[avira_tk]

Originally Posted by W.A.G.7

So far, I was reading the posts but now I can't resist posting this. Eventually we all will go back to the pre-COVID work model - this is my thought. I am all in; for making it mandatory to work from office 5 days a week. Of course, it's an extreme opinion and many here would disagree completely. But I feel that the office is the "proper" environment where you can get a lot accomplished in the day. It doesn't matter whatever the type of organization.

..
My thought is very simple. Let's be done and dusted with COVID and the work from home debate now. Covid is something that happened in the past and we have all overcome it in some way or the other in the last 2-3 years. Eventually everyone will go back to the same pre-covid model of 5 days a week. I don't think Work from home even warrants a discussion, now in 2024.

The reason that RTO is the media narrative today has nothing to do with health or covid. Commercial real estate and associated kickbacks that local politicos benefit from has been affected and hence media lackeys are pushing out this "new normal" script. Office is where you can pretend to work, if companies can't measure productivity without office presence, that job will disappear quickly, it's already happening. The type of organization matters a lot, to give an extreme example, product development versus production support the latter can be done from anywhere and if you insist on office presence, good luck with off hours exceptions, a very crucial requirement.

WFH requires a discussion because it is the acceptable normal if anyone of serious about quality of life. Bangalore ranks as the most congested city in India, IT contributes a lot of that, with wfh, other people can do more with their time. The same people complaining about climate change and pollution are the same ones yelling for RTO, across the board, their grift becomes obvious when they say that.

The honchos publicly ranting about Bangalore authorities for failing to manage traffic have gone quiet with their childish repetitive threats about moving out. The authorities have found the prefect retort, "get your people to stare at a screen at home".

[It's Magic]

Originally Posted by W.A.G.7

It doesn't matter whatever the type of organization.

Type of organization does matter in my opinion. Manufacturing organizations will need most people on the work floor, but not every type of organization.

I understand that the office is a proper environment for working together as a team. It helps create bonds and memories among team members. In the case of newcomers, it’s easier to approach seniors or get their doubts solved if everyone is working from the office. Of course, there are benefits of WFO. But if the organization’s work can happen from home, why not continue with it?

Before COVID, WFH was not popular, and only a few organizations were allowing it. But the COVID situation allowed people to experience a new way of working, i.e., working from home, and many people are comfortable with it. It's a win-win situation for both the employer and the employee. Employees get to work from home and can spend more time with their families as travel time is saved. For employers, multiple expenses are reduced, like transportation, canteen facilities, electricity bills, etc. But again, there are downsides to WFH too, and I am aware of them.

So, in my opinion, it entirely depends on the organization, the type of work involved, and the type of people involved if the organization wants to opt for WFH, WFO, or hybrid. Of course, things can differ across teams within the same organization too, depending on the situation.

[ajmat]

We've just move to RTO. It means a commute. Ideally 3 days + 2 remote would be best.

With RTO,

I can mentor and get to know my team better.
The younger folks get more mentoring and feel involved.
I can nip things in the bud
The speed of response improves
Better relationships

It is worth the hardship of the commute but I am wold advocate time flexibility.

[atnyia]

It depends on the organization's structure & culture.

If the structure is flat and work is organized; and the roles are clearly defined, remote/teleworking is reasonably effective.

If the structure is loose, workday is unpredictable and issues needs impromptu problem solving/collaboration, in person is faster and focused. Remote workers are at a disadvantage as they don't get the full context. They aren't that effective.

Leadership roles need more physical presence. Irrespective of the industry, there is no substitute for human touch
(as Ajmat mentioned just above) and being 'on the floor'.

Perhaps, the organizations that are going hybrid, are trying to find the balance between the flexibility of home office and human touch of in person.

The organization going back to 5 days believe that their employees are slacking/moonlighting.

[V.Narayan]

On this thread we often willy nilly come back to a unionistic discussion – “We demand WFH vs WFH my foot”. And cheerfully we are back there again.

Some on this thread think WFH is about the employee. Everything in a business starts with the customer and ends with the shareholder. WFH happened because a customer needed the service even in the pandemic and was willing to pay for it and compromise with the extra difficulty and IT security risk WFH entailed.

It has been possible so far, within limitations for companies to continue to operate with WFH only because most of it is running on business relationships established in the past and running smoothly (or not so smoothly) on strength of old trust and bridges. From where I sit I don't see this status quo of cruising on past foundations continuing indefinitely. While WFH in some form and within some reasonable limits has come to stay most organizations will find it difficult to make it an all encompassing practice.

As Arun Varma stated in an earlier post WFH can work in small teams and small companies. When we scale it across multiple centres and countries it falls apart at the seams. To quote Arun Varma…

Originally Posted by Arun Varma

At an individual level, yes it is easy to make a powerful case for WFH. Small groups of like-minded people, yes, the model holds good. But as you scale up, and add more variables into the mix, the model falls apart.....

.....Add in to the mix, the very high attrition numbers which changes the demographic profile (tenure / performance / conformance) and you have a slippery slope leading to too much variance in output. This variance in output is better controlled WFO for most companies.

Many on this forum think WFH has worked for the employer and the customer. At best it has been a mixed bag. If as an employee you sorely desire WFH, good for you, but then be flexible about changing jobs to where WFH is being offered. Demanding WFH as a birthright regardless of what the employer and customer believe and want is a recipe that may come back to hurt you. Having said that employers in IT services do realize that life cannot go back to where it was and some element of hybrid is here to stay. Of course the vast majority of employees in the service sector & manufacturing sector have little to do with WFH.

Each company is working out what works for them. A lot is a function of the service your employer is providing and what the customer needs and the return on capital the shareholder needs. If an employee demands, "WFH or bust", the employers answer in most cases will be bust.

[NetfreakBombay]

Originally Posted by atnyia

If the structure is flat and work is organized; and the roles are clearly defined, remote/teleworking is reasonably effective.

If the structure is loose, workday is unpredictable and issues needs impromptu problem solving/collaboration, in person is faster and focused. Remote workers are at a disadvantage as they don't get the full context. They aren't that effective.

+1

I work in software and legal. All projects have aspects of both; undefined at start and then few months of structured progress. WFH is major problem when things are undefined and is a major boost in steady state. E.g.: Time saved in commute v/s major boost when people can brainstorm much better in-person.

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Some on this thread think WFH is about the employee. Everything in a business starts with the customer and ends with the shareholder.

From customer's point of view, there is a lot to gain from companies that make WFH or Hybrid model work.

I work in a role where some work is outsourced and rest is done within company. Some vendors have an edge where they optimise on cost by reducing number of desks per employee or hiring from smaller cities. Tough thing to do, but those who can make it work do have an edge.