Reply to: Hybrid versus 100% remote working

[JustKeepSwimming]

I know of some companies having a very loosely worded "flexible working" policy at company level, with departments in charge of making their own decisions. So, for example at my client in the public sector, my department wants us to go in one day a month (not enforced yet), while a friend of mine working at the same client but in a different department, has to go in 3 days a week. Not everyone will be happy but that's normal...you can't make everyone happy.

I've seen it work both in public and private sector.

This has been my experience. Company wide guidelines and then department head may set their own guidelines and the team managers setting their own too. Highest rank that puts theirs in stone tends to be what is done.

I can imagine it getting flagged in employee surveys they do.

[PCTNN]

If you have a policy it's going to be very difficult to allow some to work remote and not others and keep the cogs going.

I know of some companies having a very loosely worded "flexible working" policy at company level, with departments in charge of making their own decisions. So, for example at my client in the public sector, my department wants us to go in one day a month (not enforced yet), while a friend of mine working at the same client but in a different department, has to go in 3 days a week. Not everyone will be happy but that's normal...you can't make everyone happy.

I've seen it work both in public and private sector.

[northernladuk]

Not sure tbh, also not sure how big the companies were, so might be completely made up, but kind of lines up with what is happening already. I know loads of people who've been remote for years, even before Covid hit, typically they have a flexible arrangement where they can choose to come in or be fully remote. All IT / engineering mind you, no idea how things are in other industries.

Problem, again, is the scope of roles in a company. You talk about about IT/Engineering but it doesn't really matter. Every company will have a similar set of people, HR, security whathave you that aren't doing the main role of the company and then there is the doers that deliver the main product of that company. If you have a policy it's going to be very difficult to allow some to work remote and not others and keep the cogs going. The surveys are talking about the whole company so are going to be a sledgehammer policy. Yes the high end professionals would probably suit a hybrid role but much of the churn towards the bottom just aren't productive so in the office they go.

Once they've implemented these policies it would be interesting to see how many people get dispensation or different working arrangements. I'm sure there will be loads but the baseline policy will be in the office. I have to admit I pity the people making these descitions and also the people implementing them. There is no right answer and a lot of people are going to be unhappy whatever they do.

[JustKeepSwimming]

I read that.

Who ran the survey?

KPMG CEO outlook survey.

In addition, the survey showed an overwhelming majority (87%) of global leaders, and 83% of UK executives, believed that financial rewards and promotion opportunities could be linked in future to office attendance.

I find this particularly amusing as IME promotion is near non existent in the UK. The days of starting on the counter at a bank and then ending up as senior manager at the end of your career is long dead.

[dsc]

I read that.

Who ran the survey?

I have a sibling who has been working remotely in a permie job for 13 years for a large company. In fact thinking about it my first hybrid contract was in 2008. After that lots of companies regardless of size have done hybrid working to save money on office space.

I remember one large multinational I was doing a contract for pre-Covid tried to mandate all contractors worked hybrid and only came in about once a month. Lots of the contractors complained simply as they didn't have a place at home to work in.

Not sure tbh, also not sure how big the companies were, so might be completely made up, but kind of lines up with what is happening already. I know loads of people who've been remote for years, even before Covid hit, typically they have a flexible arrangement where they can choose to come in or be fully remote. All IT / engineering mind you, no idea how things are in other industries.

[SueEllen]

I read somewhere that in a recent survey close to 70% of CEOs of large companies said they see a full five day comeback to the office happening in the next year or so. Of course if you are niche you kind of set your own rules, but it seems like most grunts will be going back at some stage.

I read that.

Who ran the survey?

I have a sibling who has been working remotely in a permie job for 13 years for a large company. In fact thinking about it my first hybrid contract was in 2008. After that lots of companies regardless of size have done hybrid working to save money on office space.

I remember one large multinational I was doing a contract for pre-Covid tried to mandate all contractors worked hybrid and only came in about once a month. Lots of the contractors complained simply as they didn't have a place at home to work in.

[dsc]

I read somewhere that in a recent survey close to 70% of CEOs of large companies said they see a full five day comeback to the office happening in the next year or so. Of course if you are niche you kind of set your own rules, but it seems like most grunts will be going back at some stage.

[Ketto]

And now I'm going in the office, by choice, 1 day a week.

After 3 years, I got tired of being at home; I went to the office last month and realised how much I've missed human interaction with peers and colleagues. Also, my partner has made me notice how much of a grumpy hermit I have become and going in the office is also helping me fix that

Had you asked me 12 months ago, I would have said I was never going to go in the office ever again. Now, when looking for roles, I skip past the "remote only" ones.

+1

At most recent gig (5 miles down the road, 100% flexibility regards office days) I got into a rut of never going in for 8-9 weeks (always some reason being at home was handy - kids, deliveries, tradespeople visiting, or just CBA on my part). My partner said I was turning into a grumpy git and ordered me to go in, also to treat myself to a slap up lunch somewhere. She was 100% right too, did me the world of good.

New gig near 100% remote with occasional (but totally unenforced) trips to Cardiff (4.5 hours on the train). Might be a bit trickier.

[PCTNN]

So now I'm just going in whenever I feel I need a change of scenario and a break from home.

And now I'm going in the office, by choice, 1 day a week.

After 3 years, I got tired of being at home; I went to the office last month and realised how much I've missed human interaction with peers and colleagues. Also, my partner has made me notice how much of a grumpy hermit I have become and going in the office is also helping me fix that

Had you asked me 12 months ago, I would have said I was never going to go in the office ever again. Now, when looking for roles, I skip past the "remote only" ones.

[sreed]

Based on my post-Covid experience (tech PM, expert at herding cats but only very superficial tech knowledge) on (mostly) inside contracts -

"Hybrid" - can mean any one of the following -
- rigid 1-2 days/week in a specific office
- rigid 1-2 days/week in one of multiple offices (eg: some PS clients who need to tick boxes for attendance)
- Pseudo-hybrid 1-2 days or less a month in the office (eg: some PS clients who aren't allowed to advertise remote because of policy but aren't paying enough to have people trek into an office)
- 95% remote (with the occasional trip for a workshop, meeting, etc.) but want to be able to haul the contractor in when needed, not pay travel expenses and filter out people who might take the piss and bugger off abroad

"Remote" could mean one of the following -
- 100% remote with no expectation of coming in (I only saw one of these tbf, from an NFP)
- 95% remote with the occasional trip to an office that is paid for
- disguised hybrid (only saw this for FTCs and perm-roles) where there's actually quite a bit of office presence required

Personally, the last client where I could drop in to an office and meet all the primary stakeholders was before COVID at a small fintech firm in London. Even in hybrid settings, the teams I work with as a PM are all over the country so other than the occasional visit to a particular office for an event or pre-arranged meeting, it's a waste of time for me and the client if I were to go to any office 2 days a week.

I'm far more productive remotely and the days that I do go to the office are usually wasted in pointless catch-ups, too-hot too-cold environments, endless distractions, terrible coffee and carrying my own milk in or nicking someone else's (BYO milk as the PS client doesn't supply any for its employees).

The current PS client that I'm with has a minister-imposed policy (they ordered and leased a lot of flashy regional offices on 25 year leases just before COVID and are terrified of the Daily Mail) of 2 days/week (religiously enforced on the permies except the technology teams who get exemptions and largely come in if and when they want to) in the closest regional office but I only go a couple of days a month when my primary contact is in.

As someone above mentioned, everything has a price and if the contract pays a premium for requiring a regular hybrid commute (up to 2 days a week), then I will do it. In the same vein, I'll be willing to go slightly below my floor if it is 95% remote as I ascribe a value to that as well.

I can't imagine ever doing a 4-5 days/week in the office role again unless it was a 15 minute drive door-to-door) but never say never!

It's just supply and demand I suppose, plenty of room for all kinds of preferences, both on the employer/client's side and the employee/contractor's. And like the underpaid techie permies in the PS do, if you're indispensable, then you do what you like!

[SussexSeagull]

It's a big question that varies from person to person, company and role in company. When I am actually doing my work most of the time I can merrily do it while at home but it can, not all the time but on occasion, be a pain to find someone to ask a question, especially if you are not sure who to ask. Also you don't build the personal connections remotely and, even subconsciously, that becomes a factor come renewal time.

My current contract is in the office once a week. That is about right but last week I was in and hardly anyone was there, which was fairly pointless.

[ladymuck]

I'm genuinely asking what the difference are and you are saying it's different because it's all different

You do realise people slack in the office as well? I can slack for weeks looking like I'm doing something important and I'm super busy, how is managing me different in the office vs at home?

So please, do give me a straight, useful answer, cause the above isn't one.

Btw I'm not saying WFH is the dogs bollocks and no, it doesn't work for all, I just fail to see actual proper arguments why you have to be in the office if you can do your work 100% from home.

I think you're slightly conflating two things there.

Remote worker management is different but that's not a reason why WFH is bad and being in the office is good. I also don't think NLUK ever actually said that in such explicit terms.

It's harder to take someone for a coffee to find out why they're not performing or engaging with the team if you're remote. Doing it over zoom feels impersonal and you have to put in a bit more effort. That said, some people will simply refuse to do that even if they were in the office but at least you get the benefit of full body language and nuance in person that you don't get remotely.

I do believe that there's much to be gained from overhearing conversations or having a quick five minute chat by the coffee machine etc. But I also get very annoyed by the side of the desk interruptions and the level of noise in an open plan office. I turn up to the office when it's convenient to me and know that I will get very little actual work done. I plan my day around meetings and catch ups.

The thing is people want what works for them as an individual. Companies want what works for them as an organisation. The two don't always align and the company view often looks like presenteeism or petty mind games to someone who is looking at WFH from what they want as an individual.

You can tell your client until you're blue in the face that you can do the work from a location of your choosing as that is what works for your company. The client has decided what works for their organisation and it may not be the same. The client is not automatically wrong and you're not automatically right. Either one of you compromises (and that's usually where hybrid comes in) or you don't work together at all and that should be a commercial decision, not a personal one.

[northernladuk]

I'm genuinely asking what the difference are and you are saying it's different because it's all different

You do realise people slack in the office as well? I can slack for weeks looking like I'm doing something important and I'm super busy, how is managing me different in the office vs at home?

So please, do give me a straight, useful answer, cause the above isn't one.

There isn't a straight answer which was my point about being blinkered. It's different for everyone. You could try categorise many people in to some groups but there is no single quick answer. The managers (supervisors, senior doers) are all at different levels and skill levels, there is the commitment of the employees, there is the home working environment and all sorts. If you had a good manager with a team of professional employees that are committed and have home offices then it's probably better to WFH yes but many people aren't good managers, the workers might just be in a job for a jobs sake and sitting on the couch at home in which case WFH isn't going to work well.

Btw I'm not saying WFH is the dogs bollocks and no, it doesn't work for all, I just fail to see actual proper arguments why you have to be in the office if you can do your work 100% from home.

Because you are basing it on your abilities and commitment. Not everyone has the same values. People do slack in the office but they in a dedicated environment with colleagues around and a manager somewhere close. Slacking is constrained to odd trips away from the desk and just dicking around on your PC. However much many people try and hide it most people can tell who the slackers are around them. You'll know who is in early and goes late, those that clock watch and those that wander in late and go home early for example. Once that person is out of eyesight they've got free reign to slack more unless their role is outcome based and their managers can manage the outcomes of each person. I said before, look at contractors on here wanting to do two roles. You couldn't do that in the office so being at home brings a new level of slacking to the point they think they can do two jobs.

Unfortunately large clients can't make policy based on the individuals and teams. It's got to be a one size fits all which often turns out to fit very few people. So for many people three days in the office is not helpful, but for even more it can be more productive even if they don't agree.

I'm sure things will change. People will learn how to manage remote employees, more focus on outcome jobs not bodies in the office as hybrid becomes the norm but many aren't there yet.

[dsc]

It's very different becase the team you manage act differently in a different environment. The managers have to focus on a different set of criteria/competancies due to the change to home. Different location isn't the same as WFH.

Throw in a team that is willing to slack at any opportunity, get distracted, not have a proper work set up and it actually becomes difficult to do if you are aiming on getting max productivity out of people. I mean, look at the number of contractors trying to/or have second gigs purely because they are out of the clients eyes. Yes you get the something similar but it's looks different to the manager so needs treating differently.

The fact you don't know what the differences are is probably why you are struggling to get your head around this.

We are talking every manager that has anyone under them so a vast majority will be work supervisors and not trained managers. You've got such a narrow, blinkered view on this we can never give you a straight, useful answer.

I'm genuinely asking what the difference are and you are saying it's different because it's all different

You do realise people slack in the office as well? I can slack for weeks looking like I'm doing something important and I'm super busy, how is managing me different in the office vs at home?

So please, do give me a straight, useful answer, cause the above isn't one.

Btw I'm not saying WFH is the dogs bollocks and no, it doesn't work for all, I just fail to see actual proper arguments why you have to be in the office if you can do your work 100% from home.

[northernladuk]

You also have a very clear preference and, to me, it shows a real bias in your answers. I hesitate to say "pot, meet kettle", but it smacks of that.

Maybe but I also offer examples, anecdotes and theory when I explain my bias. Many of the comments that are pro WFH as per DSC's are sweeping, unqualified single sentences. I'm just offering a counter argument with an opinion based on some facts. My blinkered comment to dsc was that are just looking at at the WFH is better aspect. Not considering the types of people managing, the types of people WFH and a host of individual level circumstances. He's not looking at the wider issues, just waving a WFH is better flag with little detail which is difficult to discuss and in a single sentence can easily be argued to be wrong.

I see what you are saying but not really pot, meet kettle.