Unlimited with a minimum use of 3-4 weeks.
Principal Financial-Remote work
- Thread starter pfgemployee
- Start date
Unlimited with a minimum use of 3-4 weeks.
Haven't read the whole thread, but new studies are showing WFH is lower productivity than in office, in contrast to the initial studies that suggested it was better to wfh. That's part of what is driving these changes.
Also, I think it depends A TON on the nature of the job. If you are doing individual project work vs constant working in a group. Aslo depends on communication complexity required. If you have simple and clean handoffs, wfh is easier. More nuanced stuff is harder.
The other factor that's important is company cohesion. If you have half your jobs wfh, but the other half must come in, it can definitely seem unfair that some people have to come in and others don't. Even if it makes sense (e.g. warehouse workers vs accountants) it can still cause a lot of challenges to be fair to everyone.
All that said, if you got hired for 100% wfh, and they are changing the rules... either vote with your feet, or ask for a raise and/or more PTO to make up for the increased time and commute cost. If they want to change the rules, then you can try to change them too.
Also, I think it depends A TON on the nature of the job. If you are doing individual project work vs constant working in a group. Aslo depends on communication complexity required. If you have simple and clean handoffs, wfh is easier. More nuanced stuff is harder.
The other factor that's important is company cohesion. If you have half your jobs wfh, but the other half must come in, it can definitely seem unfair that some people have to come in and others don't. Even if it makes sense (e.g. warehouse workers vs accountants) it can still cause a lot of challenges to be fair to everyone.
All that said, if you got hired for 100% wfh, and they are changing the rules... either vote with your feet, or ask for a raise and/or more PTO to make up for the increased time and commute cost. If they want to change the rules, then you can try to change them too.
If it's just a handful of otherwise poorly performing employees, sure. If it was widescale behavior?
In that case I actually wouldn't. I think this is a great example of a failed RTO where you are now into micromanaging behaviors. What was the goal of the RTO? What problem was it meant to solve? How was it rolled out? How were people leaders brought in to see this as a positive for their teams? What input and feedback was solicited from people leaders and individual contributors so as to get their buy in, incorporate their needs, and address their concerns?
All of those questions are valuable, IFFFFFF there are truly good business reasons for it.
If the business reasons are to have a soft workforce reduction or to have the big boys get the egos massaged they can’t communicate that. So that’s why it’s all wishy washy platitudes when they roll these programs out.
And a LOT of research has shown for years now that a 32 hr workweek is better than 40. Don't see companies rushing to implement that one though.
I also think purely looking at productivity is flawed (also haven't seen many trustworthy studies on this.) What is the overall impact to your recruitment and retention as well. It's expensive to hire and train people.
Some studies but other new studies show WFH to be more productive. Of course, CEOs and managers are going to only focus on the studies that show WFH is less productive when promoting a return to the office. I question the methodologies used to measure productivity in some of these newer studies when all previous studies and other new studies all show an increase in productivity.
Have they communicated with their managers on what expectations are for RTO? I would assume it’s not show up at the door and swipe in and out and never enter the building.
Should be on managers to communicate that down. What I typically see though is this coming from the very top, mandated down the line, managers given little info, training, or support for the rollout. And even worse the whole "it's up to each team to decide how to implement" again, no guidance for the manager. Which immediately leads to frustration, disengagement, and inconsistency across the company.
I think someone earlier in the thread hit the nail on the head. It all depends on what you call productive. If you want to argue that people in general can meet their goals at home just as easy as in an office I agree. If you're arguing it's just as easy for people in general to exceed their goals from home as it is in an office I disagree.
For example, if you were working on a project that took 5 hours and that was your only goal for the day. At home, are most people really going to spend another 1-3 hours working on a second project? However, at an office, even if you screwed around on CF for an hour, chatted with your office mates about a tv show for an hour, most people would do some more work if for nothing else than to pass the time.
I always wonder what these productivity measurements are in some of these studies too. And how big of a hit in productivity? How do you know it's because of WFH? Things change in business all the time. Maybe other factors attributed to that change.
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
Seems like the other obvious and necessary question would involve who funds/conducts these studies.
What's the cost benefit analysis to some of these studies claiming loss of productivity in WFH? A company can save a ton of money eliminating overhead from maintaining office space. I'm guessing in most cases way more than the estimated cost in lost productivity.
But if you're an executive, you want that big building. It's your work penis!
Not to mention retaining talent. Hiring and training new people because someone left due to changes in company policy costs a lot of money and productivity
Ah, but the problem is they are often locked into these leases long term so they are looking to make use of a sunk cost.
I would think it would be a pretty complicated study to undertake. If you lose a customer and that creates less work that changes your study. If you gain a customer and that creates more work that changes your study. If you lose/gain a team member, change software, etc.
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
For a legitimate study, sure. Instinct tells me that some of these are not legit nor are they intended to be.
You can look at overall trends - company performance, turnover - do qualitative work on engagement surveys, exit interviews, glassdoor reviews,
