problems of working at the office and underestimating the benefits of hybrid work. Like most people, I enjoyed the benefits that WFH gave me (such as more time with family and more freedom), but I also feel lonely and bored at home over Zoom. My general happyness has increased significantly after I started coming in to the office one or two days a week and many of my coworkers seem to feel the same way. Some away time from my wife (also WFH) and social interaction with other people during the days makes our time together better. I don't buy your theory that people will just have more time to connect to friends and networks of their choice instead -- establishing new close connections is not so easy in adulthood unless (sometimes) you're young and don't have family, activities to drive your kids to and all sorts of other chores occupying the rest of your non-work time. For many people, their only time to socialize outside of weekends is through work.
I'm not sure I disagree though? I'm saying 10%-25% of work will be remote, and then some more in the future. I'm not claiming it's going to be 90%, 70%, or even 50%.
The majority will still be hybrid, at least in the foreseeable future.
Thank you for this fascinating and in depth piece Tomas! One angle that's missing from the home office / remote work discourse is its macro political effects.
Thank you for the kind words! and for subscribing! :)
(just checking if the double opt int/email confirmation went through - been receiving a lot of complaints and am confirming if the subscription is active
What definition are you using? The Balaji / Sovereign Individual concept about alternatives to nation-states that are born in the cloud and around ppl's interests and commonalities?
I didn't know about it. Very interesting. Sounds like it, and some others, could be a breakthrough in networked states. Sounds like it's missing leadership though.
I think you may be missing two things about Hybrid from an excellent article.
1: It does change WHERE you can live, just not as much as remote, for example a 2 hour commute is pallatable if its only once a week. There are many cities with a ring of expensive homes within a one hour commute, and a further ring that is significantly cheaper between 1 and 2 hours.
2: Hybrid office costs can also be lower, depending on the pattern; if people's office days are split over the week then hot-desks work, or if people are all coming in on the same day (as we've used in the past), then temporary crowding is acceptable for a day when most of it will be in meetings anyway.
I had a similar issue. We had 14 offices, and the only one that mattered was the central one.
The key is leadership. For a company to be remote, the leadership has to be remote. That's why companies like Quora or Coinbase, even if they have a lot of leadership in the Bay Area, went to Remote First.
Thank you, Tomas, for another great article. Here are some observations from my work experience at a large incumbent company and a government agency.
(1) Knowledge workers hate cubicles but, inexplicably, cubicles have become the norm. Telework is great for escaping the cubicle environment where people use speakerphones and raise their voices in "shouting matches" with concurrent users of speakerphones.
(2) Knowledge work is difficult to measure, and knowledge workers frequently resort to appalling tricks such as writing documents that are too long and creating PowerPoint slides that have too many irrelevant graphics and "eye charts" instead of clear summaries.
(3) Managers [in large incumbent companies] don't know how to rate knowledge work. Their main heuristics are: (a) whether an employee comes in early and leaves late, (b) the gross volume of an employee's products (documents, PowerPoints), and (c) whether a manager (or his boss) likes this employee.
(4) When I teleworked one day a week, I was required to be continuously connected to a chat and respond immediately. This state of constant readiness has largely depleted the advantages of escaping the commute and the cubicle.
(5) Hybrid solutions seem optimal, BUT they are usually more complex and carry a large overhead. As you wrote in the article, a hybrid worker can't move to a low-cost-of-living area. Coordinating meetings and deliverables of hybrid workers is more difficult than having either "office" or "remote" employees. Managing, rating, and promoting hybrid employees is more difficult. For example, an employee who comes to the office on the same days as her manager does gains some privileges due to subconscious sense of connection.
Victoria
All very good points, Victoria. Thank you.
To avoid the decks thing and other pitfalls, I like measuring inputs, outputs, and outcomes separately. But you're right that otherwise knowledge work's productivity is so hard to measure. I look forward to good studies in this space! I'm sure there will be some.
A thought-provoking article, but I think it is a bit one-sided as it doesn't discuss several factors in favor of working from the office:
1) Employees need socialization and like leaving home (at least from time to time).
2) Long-term productivity such as creativity and integration of complex projects may be less effective when working remotely.
3) When working remotely, employees miss the exchange of ideas that takes place in corridor/water-cooler/cafeteria informal meetings.
4) It's harder to build a company culture when employees are remote. Remote employees may be less attached to the company and more prone to hopping between jobs.
Thank you. I didn't go into the details of these points, so let me take this as an opportunity to dive a bit deeper there.
1. I think socialization was convenient in the office, not good. It's easy to hang out with people selected to be approximately like you and with a broadly shared goal. That doesn't mean it's great. With all the spare time, you can hang out with a group you choose. Also, not being in the office doesn't mean you can't create these relationships. But it's early, so we're still figuring out how. A key is ~quarterly offsites.
2. Creativity: That's the typical intangible that I'm not sure about at all. Maybe you're right. Maybe not. Not too much evidence either way. And unlikely we won't get better at that on remote. But we'll not get better in the office.
3. Same as 2. I don't buy the watercooler theory. Maybe. Maybe not. I think if we're thoughtful about it we'll be better in remote than the office. That's one guess.
4. Same thing: unclear. I believe that's more a result of experience and fear than remote potential.
The hopping might be true though.
But it's all opinions. On these, I would rather want to see studies. They will tell us!
Rural areas would need high quality schools to attract remote knowledge workers. This is not the case today. How do you see this playing out?
Rural / suburban areas that already have good schools will see an influx, and will grow much faster. They will make good schooling part of their strategy.
Other geographies might follow suit.
My guess!
Thanks for the excellent article, I was somewhat of a remote working sceptic but have been convinced. The state monopoly NHS tried (with no consultation or discussion) to insist that GPs go back to face to face appointments a couple of weeks back. They were forced to back down by revolting doctors. It will be fascinating to watch the evolution of hybrid and remote working in medicine. I know doctors who already work entirely remotely for Aboriginal communities in Australia.
So interesting. Thanks for sharing!
Incredible the power of workers across the world here. And how loud they are.
Great interesting article Tomas. An observation: now that some companies hire to work 100% remote (and using here the same definition of your article) that does not necessarily mean that you can reside everywhere. I received a job offer in January 2021 from the software company RedHat, the condition was: you can work from everywhere in the country where you reside. It is not only done by RedHat, but becoming popular in EU - some companies justify with taxation reasons
Yes! Taxation is one issue. The other is time zones.
On taxation, I think this is transient. Companies will figure out how to get the best candidates from everywhere, independent from taxation. And ppl will move around. But it will never be fully solved, and it will take a while.
Similarly, time zones will be less important as async work takes over, but it will take time and some sync work will always be needed
As always, your articles are incredibly well-written, enlightening and inspiring (your covid articles were amazing, insightful and incredibly important). However, as a knowledge worker at a successful, wonderful tech company which has been all remote during the pandemic, I think you are exaggerating the problems of working at the office and underestimating the benefits of hybrid work. Like most people, I enjoyed the benefits that WFH gave me (such as more time with family and more freedom), but I also feel lonely and bored at home over Zoom. My general happyness has increased significantly after I started coming in to the office one or two days a week and many of my coworkers seem to feel the same way. Some away time from my wife (also WFH) and social interaction with other people during the days makes our time together better. I don't buy your theory that people will just have more time to connect to friends and networks of their choice instead -- establishing new close connections is not so easy in adulthood unless (sometimes) you're young and don't have family, activities to drive your kids to and all sorts of other chores occupying the rest of your non-work time. For many people, their only time to socialize outside of weekends is through work.
I think you're right.
I'm not sure I disagree though? I'm saying 10%-25% of work will be remote, and then some more in the future. I'm not claiming it's going to be 90%, 70%, or even 50%.
The majority will still be hybrid, at least in the foreseeable future.
Thank you for this fascinating and in depth piece Tomas! One angle that's missing from the home office / remote work discourse is its macro political effects.
I tried to its effect on geopolitics here: https://shiftprint.writeas.com/the-geopolitical-implications-of-home-office
What do you think is the future of network states?
Nevermind, just read your article (interesting. I subscribed!) and confirmed that's what you meant
Thank you for the kind words! and for subscribing! :)
(just checking if the double opt int/email confirmation went through - been receiving a lot of complaints and am confirming if the subscription is active
Huge topic! I'll start touching on it soon.
What definition are you using? The Balaji / Sovereign Individual concept about alternatives to nation-states that are born in the cloud and around ppl's interests and commonalities?
Yep :) in addition also interesting to look at Liberland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberland) with the lens of the current world
I didn't know about it. Very interesting. Sounds like it, and some others, could be a breakthrough in networked states. Sounds like it's missing leadership though.
Hasn’t Sun Microsystems been acquired by Oracle 10+ years ago?
Yes. Sun Microsystems implemented telework in 2007, two years before been acquired by Oracle.
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2022/01/15/will-remote-work-stick-after-the-pandemic
Article from the Economist regarding remote work after pandemic
I think you may be missing two things about Hybrid from an excellent article.
1: It does change WHERE you can live, just not as much as remote, for example a 2 hour commute is pallatable if its only once a week. There are many cities with a ring of expensive homes within a one hour commute, and a further ring that is significantly cheaper between 1 and 2 hours.
2: Hybrid office costs can also be lower, depending on the pattern; if people's office days are split over the week then hot-desks work, or if people are all coming in on the same day (as we've used in the past), then temporary crowding is acceptable for a day when most of it will be in meetings anyway.
I had a similar issue. We had 14 offices, and the only one that mattered was the central one.
The key is leadership. For a company to be remote, the leadership has to be remote. That's why companies like Quora or Coinbase, even if they have a lot of leadership in the Bay Area, went to Remote First.