[comfortablynumb]

Read this interesting article on LinkedIn today:

https://fortune-com.cdn.ampproject.o...to-office/amp/

[Captain Slow]

Originally Posted by comfortablynumb

Read this interesting article on LinkedIn today:

https://fortune-com.cdn.ampproject.o...to-office/amp/

Well, it's his company and his employees, that's the way it is. As people have pointed out before, what works for him won't work for everyone. In my company, we've implemented a 100% work-from-OFFICE policy for all our branches globally. Unless you're sick or dealing with an emergency, working from home is not an option.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: working from home cannot, and will not, be suitable for everyone. It's simply not feasible for every situation.

If it works for you and your company, that's fantastic—embrace it, enjoy it. But if it doesn't, then that's unfortunate. Different approaches work for different people and organizations.

[am1m]

Originally Posted by Captain Slow

In my company, we've implemented a 100% work-from-OFFICE policy for all our branches globally. Unless you're sick or dealing with an emergency, working from home is not an option.

Just curious, is it an IT company, or non-IT? (Not asking for the name of the company of course, just curious about the nature of work done.)

[RMN]

Originally Posted by comfortablynumb

Read this interesting article on LinkedIn today:

https://fortune-com.cdn.ampproject.o...to-office/amp/

I think the effects of total WFH can only be judged 5 to 10 years from now. Everyone can make big statements now but we can only wait and see how things turn out.

There is a difference between when we all started working from homes while we had already met everyone we worked with and had a rapport with them vs 5 years down the lane when all of them have been swapped out. Also, young folks who wouldn't have probably worked within a professional environment.

[am1m]

Originally Posted by RMN

There is a difference between when we all started working from homes while we had already met everyone we worked with and had a rapport with them...

In a lot of IT companies, if you work with a US team and have a US-based manager, you would quite possibly never have met any of them, even pre-covid, pre-WFH.

Even back when we were using desktops and there was no chance of remote work, I've worked for companies where I never physically met my manager or some US-based team members. Work got done, somehow.

[RMN]

Originally Posted by am1m

In a lot of IT companies, if you work with a US team and have a US-based manager, you would quite possibly never have met any of them, even pre-covid, pre-WFH.

Even back when we were using desktops and there was no chance of remote work, I've worked for companies where I never physically met my manager or some US-based team members. Work got done, somehow.

Yep, I know that. But working remotely with a manager and a whole team are different. Also, we cant really compare cases where organizations have mostly been WFH vs the rest (which is the majority) since the individual scenarios are very different. Hence, I think we can only get a clearer picture when the traditional WFO organizations have gone mostly WFH for at least 5 years or more.

[am1m]

Originally Posted by RMN

...I think we can only get a clearer picture when the traditional WFO organizations have gone mostly WFH for at least 5 years or more.

Agreed. But the point I'm trying to make is even in those traditional WFO orgs, there has always been the element of remote work, if they were working with US or Europe-based teams/clients (which I think a majority of IT companies did/still do). There was always a high-level of interaction/dependency between teams situated across time-zones and thousands of km.

There are certainly several reasons to not go remote for an IT org- even "the company simply doesn't want to" is fair enough. But 'not being able to build rapport without being able to meet physically' doesn't seem to be a valid one. Somehow we managed even with primitive chat/video tools/IP phones as far back as 2004, in my personal experience, and till as recently as 2011 (the last job where I used a desktop). It's a lot easier now to collaborate without being in the same room.

[d.w.w.]

Originally Posted by am1m

very often the best programmer/performer on the team becomes the manager.

Small correction; its should be 'is forced to' instead of 'becomes' . While in TCS we had a team lead who was technically sound and was doing well. One fine day the PM walked to him and announced - "don't touch code from now on. You have to get in to PM activities, so work with me on management stuff". This guy silently agreed and went on to become one of the worst managers I have ever seen. I have seen people from other teams also forced into management once they cross a certain level of experience.

Originally Posted by am1m

Second is the services model that really doesn't require much creative or strategic input from the team in India, but just needs a team to efficiently follow whatever the US team designs or architects, at scale.

This is not true, at least from my experience. I worked mostly offshore, but I had the chance to build/provide creative solutions, but there is catch. The guy sitting at onshore is like a wrapper of the offshore team, he represents the team before the larger group/senior management. In many cases this guy claims the credit of the solution, so when people looks at it, it looks like the onshore guy solved the problem and the offshore team just implemented it.

Coming back to the topic, there is one major reason why companies are pushing WFO - irresponsible behavior from a bunch of entry level employees. These set of individuals work whenever they feel like, but when you are in a team and someone else is dependent on your presence to continue their work, this attitude becomes a problem. The easiest way for managers to solve this - force everyone to come back to office.

[am1m]

Originally Posted by d.w.w.

Small correction; its should be 'is forced to' instead of 'becomes'

Agreed, this happens in a few cases. But far more cases where employees think they 'have' to be a 'manager/team-lead' after 'x' years of tech experience. Often, they jump companies just to get that title. So the present company either promotes them, or they go on to be bad managers at the next company. This trend is slowly changing, where companies are putting career-paths in place where people can remain technical/individual-contributors and they are respected as high-performing individuals in their domain. But by and large, the coveted 'manager' tag still remains desirable, even without the people/soft skills to back it up.

Originally Posted by d.w.w.

I worked mostly offshore, but I had the chance to build/provide creative solutions

No doubt the local teams get the chance to contribute and create stuff. And this is also changing in smaller startups/product companies, especially those that cater to Indian clients. But overall, the India office acting as the offshore office of the parent US company (and for predominantly US clients) still prevails and major strategic and product architectural decisions are made there, not here.

Originally Posted by RMN

...who are experienced and skilled than with junior employees who are either freshers or people still finding their way.

Originally Posted by d.w.w.

- irresponsible behavior from a bunch of entry level employees.

I dunno guys, I've seen irresponsible behavior from all levels of employees, not just junior ones. And as far as being comfortable and adapting to remote work, I think the more digitally-native younger folk get there quicker than someone with decades of experience.

If the irresponsible behavior, shirking work and not meeting work goals is across the board, then there is something wrong with the hiring process. If it's just a few errant employees (and I suspect that is the real case), better to take action in those cases, right?

But agreed, the knee-jerk reaction of most companies is to just 'ban it'. (Which when you think about, it is the same course of (re-)action the government takes in several cases...and which we private employees love to complain about! )

Originally Posted by Samurai

Young or entry level employees don't usually have the discipline or even the home environment where they can fully focus on the work.

Will agree about the lack of a work space at home, since a lot of them are just starting their careers and staying at PGs or shared spaces. In fact, that is why most of the younger employees I've worked with prefer to go in to the office, also to have some sort of social life there. But disagree about the lacking discipline bit. I've found most of them being far more ready to stretch and take up anything new. We've had issues mainly with more senior employees who are more set in their ways of working/thinking.

[RMN]

Originally Posted by am1m

But 'not being able to build rapport without being able to meet physically' doesn't seem to be a valid one. Somehow we managed even with primitive chat/video tools/IP phones as far back as 2004

I'd say there is a huge difference between building a rapport or collaborate successfully with an offshore team or client who are experienced and skilled than with junior employees who are either freshers or people still finding their way. Hence, I say it will take time to judge all these scenarios.

This is coming from someone who has experience on both fronts and who personally prefers WFH. But I do realize that WFH just isn't applicable for everyone.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by d.w.w.

One fine day the PM walked to him and announced - "don't touch code from now on. You have to get in to PM activities, so work with me on management stuff".

I was told the same in HP in 1996 by the top boss (3 level above), I ignored it and continued to do programming. And all the bosses including the top boss ignored that I ignored that directive. They decided to focus on the results instead of how I was doing it. But if you have an egotistic boss, it can turn sour.

Originally Posted by d.w.w.

Coming back to the topic, there is one major reason why companies are pushing WFO - irresponsible behavior from a bunch of entry level employees. These set of individuals work whenever they feel like, but when you are in a team and someone else is dependent on your presence to continue their work, this attitude becomes a problem. The easiest way for managers to solve this - force everyone to come back to office.

I agree. Young or entry level employees don't usually have the discipline or even the home environment where they can fully focus on the work. This becomes a big problem.

[kiku007]

Originally Posted by Captain Slow

Well, it's his company and his employees, that's the way it is. As people have pointed out before, what works for him won't work for everyone. In my company, we've implemented a 100% work-from-OFFICE policy for all our branches globally. Unless you're sick or dealing with an emergency, working from home is not an option.

This my friend is the fundamental difference in work culture between India and the west. Why does your company NEED the employee to WORK from home when they are sick or dealing with an emergency?

If sick, take leave.
If there's an emergency, deal with the emergency.

I heard that one Team Lead in an Indian company mandated his team members to send a picture if they are unwell and need to WFH. Picture of what? Throwing up in the bathroom or lying down in the bed? The things people do to justify their roles.

[d.w.w.]

We are going off topic, but let me explain

Originally Posted by am1m

But far more cases where employees think they 'have' to be a 'manager/team-lead' after 'x' years of tech experience.

One of the root cause of this is the famous interview question - "Where do you see yourself in X years". So when you are in that x years experience level and don't have that fancy tag under your name people think you have a problem. (including HR) When I was 5yr experienced in the industry I attended an interview for a WITCH company, I cleared the tech round, but was rejected in HR round just because I didn't had the Tech Lead title.

The other reason is there is no qualification needed to be a manager. Just look at the Job description (JD) coming for a manager v/s architect. The manager JD will says x years of experience managing people but the architect JD comes with a long list of technical expertise. Anyone with an experience of 3+years will have a team under them so the requirements for a manager is easily met, so people take that path for easy career progression. Very often people are ready to relax requirements for a manager because he is not the one who does the real job.

Originally Posted by am1m

But overall, the India office acting as the offshore office of the parent US company (and for predominantly US clients) still prevails and major strategic and product architectural decisions are made there, not here.

The reason being the work is driven by business and business folks work onshore. So when the discussions happen, the onshore tech guy on the meeting has to provide the solution to business and the team end up implementing it. Service companies often push this role to onshore claiming this is how the onshore-offshore model works. This equation changes when the client knows your worth - the calls gets pushed early just to make sure the offshore guy is attending it!

Originally Posted by am1m

I think the more digitally-native younger folk get there quicker than someone with decades of experience.

There is a difference between getting there and getting there the right way. Let me give you an example. My client has a project which is being implemented by one of the WITCH companies. The company deployed a bunch of freshers/ relatively low experienced folks to cut down costs. My job is to review their work and make sure it is meeting the standards set by our client. The technology is relatively new to me, so the other folks are much quicker at coding. But during reviews what I have found is that most of these folks does the work in a way it is not supposed to be done. Their code works and produces the exact same output that is required, but when you look for the standards/best practices/reusability etc they all go for a toss. In service companies, many projects wont go through client tech reviews and the only thing the client verifies is whether the application works or not. So in such situations the younger folks appear to be quicker and cost-effective but in the long run it becomes hard to manage and maintain the application. When working with clients who are strict about the quality of code being produced, the theory falls apart like a house of cards.

Originally Posted by kiku007

Why does your company NEED the employee to WORK from home when they are sick or dealing with an emergency?

Simple. MONEY. the company gets paid only if you work; the more hours you work, the project generates more revenue, the more revenue a project make, the more incentive the manager gets. So if your manager is more concerned about the revenue, you are expected to work even if you are on death bed.

[VWAllstar]

Originally Posted by kiku007

If sick, take leave.
If there's an emergency, deal with the emergency.

I heard that one Team Lead in an Indian company mandated his team members to send a picture if they are unwell and need to WFH. Picture of what? Throwing up in the bathroom or lying down in the bed? The things people do to justify their roles.

So rightly put. Sick leave is now taken as work from home. I still don't understand why companies especially IT companies want their employees to work from office. They save so much of cost (electricity, infrastructure related etc) with more productivity and higher job satisfaction.

Imagine one calling in sick due to a bad stomach. What kind of picture would justify the employee indeed has an upset tummy?

[m8002?]

Here is a NPR podcast on WFH vs WFO. Its a 9 minutes one.

https://www.npr.org/2023/08/01/11913...when-it-doesnt

At the beginning of the pandemic, many economists thought yes, people can be just as productive from home. Wouldn't it have been nice if they'd just stopped there?

Well, they didn't. And new evidence suggests working from home, at least full-time, may not be as productive as we once thought.

This is backed up by some research/surveys in US and UK. They infact cover some of the similar points discussed here : Availability for ad-hoc discussions, Git PR reviews, training juniors, etc.