[am1m]

Originally Posted by d.w.w.

We are going off topic, but let me explain

Thanks d.w.w., must say it's been a real pleasure discussing so many points with you, so different from the usual 'WFH vs. WFO' 'one or the other' route that this thread sometimes goes in to. Am learning a lot from your posts.

[SoumenD]

Originally Posted by VWAllstar

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.

I don’t think the decision is entirely only by firms, rather some higher influence is at play here. I mean politicians and governments. A lot of industries depend on these IT employees going to office (housekeeping, cab service, canteen vendors, autorickshaws, nearby chai tapriwalas even). And these are primary votebank as most comprise of local population unlike IT employees which comprise of a very mixed crowd a good chunk of whom not even eligible for voting in their work-city/state.

Not to forget how much politician monies involved in IT parks.

So I somehow feel this entire pressure of RTO is not just companies suddenly realizing the advantages of WFO. It’s got to do with some external pressure as well. I might be wrong but I don’t seem to fathom why else will companies who were making bumper profits in 2020/21 WFH era, suddenly decide to increase costs by calling people to office regularly

[VWAllstar]

Originally Posted by SoumenD

I don’t think the decision is entirely only by firms, rather some higher influence is at play here. I mean politicians and governments. A lot of industries depend on these IT employees going to office (housekeeping, cab service, canteen vendors, autorickshaws, nearby chai tapriwalas even). And these are primary votebank as most comprise of local population unlike IT employees which comprise of a very mixed crowd a good chunk of whom not even eligible for voting in their work-city/state.

Not to forget how much politician monies involved in IT parks.

So I somehow feel this entire pressure of RTO is not just companies suddenly realizing the advantages of WFO. It’s got to do with some external pressure as well. I might be wrong but I don’t seem to fathom why else will companies who were making bumper profits in 2020/21 WFH era, suddenly decide to increase costs by calling people to office regularly

Quoting the entire reply as it really makes sense and gives a different perspective, which seems to be right. Never thought of this but now after reading your post, all those shared auto rickshaw from Station to the SEZs, chai-sutta thelawalas, the dal-rice lunch truck wallas, and many others come to mind. Most of the IT parks have local MLA money which is at risk if WFH garners interest among IT companies' Senior leadership. Post IT companies have started asking their employees to come to office twice a week, the profits have declined, share prices been stagnant or in a falling trend and the higher attrition. These days when I interview candidates, before they ask on the salary or job description, they wish to know if remote working is an option or not. Many female candidates outrightly reject the offer even if we are able to match their expected salary.

[Bhargav7]

Originally Posted by SoumenD

Not to forget how much politician monies involved in IT parks.

So I somehow feel this entire pressure of RTO is not just companies suddenly realizing the advantages of WFO. It’s got to do with some external pressure as well. I might be wrong but I don’t seem to fathom why else will companies who were making bumper profits in 2020/21 WFH era, suddenly decide to increase costs by calling people to office regularly

While we cannot rule out something in that angle, I highly doubt if that is the case! In general, the industry lobby is as strong as the politicians or government, if not more. All the political funds are from corporates, and in general, the companies would not make such a big decision for political pressure. Also to be observed that the trend of RTO is not just an Indian phenomenon. It is happening across the globe.

There is enough evidence, research, and historical data from the last three years to prove that WFH is less efficient than WFO. I guess the hybrid policies employed by some companies are only a bridge to let employees adapt back to offices, and will ultimately become a full-time WFO.

[m8002?]

Originally Posted by SoumenD

I don’t think the decision is entirely only by firms, rather some higher influence is at play here. I mean politicians and governments. A lot of industries depend on these IT employees going to office (housekeeping, cab service, canteen vendors, autorickshaws, nearby chai tapriwalas even). And these are primary votebank as most comprise of local population unlike IT employees which comprise of a very mixed crowd a good chunk of whom not even eligible for voting in their work-city/state.

Not to forget how much politician monies involved in IT parks.

So I somehow feel this entire pressure of RTO is not just companies suddenly realizing the advantages of WFO. It’s got to do with some external pressure as well. I might be wrong but I don’t seem to fathom why else will companies who were making bumper profits in 2020/21 WFH era, suddenly decide to increase costs by calling people to office regularly

This is bordering on some conspiracy theory at a global scale. Are you telling that politicians across India, US, Canada, UK ( and more ) have come together to force the million companies to WFO? Wow!

If the savings and productivity are so great as some here claim, the executive team will care two hoots about the managers/support personnel and declare WFH.

I would really love to hear from some executive here how they see productivity in their company with respect to WFH vs WFO.

[am1m]

Originally Posted by m8002?

This is bordering on some conspiracy theory at a global scale.

Agreed that it is quite a stretch and improbable. On the other hand, don't discount personal motives on the part of people who make these decisions, especially in smaller companies without some sort of shareholder or board oversight. I've already posted on this thread before how at one of the companies I used to work at, the decision to move to a certain location with horrible traffic, out from an area that was well-connected through the Metro, coincided neatly with 2 of the decision makers living in the residential project alongside. Also, have heard from more than one relative who works in HR how deals are cut in administration departments with vendors for cafeteria meals and transport. This is even in brand-name IT MNCs

Originally Posted by m8002?

I would really love to hear from some executive here how they see productivity in their company with respect to WFH vs WFO.

Completely agree. This would settle the issue once and for all and would be quite easy, given the process metrics most software orgs track these days.

I'm no exec, and so I don't have a company-wide view. So all I can say from comparing my and my immediate team's work between a company where we all spent up to 2 hours a day commuting to a company where I now work remote. The quality-of-life and employee satisfaction/retention is better while working remote. Productivity hasn't dropped (I don't think it has improved significantly either) - team work goals are being met on time and with the required quality.

But again, I agree this may not be the case with every company, which is why numbers would be great.

[m8002?]

Originally Posted by am1m

Agreed that it is quite a stretch and improbable. On the other hand, don't discount personal motives on the part of people who make these decisions, especially in smaller companies without some sort of shareholder or board oversight. I've already posted on this thread before how at one of the companies I used to work at, the decision to move to a certain location with horrible traffic, out from an area that was well-connected through the Metro, coincided neatly with 2 of the decision makers living in the residential project alongside. Also, have heard from more than one relative who works in HR how deals are cut in administration departments with vendors for cafeteria meals and transport. This is even in brand-name IT MNCs

I get the kick-back part and have heard a lot about those Also about HR kickback on recruitment . But those are guys at a much lower level. They are not the guys who decide on global WFH/WFO policy for the company. And if that is so prevalent, then all the more reason for multi-national/large companies to opt for WFH right?

Even in the case you mentioned, the decision-makers had the power to decide on the location, but not decide on setting up a N-seater office itself or force people to come to office against the parent ( US/Europe-based? ) company? But if the decision-makers are the owners of the company, then its their will to decide on the location/office/policy.

[am1m]

Originally Posted by m8002?

They are not the guys who decide on global WFH/WFO policy for the company

...but not decide on setting up a N-seater office itself or force people to come to office against the parent company?

It's not that cut-and-dried. I've had the opportunity to see how it works up close, at a couple of companies I've worked at. Sure the parent US company calls the shots and ultimately foots the bill. But how these decisions actually work is they are happy delegating everything to the local management, who in turn delegate to facilities.

Whenever an actual decision maker comes down, they get chauffeur driven from their hotel which is itself located conveniently near the IT park to a very nice office with smiling faces (free cafeteria for Indian employees yay!) Forget how terrible the commute is for most employees on a daily basis to actually get inside the IT park.

So unless the company has some really good feedback policies in place, how will they know the reality? And it's always easy for India management to paint the few who might complain as 'lazy', or people who want remote work just to avoid working hard. (There are several people on this thread who assume the same).

[Dodge_Viper]

Originally Posted by Bhargav7

There is enough evidence, research, and historical data from the last three years to prove that WFH is less efficient than WFO.

Quite curious to read more about this. If you could share links that would help.

Also with regards to the debate that employees are not productive and are lazy, its the same case of handful of such employees causing issues to everyone else resulting in blanket decisions. Same as few bachelors create issues in a society, the society bans all bachelors from staying.

[DigitalOne]

‘Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by neglect.’ This mental model is called Hanlon's Razor.

RTO/WFH/Location decisions are typically herd behavior. Once top management makes a decision it takes a guts for a middle management or a team manager to go against the tide. Its easier to go with the flow, and blame top management for RTO policy.

Similarly, from a facilities manager's career perspective, it just makes less risk to locate the office in a known IT park on ORR than to locate it in, say Banashankari. If something goes wrong, blame the government and not yourself.

This is the same (non-) decision model because of which IT companies are concentrated in few cities in India, only in certain locations within those cities, or why people prefer Suzuki/Hyundai over VW/Nissan cars.

[chinkara]

Originally Posted by Bhargav7

There is enough evidence, research, and historical data from the last three years to prove that WFH is less efficient than WFO. I guess the hybrid policies employed by some companies are only a bridge to let employees adapt back to offices, and will ultimately become a full-time WFO.

Would appreciate some links.

On hybrid, frankly we are quite happy with how it is working. Even earlier, we had WFH for seniors (AVP and above) at their discretion just keeping their bosses in the loop - what the last 2 years have shown is that this can be extended even further down the organizational hierarchy.

We just have some "office days" for physical connect (~1 a month) and some team lunches / dinners etc. driven by team building folks. I see very little reason to mandate 100% WFO.

A team member recently had a very harrowing time with a 2 year old daughter when her MIL was hospitalized. She chose WFH / leaves as per her judgement and discretion and requested that team calls be scheduled at 11 PM when she is back from the hospital and her daughter is asleep. Everyone was happy to cooperate - as I said earlier, your colleagues know if you are a worker or shirker even if bosses don't.

I see hybrid being the future in industries where remote working is possible.

[Bhargav7]

Originally Posted by Dodge_Viper

Quite curious to read more about this. If you could share links that would help.

There are a lot of articles, opinions, etc supporting both WFH and RTO on the internet. Attaching one link which I think is backed by some data. https://www.forbes.com/sites/benjami...h=6ceace192afe There is a link in this article to a working paper which has some stats.

Also with regards to the debate that employees are not productive and are lazy, its the same case of handful of such employees causing issues to everyone else resulting in blanket decisions. Same as few bachelors create issues in a society, the society bans all bachelors from staying.

I guess that is only one part of the problem. There are a lot of other issues like collaboration, innovation, which cannot be replicated as effectively in a remote environment. I am aware that not many of us here would not agree on this view - WFH is convenient and most of us would obviously be biased towards it. At the same time, it is extremely unlikely that so many successful profit-making companies across the world got it wrong at the same time.

[dragonfire]

Originally Posted by chinkara

A team member recently had a very harrowing time with a 2 year old daughter when her MIL was hospitalized. She chose WFH / leaves as per her judgement and discretion and requested that team calls be scheduled at 11 PM when she is back from the hospital and her daughter is asleep. Everyone was happy to cooperate - as I said earlier, your colleagues know if you are a worker or shirker even if bosses don't.

What are leaves for then?

I think we are deep in this rat race where even the thought of taking time off from work for an emergency in the family never crosses anybody's mind.

Working from office clearly demarcates work and life. When I used to work from home, I sometimes used to be in front of the computer until 10pm depriving me and my family of the time we are to spend together.

[CCRider]

Originally Posted by Bhargav7

I am aware that not many of us here would not agree on this view - WFH is convenient and most of us would obviously be biased towards it.

That is purely *your* assumption. A person with a differing view could conversely say that " I am aware that all shirkers and coasters don't support WFH because when they show up at office they can get away with making it look like they are working "

WFH is feasible for certain types of jobs ( a large number of IT jobs would fall in this bucket) and also for certain types of individuals and in those cases it helps significantly increase productivity and output. This has been my personal observation.

[padmrajravi]

Originally Posted by dragonfire

What are leaves for then?

I think we are deep in this rat race where even the thought of taking time off from work for an emergency in the family never crosses anybody's mind.

Working from office clearly demarcates work and life. When I used to work from home, I sometimes used to be in front of the computer until 10pm depriving me and my family of the time we are to spend together.

I think the point he wanted to make was that it works for organizations too. If this was pre-covid era where WFO was a mandate, it would certainly have been a few weeks leave for that team member. And the team would have struggled with delivery. In all probability there was some dependency on her and the WFH/related time flexibility allowed her to be there for the team and the family at the same time when it mattered. It was a voluntary thing she did for the team and what allowed that was the flexible time policies of organization and the trust the team members had. I have seen this happening many times in my teams too. Pre WFH era, such things were unimaginable. It is not always about the rat race, some people genuinely care about what they do. Giving such people all the flexibility they need benefits the organization in the long term.