One of the primary reasons that remote work improves productivity is that it allows employees to tailor their environment to their needs, rather than be forced into a hostile office space that requires kafkaesque bureaucratic bullshit to make even minor changes.
I once had a former employer force me to take an espresso machine home that I had brought to work because it created a situation where a different shift was coming to our teams area to use it when we weren’t there and they were concerned by the liability. Very non-specific concerns, I might add. So rather than ensure teams had access to real coffee they banned employees having their own coffee equipment so we can all commiserate together over the bottom dollar filth in the break room.
This is the type of basic shit most companies can’t get right, much less the far more complicated challenges involved in creating positive team dynamics.
I have no faith that any sufficiently large company can make an inviting office environment, and this is a major reason why I am a staunch remote work advocate.
I think this is correct. It's why, before the pandemic normalized remote work, offices were popular.
What's disheartening is that a lot of "return to office" plans I've heard of from friends involve conditions even worse than what was there before. For example, hot-desking replacing the previous (also terrible) open office.
I'm too young to have lived through the golden age of engineers actually having an office to work in. But my best experience (besides WFH) was at my first job out of school, in a cube farm - at least you had a little bit of privacy and space to put your stuff. Every office trend since then has been for the worse.
I am old enough to remember when cubicles and offices were the norm. Cubicle companies studied and improved the cubicles spaces to make them more efficient using science. Yes they actually studied what would make us happier and more proficient at work.
Then came the stupid trend of organic seating. Cubicle’s ? Thing of the past they said, yet our productivity suffered. Great for sprints but quickly diminished due to constant distractions forcing engineers to invest in noise canceling headphones.
The WFH movement is because water flows downhill. We learned that we made the office an incredibly inefficient place to work, because we didn’t follow the science and threw away decades of research because of a new ‘fad’ that the CEO’s liked. Too bad CEO’s, I have been WFH ever since corporate America thought organic seating was cool.
I will never go back, in fact us programmers should unite and unionize to solidify this benefit before they try and take this away for good and make our jobs more difficult.
Re: "'fad' that CEO's liked."
My previous CEO: "We all have to be in an open office every day to enhance productivity."
Also my previous CEO: "I'll be working from my house in the Hamptons during July and August." :-)
> Yes they actually studied what would make us happier and more proficient at work.
And they utterly failed.
But I'm willing to put up with cubes for the right job. There is no job that would be worth putting up with an open office layout or, worse, hot-desking.
I would think that if companies want people back in the office so badly, they would be willing to do something to make working in the office pleasant and productive. But I guess that's not how they think.
I keep saying—if you want me to return to the office, give me an office. Or even a cubicle. Why even enforce a hot-desking setup when the space is 20% full? It makes no sense at all!
For all the memes about cubicles the one time I had it was actually pleasant. You could have a small meeting in the cubicle. The walls were tall enough to hang up reference diagrams. Those same walls meant that sound didn't travel when your PM was on yet another call. Not being able to see a window was a downside. As was there oppressive grey-beige monotony, but I imagine with the Google colour palette they'd be much more bearable.
Here, however, I can make more working remotely than I can in office for one of the few local companies. I mean it's an obvious choice.
The walls have another benefit: they act like noise canceling headphones for your eyes.
That’s one of the issues I have with open floor plan offices: people buzzing around in my peripheral vision can be incredibly distracting and detrimental to productivity depending on the day and my mental state, and there’s almost nothing that can be done to mitigate that.
In the same vein, I also find it distracting to have people sitting or walking behind me–like my brain tries to maintain some awareness of them, which in turn makes me cognizant that people can see my screen, which itself is kind of distracting.
In an open office this is largely a no-win situation as well: if you get a position with your back to the wall, you see people milling about everywhere, and if you face a wall, the whole office sees your screen.
Yeah I get that hair raising on the back of my neck feeling when I'm trying to focus and there's a constant train of people moving behind me, its really unbearable.
> That’s one of the issues I have with open floor plan offices: people buzzing around in my peripheral vision can be incredibly distracting and detrimental to productivity depending on the day and my mental state, and there’s almost nothing that can be done to mitigate that.
Don't worry, the office-lords have solved that! You can book a focus room for no more than 60 minutes when you need to focus. PROBLEM SOLVED!!!! /s
People who complained about cubicles were probably mourning the loss of an enclosed office (which I imagine is far superior). As we are learning, it can always get worse, and what was once bad is now good by comparison to what we're getting now.
The funny thing is that way back in the beforetimes (about the 1940s, I think), regular office workers were typically in an open office layout. When cubicles were invented, office workers absolutely loved them because they mitigated a lot of the horrors of an open office layout.
A coworker took one of his scenic photos from a weekend trip and printed it out in quadrants. This was done as a cheap way of enlarging the print, but it also gave the sense of looking out a four pane window. It was later upgraded to have an actual frame to complete the look. He was the only one to have a window in his cubicle.
> Those same walls meant that sound didn't travel when your PM was on yet another call.
In about 20 years of cubicle work, that was never my experience. It might be better than open plan for that (never had to suffer through that outside of exceedingly small offices, up to ~5 total people in a bullpen), but sound from calls in a cubicle environment (especially one shared with non-technical-IC staff) can be pretty bad.
There's various sound absorbing partitions one can buy online that seem kind of neat. But many seem to start at $1000, which suuucckkkss. I wonder what the bulk rate is for material like recycled pet. Not that I have any idea how to turn it into a soft-ish adjustable sound absorbing wall...
From that picture[1] they look _tiny_! My cubicle was at least 30 sqft. Had an extra chair for a coworker to sit down during a consult and could hold upto to 4 people standing. It was a small office, not a phonebooth.
My previous office was like that. The individual offices were around the exterior wall. The cubes were in the interior. Only managers got to see daylight. It was fucking depressing.
Wife's previous office was better. Offices were around the interior, so cubes go light from the windows. Those offices had windows, so they too could get some natural light during the day.
Current office is open plan, which is kinda dumb. Seating chart has me and another middle manager next to each other. Of the people who come in regularly (no forced RTO), we're the most frequently there AND the most frequently on calls. Le Sigh.
Executive offices (and the attendant parking spots) that are occupied maybe 15% of the time are a huge peeve for me, a lowly bullpen resident.
Especially if we constantly have little break-off meetings or get togethers in the otherwise unoccupied office for sensitive things that we don't want overheard by the gossip mill. Maybe just give the office to someone who is 1) always here and 2) needs the space?
That was one thing my employer got right when they built out the current HQ. Lots of small huddle rooms and conference rooms. Anything with <5 seats doesn’t require a reservation. Anything with 5+ needs a reservation, but there are enough that they’re easily found (even pre-COVID).
The CEO and CFO still have real offices. But the other C-suite are open plan (sort of, different walls and a couple of C-only conference rooms).
As far as open office goes, it’s probably as good as it gets. I don’t love it but I don’t hate it. I could stay home, but go in 3x week.
It makes sense if your employer views your position as commodity, like a warehouse worker. "Here is your labor area we carved out for you to do your commoditized work units, one size fits all". The same reason JIRA is popular with management. Gives them visibility and "metrics" to improve. A less-charitable interpretation of hot-desking is that it's a constant reminder that your job is not secure, and that new people can come and replace you instantly, vs your own personal place in a cubicle or private office signals some amount of commitment that you have "your spot" at the company.
My personal beef that resulted in an email exchange was RTO preceded by an email saying we gotta hotdesk, because we don't have enough space for everyone. I just questioned whether it is a good idea to call people back into the office if you don't have space for them.
It was not received well. But it is not about logic.
> I keep saying—if you want me to return to the office, give me an office. Or even a cubicle. Why even enforce a hot-desking setup when the space is 20% full? It makes no sense at all!
Cynically, it makes layoffs a lot more opaque. When everyone gets to express their individuality by sitting in an identical, constantly-shifting workspace; you can't "walk by" someone's desk and notice it's cleaned out and their gone.
I don't think that's the main reason (the main reason is trying to cheap out on office rent and ape corporate fads), but it's probably a happy added perk for those who are pushing these things.
I'm lucky enough to work at a place that gives us actual offices. Some offices are larger with two desks (so some people share) but I have my own office. There's apparently some plan to improve our site and I'm really hoping they don't move us to an open plan or something.
The stupid idea is your value creation should come from internal/external prostitution works and radiating positive energies and importantly not from self playing on computers, because too much in software is measured subjectively and this mindset works for those that can game the system. This shouldn't go on forever, but kind of continue to spread until going against this trends becomes differentiation(and positive outlook in it is there's no way such trend is continuing, or perhaps even happening at at all at this point where random grumpy idiot like I am is rambling about it)
I loved my cube at my first job. We even had a biometric door that separated engineering from the rest of the company. Only engineers behind the door. Juniors and mid levels working in cubes. A few tenured engineers, the primary engineering manager, VP of engineering, and CTO working in offices. Only two meetings per week — all other time was head down programming and ad hoc discussions. The median volume of the room was silence.
I was in focus heaven and I didn’t even know it. Miss that job.
My last job had pinball machines in the breakroom. We also had folks coming over from the UK who thought those pinball machines were awesome. The pinball got taken away because it was seen as “unfair” to all the offices that didn’t have something like that.
It's not just companies. I've seen lots of people say why do they get X? rather than how can we get X?
As an example, Pinball and arcade games are often very easy to source. Where I've seen them at my workplace, they were brought in and maintained by employees. Some space needs to be allocated, and maybe needs a bit of electrical work if a high density arcade forms, but otherwise... May be different if there's no collectors in the employee base, or in countries where machines are scarce.
Yeah, the "if I can't have X you shouldn't have it either" mentality. These people are a joy to be around, they get a twisted sense of satisfaction when they manage to get X removed. I'm like, go get some therapy for that.
I mean, If I can't have it, you shouldn't have it is kind of ok-ish; but it's when they skip trying to get X and just short circuit to you have X and I don't, let's get rid of your X that bothers me.
Yup, “in order to align with global standards” has become a meme where I work, because the phrase always preceeds “we are removing one of our location-specific perks” ;(
> remote work [...] allows employees to tailor their environment to their needs, rather than be forced into a hostile office space
Some office spaces being bad doesn't imply we should get rid of office spaces overall.
If the company you're working for is so crazy on its office requirements, it could be as crazy with its remote work requirements.
Seems like this is a company specific issue, not an office vs remote issue.
Seems like you've been at a fair share of bad companies, but that's doesn't generalize to a broader picture of all office spaces.
I would oppose you _my_ office experience (which ofc doesn't generalize either), which is overwhelmingly positive. Yet I won't argue that because my experience is good, everyone should feel the same.
There are lots of reasons why offices tend towards bad rather than good. If I sat and thought about it I could probably list a dozen systematic biases towards crappy office spaces. Here are just a few off the top of my head:
- Open-plan offices, hot-desking, and other negative patterns are more cost-effective for a given amount of space.
- Cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all spaces are "easier" to manage from a personnel/HR point of view. Less griping about who gets the "good office," as there is no good office. No need to think about differences between people, we can just treat them as fungible "human resources."
- Similar race to the bottom regarding amenities (coffee, break rooms, etc.). Just look in the other comments of this thread. It's easier to target the least common denominator than provide personalized/individualized benefits in a manner that's fair to everyone.
- Insecure, distrusting managers promote bad office spaces like open plans, hot desking, etc. in order to better micro-manage their teams. Good managers can push back, but in practice the bad managers tend to be the squeaky wheels and get the grease.
I've worked for 10 different companies so far in my career. All but one I would consider a good company. But of those nine "good" companies, I have had one good office space. That's why I've been remote for the last 6 years. For me personally it was either go remote or leave the industry. I'm never making a open-plan or even cube-farm layout my primary working space again.
This isn't restricted to "offices." It's also why it's difficult to live with other people and housemates often end up in conflict. The more people you need to share a space with, the more contention each shared resource gets, and fewer individuals get what they actually want when they want it most of the time. There's tradeoffs to make, of course. We have societies and communities precisely because groups tend to accomplish more than individuals thanks to specialization and division of labor, but there's a reason humans tend to live in roughly family-sized units when given the choice, not open dorms with hundreds of other people.
Says anyone who has spent more than a decade in the workforce.
> There's no more reason for an office space to be bad rather than good. And there's no reason to think that having a good one is based on luck.
By “no reason”, you mean no logical reason. That might be true. Unfortunately a crafted reality controlled by sociopaths isn’t required to be logically consistent at every layer. Hence our current reality, where this is very much a case of luck.
> If office space dynamics and setup are important to you, then put it in your job search mental list and find a job that matches that.
Thanks for the advice. That’s /exactly/ what all the folks working remotely have done. That’s also why we are agitated by shitty management trying to take it away.
Yea I can’t help but realize after my career in offices then seeing mass wfh, the sociopath layer depended deeply on a perceived panopticon of working in the office. The panopticon was a negative motivator for workers, but also a common experience that standardized the culture and expectations.
WFH was like setting rats in a maze to free range and noticing they can be more productive but at the expense of common purpose. This brings a new dimension to the notion of “productive” that the sociopath layer is uncomfortable with. I think because it implies workforce instability.
Even Google, a company that purported to be about worker freedom to harvest productivity if top workers, has retreated to this position.
It’s a bit shocking to me still nearly 4 years later.
> Even Google, a company that purported to be about worker freedom to harvest productivity if top workers, has retreated to this position.
If you take the approach of "watch what they do, not what they say", Google is one of the clearest examples of pro-RTO: they invest in so many perks because they want to make the panopticon feel comfy.
There are other companies that don't give you a darn thing and just dangle the loss of one's job as a threat (Amazon), but I think top performers are more swayed by the "free food" approach than the "let's have a big public dashboard with the entire team's attendance" approach (again, Amazon).
> Says anyone who has spent more than a decade in the workforce.
Well, no. I have worked almost double that, and I don't feel that way.
I tend to think there is mainly an echo chamber of somewhat entitled young north americans incorrectly correlating high compensation in a decade long hyped industry (tech) with social status.
> a crafted reality controlled by sociopaths
Well if that is your definition of reality, maybe you should consider whether you could be part of your issue with office spaces...
> shitty management trying to take it away
Definitely, that kind of remark reinforces my opinion that you should reflect on whether your look at the situation is biased.
Anecdotally, I am aware of people who seem to truly believe that. I used to think it is a question of age, but even that quickly got corrected as from within my professional circle there was no clear way to determine a good predictor for office/no office preference. It seems oddly almost evenly split, which seems very weird to me.
That said, the 'entitled young Americans' thing appears to be a common talking point I see on linkedin and other corporate safe spaces.
"Have you considered the increased opportunities for synergies in the office? We should punt on this until next quarter's all hands when we can utilize our increased office presence to actualize our OKRs."
Why can't you store it at your desk? My biggest pet peeve in the office was the people storing personal items in the kitchen. I don't need to see your machine with (don't use) stickies on it or the random assortment of blender bases. I also don't need to see your dirty tupperware in the sink.
To be clear, it was not just for my personal use. I brought it in at the request of my team and it was available for anyone to use. The team had a collection jar and we all pitched in for maintenance and supplies, just like we did with our team’s foosball table (also later removed by management for poorly specified reasons).
I've been remote working since 2000 but as an EE I agree with your employer: they have a duty to remove unauthorized electrical appliances from their premises since they present a fire risk. In addition an espresso machine obviously presents a risk of injury and associated lawsuits from numbskulls who don't know how to use it.
My office requires equipment to be tested by a recognized laboratory (UL/ETL/etc). Fire safety requirements are reasonable and easy to satisfy. What you describe is nonspecific reactionary FUD.
At one recent gig, everything was fun until the company got big enough to need an HR scold. Ugh. We were told that a ping pong table was forbidden because of "health and safety issues". Needless to say, I left soon after.
The espresso machine bit makes sense. Espresso machines need constant cleaning and maintenance, which are ongoing costs in addition to the potential liability concerns from someone getting injured using the machine.
That's certainly an argument but it's just one bullet point in a supportive 5 paragraph essay. How many employees actually have better equipment and spaces at home? Is your espresso machine improving your productivity, or is it a hobby to fiddle with throughout the day? What other distractions are at home that aren't at the office?
I've never liked the framing of RTO vs WFH in terms of distractions because 1) every setup is so unique and 2) one person's "distraction" is another person's motivation/recharge strategy. For me, personally, things at my home like my dog and good coffee can keep me working for 10-12 hours easily, racking up unpaid overtime for my company. My office by comparison is a depressing space and I am motivated to put in the bare minimum time there so I can go home and log back in and actually get things done. Of course on the other hand are people who find the office campus fun and engaging and they hate their home life because of kids or no real office at home. I don't think distractions can be framed in any meaningful way due to these variances. My work slack is full of wars between the WFH faction and the RTO faction, seemingly split 50/50.
Imagine referring to good coffee, the substance that built modern America and industrialized the world, as a “distraction” and arguing that it doesn’t improve productivity. Can you imagine?
> Is your espresso machine improving your productivity, or is it a hobby to fiddle with throughout the day? What other distractions are at home that aren't at the office?
Let me respond fully to your comment. Full disclosure: remote for 8y, on the same and different tz. in office for 5y,
The espresso makes most people more productive. Absolutely.
If not the espresso, some other thing one might enjoy degusting daily.
For the espresso case. Your office is likely too far for one sitting at his desk to suddenly head over 20 mins a few blocks away to appreciate a delicious sip for 5 minutes. What if on Thursday what I really need is a delicous espresso but in total peace with nobody interrupting that moment between me and my cup?
Maybe I'm going too far with what espresso might mean to people but
Your office shaping the way I want to live my life without a doubt is going way too far.
It makes me far less productive to have to adapt my life to the office schedule, location, and the many uncontrollable distractions taking place throughout the day.
It's on me to make my work environment most productive and if I'm unable to do that then just fire me.
You will likely object, so let me introduce to you, Bud, the pug. See Bud needs to go out for a walk even more than I do. I love my dog so I take him out 4 times each day.
It makes me less productive to have to run at 5pm everyday to take the dog out the least late I possibly can. I have to stop whatever I'm doing and get back into the zone.
It also makes me less productive to go home at 5 o'clock.
See, I don't have much respect for people requiring butts on seats to appease their own insecurities. You can be damn sure that I won't give them a minute of my time unless I have to.
Also, I'm best to do work from morning to midnight in bursts. I gladly do extra hours that way, because: productivity.
I could go on and on, air is to dry as office buildings would not consider people's health unless illegal if they can save a few hundred bucks on the monthly energy bill. Lights are too blue/white/cold they hurt my eyes after a couple of hours.
All that being said, it depends on the job, for most jobs my arguments would stand the productivity tests with everyone once they've adapted to remote settings. Wouldn't apply to members of a music band, circus jugglers working in duo, dolphin trainers, nor salsa dancers. People who do these jobs are more productive on site, and the reason they never complain like me and my kind do is simple: they don't actually work in an office.
where I used to work, the micro kitchens all had their own foodservice licenses, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they’d balked at employees bringing their own equipment
small companies don’t give a shit about stuff like that ime
I once had a former employer force me to take an espresso machine home that I had brought to work because it created a situation where a different shift was coming to our teams area to use it when we weren’t there and they were concerned by the liability. Very non-specific concerns, I might add. So rather than ensure teams had access to real coffee they banned employees having their own coffee equipment so we can all commiserate together over the bottom dollar filth in the break room.
This is the type of basic shit most companies can’t get right, much less the far more complicated challenges involved in creating positive team dynamics.
I have no faith that any sufficiently large company can make an inviting office environment, and this is a major reason why I am a staunch remote work advocate.