|
MSBassSinger wrote: But how does the in-office portion of hybrid offer any advantages over 100% remote?
Human interactions.
MSBassSinger wrote: Hybrid, as was 100% remote, was in use years before COVID-19 hit. Neither are anything new.
But not at the scale we're seeing it; not just for programmers but for a lot of white collar jobs that was in office only before (insurances, finance, ... )
CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair
|
|
|
|
|
I can't speak for other disciplines, but in software engineering it has been around a very long time.
|
|
|
|
|
Why not allow both? I'm a hybrid worker and I love it. I like the human interaction begin in the office. I also like the convenience of being remote (HVAC appointment tomorrow, packages being delivered). I wouldn't mind 99% in office (minus some days for home appointments) if the travel wasn't too far. I think hybrid is great for the environment (less travel) and my sanity seeing people in person every week.
Hogan
|
|
|
|
|
It is not a question of "allow" for hybrid. I contend that all three should be supported.
I agree that for some folks with a short commute, or single people whose social life revolves around work, hybrid is a very good alternative.
|
|
|
|
|
MSBassSinger wrote: I agree that for some folks with a short commute, or single people whose social life revolves around work, hybrid is a very good alternative.
God help you if your social life revolves around work. As much as I get along with my coworkers, I don't exactly want to hang out with them past office hours. And I'm saying this as someone who actually is single, with no social life to speak of, and have been working from home exclusively for > 15 years.
Something very, very bad would have to happen for me to go back to an office on a regular basis, even if it was just a 5-minute drive away. As in, early retirement would be much more likely to happen before that.
|
|
|
|
|
The future that I see for working from home on a large scale is the switch to a single pay for all.
Right now what is happening is that people from places that pay very well are moving to places that are more affordable and are buying and renting at rates that are commiserate with their pay and are driving housing to a level that the native people can't afford.
Case in point: we moved from a townhouse in NE FL 3 years ago and the price of the townhouse in 3 years has increased by 60%.
I don't think before I open my mouth, I like to be as surprised a everyone else.
PartsBin an Electronics Part Organizer - Release Version 1.3.0 JaxCoder.com
Latest Article: SimpleWizardUpdate
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Hankey wrote: we moved from a townhouse in NE FL 3 years ago and the price of the townhouse in 3 years has increased by 60%.
That phenomenon has been observed everywhere over the last few years, and I've yet to hear anyone in the real estate business suggest it was caused by people commanding large salaries moving into areas where cost of living is cheaper.
|
|
|
|
|
The U.S. company I work for is part of the real estate horde of businesses (realtors, settlement companies, insurance, inspections, etc.). It most definitely is a thing that remote workers are moving to cheaper areas. Their salaries are not adjusted down, so they effectively make more money. This is obvious in the CA area where people are moving out of the big cities to their massive suburban sprawl and nearby mountains, if they still want to be close to the office. Colorado and the mid-west have seen a huge spike in housing because of this trend. Long term, this could even have political ramifications as more left-leaning people move to the mid-west to get the cheapest houses and move away from the crowded eastern and western seaboard cities. Some mid-west towns are having issues keeping up with municipal services, like sewage systems and trash collection.
Bond
Keep all things as simple as possible, but no simpler. -said someone, somewhere
|
|
|
|
|
Well, maybe I'm only seeing it from my own perspective, which is in Canada, which is facing a housing crisis across all provinces, since our genius of a prime minister has allowed for over a million immigrants to show up in very little time, without having the infrastructure in place (housing, schools, hospitals, etc) to take in such a number.
|
|
|
|
|
When I was in my longest contract I travelled interstate every month for time in the office. I think it's really helpful, although I love work from home
|
|
|
|
|
I'm an employer (and also still programmer myself) and I want my employees to be at the office at least about half of the time.
Working from home isn't an issue, and this week and next week I have someone working three days at home and one in the office.
Fact is, when he's at home he's less likely to contact me for any questions he has, he'll spend hours figuring it out while in the office he asks me after about fifteen to thirty minutes.
We also use the office time for briefings on projects, status updates, other questions he might have, music interchange, a walk in the nearby forest and sometimes drinks and snacks.
Granted, most of these things can be done digitally trough Teams, and we sometimes do, but there's simply no substitution for seeing face to face.
Let's put it this way, would you only see your family and friends digitally?
You wouldn't, because seeing people online just doesn't build the same kind of familiarity and trust as seeing someone in real life.
And now you're saying "well, there are these people I work with eight hours a day, and we need to get stuff done, but there's no reason to ever see them in real life."
That just sounds like crazy and highly unproductive to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Today is my 'office day'. Once a month I cone in for meetings with my boss, the PM and the CEO.
Both the PM and CEO have already called off, there's a bit of dodgy weather today, and my direct boss is looking shakey.
I'd go home but I'm interviewing this afternoon and there's no way I'm leaving that to HR, they could hire anybody!
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
You bring up two good use cases - 1) the person whose self-discipline is not strong enough to make them as productive at home as at the office. 2) You also mention this employee tends to work on solving a problem on his own too long before reaching out for help.
My practice as a dev manager (one I learned from a Dev Manager I had years earlier) was with new hires, that they worked in office 5 days a week the first month. That aided with learning how we worked, and fitting in. After the first month, if the new hire showed he or she could manage their time, reached out for help when needed, self-starter, etc., then I went to in-office two days a week for a month to two months. That allowed me to track at-home versus in-office performance. Once I could see the new hire was as productive and reliable at-home as on-site, then 100% remote was allowed.
Beyond that, I would have a mandatory in-office day at least once a quarter.
One of the benefits of having a 100% remote team is being able to widen the number of potential candidates to the entire US, raising my entrance standards, and not be limited to just local.
The downside is it requires more of my time to monitor productivity and correct any deficiencies. But that is part of my job when leading and managing a team. Having done it, I know it works.
But if your approach works for you, your company, and your employees, why change it?
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't been in the office for over a year now. Before that, once or twice a month.
I don't want to travel 3 to 4 hours a day to work 6 or 7 hours.
I don't need to see my colleagues in real life.
When I went to the office, I looked at the schedule and chose a day that most of them where not there.
And Covid is still very much around. At this moment 2 of my colleagues are off sick with covid. 
And I am very vulnerable for covid. The doctor said to me 'if you get Covid, it probably will kill you'
I am much more productive when I don't have to interact with other people.
B.T.W.
I haven't seen my family in real life for over 3 years now. We call or WhatsApp each other.
And seeing friends digitally saves me beer. 
|
|
|
|
|
JohaViss61 wrote: The doctor said to me 'if you get Covid, it probably will kill you'
Well, thank your lucky stars for the jab and all the boosters then, right? RIGHT??
|
|
|
|
|
2 weeks ago I got my 8th Covid jab.
Really painful this one.
|
|
|
|
|
I've had a coworker like you, lived about a two hour drive from the office.
Nice guy, but no one knew what he was doing and vice versa.
He retired last year and his employer simply ditched his clients because no one wanted to work with his code (old VB6 and even dBase software).
It's very hard to manage people like you if everyone else is in the office.
But why work for a company that's so far away?
|
|
|
|
|
It's a compromise between my job and my wife's job.
We are living roughly in the middle.
And the houses around my workplace are unaffordable. (Starting at £800.000 and up)
Luckily my code is reviewed whenever I make a change. And my contributions are with the latest frameworks (NET 6 and 7, Blazor, Azure)
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: It's very hard to manage people like you if everyone else is in the office.
I'm fortunate enough that my company has adopted a work-from-home policy, and everybody has now been doing it for 15+ years. Well, and new recruits.
So ultimately we're all managed the same, at least in the sense that we know everyone's remote. We have (short) daily calls at 9:00am, discuss who's been working on what, whether someone's stuck on something, the plan for the day, etc. Then we make ourselves available to others (via IM/voice/video) during core office hours, and everyone's pretty happy.
I could certainly see that not working as well if there was a group at the office, vs another group being remote. Unless those at the office worked as if they were also working individually.
|
|
|
|
|
I've managed teams with 100% remote developers. The manner and process of management is different than hybrid or 100% in-office, but it is doable without too much effort. The inter-personal benefits of being in-office can be almost all replicated with 100% remote developers with a little thought. Remember, 100% remote teams were used successfully long before COVID.
|
|
|
|
|
hmm yea - if my family and friends were like some of the people I have had to work with, I would only see them digitally and maybe not all if I had any say in it.
Buckrogerz
|
|
|
|
|
I find Hybrid to be the best option if done properly. On the other hand it is the most complicated to do it well.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
What are the benefits you see in hybrid over 100% remote?
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
As others in the thread have told, it is easier to interact socially in presence, non verbal communication (i.e. body language) is way too important to be always avoided. If you want to really connect to people, you better meet them for real.
If the conmute is not so long I think getting out of home helps to keep things separated. I notice that I can disconnect better when I am in the office and have to drive back home, than finishing my work day, getting out of my office room and having the kids waiting for me in the corridor.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Good points. If you were managing some 100% remote workers on your team, how would you go about compensating for the benefits you mentioned, so the in-office developers and the 100% remote developers gained as much of that benefit as possible?
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
