[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.

[am1m]

I've worked for two companies so far that have been fully-remote. Both had office space, but going in was completely voluntary at both places.

What work(s)ed for us:

* Teams have complete flexibility in deciding when to come in. Usually most teams plan to come in together about once a quarter. Apart from that, one company would plan a company-wide getting-together at office once a quarter (to work together and have meetings- no team outing, office ethic day, rangoli nonsense!) The other company never planned it, but usually it just worked out about once a quarter because of some client visit or senior management visit.

* Most people in the city where the office is located usually end up coming in a couple of times a week anyway.

* Sometimes the people working remote on certain days would miss out on in-person discussions. We've accepted this as a part of the situation and team members take it on themselves to pass on the message as best as possible. Again, no mandates, it just works out. Especially since team sizes are very small and each person's contribution is vital.

* We've on-boarded freshers fully-remote, with no issues. Requires a bit of extra effort on the part of the manager and the team, but it works and certainly can be done. I'd like to think that is time better spent by a manager- not poring over excel sheets of attendance, or time sheets of hours their team spent staring at a computer screen.

* Cybersecurity is always a priority. Investments are made in cutting-edge tools and more importantly, regular training.

* Small team sizes seem to be the key to getting all of this to work. Individual accountability is high, there is no chance of someone hiding behind the work of others. If someone is slacking off, it'll become very obvious in a matter of days.

* Some of our most efficient and longest tenured employees were/are with us only because they can continue to work remote. It would be silly to let them go just because they were not willing to re-locate to a city with an office, especially since the work required from them is getting done with absolutely no issues.

* Ironically, the 'unlimited leave' and 'flexi-time' policies seem to be backfiring...on the employees! I've worked for bigger companies that had well-defined leave categories and timings (to catch cabs to and from the office). And I can say for sure that the employees there took all their assigned leave and stuck to their official working hours a lot better than the employees at these two places. Here I see no one on my team taking as much leave or sticking to any sort of defined working hours.

Most of the bigger companies have gone back to the office. But for sure the remote work period during covid has had an impact. I see a lot more jobs being advertised that have hybrid or remote offerings. I for one intend to continue to take advantage of that. It's something I'd rate higher when considering a company, more than the salary package offered. Simply because, in a traffic-and road-rage-infested, potholed, polluted city, not having to commute everyday (for a job that can be done remote - for the nth time, no one is suggesting remote work for jobs that can't!), has improved the quality of my life far more than a few extra lakhs in CTC would.

[locusjag]

Originally Posted by W.A.G.7

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.

COVID was pretty similar to World War 2 in its geographic span and impact. And history tells us that events of such magnitude change humanity forever. We just can't go back to the way things were in the aftermath of such events.

I wish I could enumerate everything that I have read on this very topic - how WW2 changed humanity forever and COVID will do the same. Commercial air travel became a thing thanks to WW2, for instance - https://www.rosenaviation.com/blog/h...air-transport/
Women in the workforce also became a thing, at least in the West.

Similarly, digitalization of corporations' and governments' processes has become a permanent fixture now thanks to COVID. The populace has also gotten adjusted to having at least a smartphone at home, if not a laptop or tablet in addition to it, no matter their income level. There's some sort of "smart" device for every budget these days.

WFH is also here to stay, in my reckoning. Companies will see-saw and find their equilibrium in a hybrid work model ultimately. And I won't be surprised to see some companies successfully making do with full-time WFH for their employees, since WFH is what enables women to participate in the workforce.

[guru_max]

I have been working from the office for the past couple of years despite working in an organisation where RTO enforcement is very lax. Working from office is 10 times better than working from home when your work depends on interacting with people. Things that take several days and several meetings can be completed in a matter of minutes. My commute takes 30 minutes by two wheeler and 45 minutes by car and it is acceptable in my opinion. I avoid the evening rush hour traffic by starting early. I only spend 7-7.5 hours at the office. However on most days I spend at least 2 hours working after I reach home. This is the biggest problem of the post covid WFH era. The concept of "work hours" no longer exist. Earlier this was the case only when you reached a relatively senior position.

However, I would still prefer this quasi-WFH set up because it offers great flexibility. Once in a while I attend a personal matter/emergency for a couple of hours and choose to WFH for the rest of the day. This won't work if RTO becomes mandatory.

[V.Narayan]

Wipro makes it mandatory to work three-days from office

IT services company Wipro has rolled out a new hybrid work policy that requires employees to work from the office three days a week.

https://www.msn.com/en-in/money/news...82619970&ei=14

[chinkara]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Wipro makes it mandatory to work three-days from office

IT services company Wipro has rolled out a new hybrid work policy that requires employees to work from the office three days a week.

https://www.msn.com/en-in/money/news...82619970&ei=14

Normally in most IT companies there is a fine print (not sure of WIPRO) - less number of days in office can be allowed with approval from reporting manager. Which is fine. 50-60% of employees work just as well remotely. And managers know that. However, some people just slack off. And there may be issues like training new team members etc.

[PreludeSH]

Companies that are mandating RTO for certain days should also have employees that can work flexible hours. Since traffic and waste of time is an issue, change the timings of work. Since they will still be WFH on other days, they should do this. In fact companies at different locations should come together and decide on timings to de-congest roads.

I enjoy going to office which is one day per week. It certainly makes it more efficient for certain things and you can complete tasks without even planning meetings. Also, getting together for coffee, discussions, rumours etc adds to it.

[Bhargav7]

Originally Posted by PreludeSH

Companies that are mandating RTO for certain days should also have employees that can work flexible hours.

In my previous organization, we had this option. It was mandatory for everyone to be in office between 11AM and 3PM. Rest of the time is up to the employees.

We had some guys coming in as early as 6AM. This was way back in 2014. I hope they still have that policy.

[am1m]

I sure hope the 'in-person' collaboration that unfortunate employees got to do was worth it this week in Bangalore's tech parks:

https://www.news18.com/viral/watch-c...k-9087633.html

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by am1m

I sure hope the 'in-person' collaboration that unfortunate employees got to do was worth it this week in Bangalore's tech parks...

Come on! Getting overhead, birds-eye-view footage of campus like that, which would otherwise need an expensive drone or a helicopter-for-hire, surely you can see the 'cost optimisation' benefits? The little temporary water can be ignored for the larger good

Swimming lessons for the next team-building activity, anyone?

[warrioraks]

Originally Posted by am1m

I sure hope the 'in-person' collaboration that unfortunate employees got to do was worth it this week in Bangalore's tech parks:

There will be second order effects now. People who were unable to go office today would try to cover RTO mandates over next two days. Expecting more traffic congestion than usual for rest of the week.