https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6787638
Unclear if it's been peer reviewed. The abstract looks fairly convincing. But it is argued against by the majority of research on this topic.
There has been a huge shift towards metrics, to the point that managers are often forced to or at least commonly believe they are forced to game those metrics.
It is challenging to take strategic risks when you have to focus on metrics which cannot measure let alone value those choices.
If you have most of the work and conversation is done in public, you're not hiring very curious people.
It's not like there are that many natural opportunities to meet and interact with people you don't directly work with when everyone is remote.
I'm a pretty staunch defender of remote work for most roles, but outside of the smallest companies where the entire organization is on a single conversational thread, you really do lose the organic peripheral vision that comes with an office environment and deliberate effort is required to try and recreate some of that in your fully-remote org if you want some of the same upside. Even with deliberate effort, I'm not convinced you can match it perfectly.
It simultaneously and conveniently: 1. takes the heat off AI blowback 2. synergizes perfectly with "RTO" mandates (to the extent this needed synergy to become A Widespread Thing)
On that basis alone, I'll wait for further analysis.
Edit: to be clear I'm no anti-AI holdout, and I actually don't mind working from the office (which i do 4x a week). Just observing.
If being in the office conforms to the interest of the capital class, it implies that WFH is inherently less efficient.
This is one of those things that I often find strange with work from home advocates. They seem to imply that business owners just want employees to suffer as a goal in itself.
I personally find that I enjoy in person collaboration but that should not mean we should universally force every team to come back to the office.
Saying "we don't need as many staff because AI" is an oft-repeated trope because it sounds like a reasonable excuse to fire people. It's nearly impossible to back up the claim with any measurable method, and investors will look aside on the mismanagement and/or ridiculously over-engineered/over-complicated custom tech stacks companies run if they say "AI" anywhere in their reports.
15 years later...there are good parts and bad parts. Great for focus and getting real work done, terrible for feeling like you have any real connection to your peers (even if/when I went to meetups, conferences, etc, you always feel like an "outsider"). Eventually embraced the "lone wolf" aspects and learned alternatives to socializing, but yeah, that first lap around the track was brutal.
Yeah.
Even if I pretend for a moment that a generation that is younger than Google is somehow unable to collaborate online, remote work has been the mode of operation of most people even before COVID, the only question is whether they are sitting in traffic or not first.
I wouldn't even considering hiring a junior engineer at this point. The ROI was already barely breakeven for any but the top of the top junior engineers as they are likely to move on before they are meaningfully contributing.
With AI in the mix the ROI for Junior Engineers is strongly negative for 2 reasons:
1. (obvious) I can just have Claude Code do the work a junior engineer would have done with faster turnaround and generally better results.
2. (less obvious) Junior engineers are going to just turn around and use Claude Code, so now I'm talking to an AI and playing the telephone game, and the Junior engineer isn't going to learn much if anything in the process.
1a. If you train it enough, one day you'll be able to trust that it's going to be able to execute what you want correctly, and you don't have to meticulously go through each line to find any issues.
to your list of arguments?
Because just like a junior human, training Claude will make it a capable senior developer, right...?
/S because this is the Internet.
It personally seems hard to connect that to remote work as that had been going for 2 years and in between was the largest hiring burst we'd done, which included many junior folks. Though admittedly I'm biased as a remote worker.
But let's not pretend reality enters the decision-making of the large tech company at any point, for any kind of decision.
Finding a way to make this happen in a remote environment feels like what's missing right now. I know there been some Slack/chat apps that kind of force those kind of meetings, but it's very different from what happens with real humans in real places in close proximity to each other.
Engineers have a reputation for being loners, but marketing, sales, and other "soft skills" or "people oriented" functions are super cliquey as well and rarely contribute to this supposed "knowledge transfer" that higher-ups keep talking about. I did notice that this cliquishness gets better at their level; the VP of Sales and the VP of Engineering did have lunch a lot. But expecting it to translate to the lower ranks is naive or fake.
---
If any actual leaders who have already mandated in-office time and happen to be reading this, see what happens if you mandate that everyone in the non-tech parts of your org is required to have lunch with the tech people every single day of in-office work.
dTrack this as a metric and be honest with yourself whether it's going up; and most importantly whether that is actually helping the company.
1) A lot of executive type work _is_ easier in person... and those executives forget that their work might not be representative of _other_ roles within their own org, and they might actually be the outlier.
2) A lot of managers don't know how to manage by looking at output. We see this not just with WFH, but also with multi-location teams, where some managers simply can't do it competently.
3) Many managers do, in fact, get some satisfaction from having that sort of power over their workers.
4) Many executives like having an office that is a bit of a tribute to the company (and therefore their) power. And this falls apart if the office is empty.
I have been fortunate to have a C-level above me, who believes in hiring juniors, take over in the last year. We are hiring now and mentoring, but not enough companies around me are doing this.
What inspires loyalty about someone paying under market rate because theyvrefuse to see change?
What conflation is that somehow 'return to office' is inherently more productive and that somehow 'dumb corporations acting against their interest'.
I don't think that's true, and if it were, well, we should all be in a position to take advantage of it.
FT is part of the 'corporatocracy' for sure but they're not working to create narratives. Individual journalists are actually writing about things they see.
My bet is the real reason is that companies just don't want to hire juniors, and that's it.
comprev•2d ago