That’s not the only factor. I have a home office and can’t wait to get back. I work in an industry that’s all about relationships and those are hard to build remotely. I just started a new role and there’s no way I could ever progress upward in this state.
I think the current WFH and restrictions are especially hard on the sales teams. No more client dinners, golf, or travel for a demo, and it's much harder to make the relationship over phone or zoom. Plus, the handshake is missing.
Doesn't this put everyone on an equal footing? You can't take your client for golf or shake hands, but neither can your competitor.
Though I can imagine a scenario where it's equally bad for everyone. For example, if the client needs an in-person demo to understand how the widget works or to be convinced that it's useful, but no seller is offering an in-person demo, then the client may decide to not buy it from anybody.
I am definitely not the person to address building relationships, I suck at it, that is why I work with computers not people...
that said I think you can build in remotely, even the people I am in the same office with 70-80% of our communications is over Chat, Phone, or Email anyway. Why walk 10 feet to the persons office when I can just message them on slack or teams?
> Why walk 10 feet to the persons office when I can just message them on slack or teams?
Privacy. Human interaction element. If all your interaction is online at your work - good for you. It isn't for my work environment.
Some of my coworkers have taken to giving me their phone number so that we can talk outside Slack because they worry that Slack is being watched now. Some of my coworkers and I used to go on 1:1 walks around the office area to get a breath of fresh air but also to have private discussions. We can't do that the same way anymore. I talked to one on the phone recently but it's not the same - you can't see every bit of their emotion as it is conveyed. Video doesn't do this justice either - how often are people going to show you a nervous fidget they're doing off screen that indicates they're under a lot of stress?
It depends on the type of place you're at. If you're at a great place where everything is just a rocket ship, everyone is in love with their work, and everyone's boss is just a stellar human being who really has high regard for their subordinates - then whatever. But - that's not been the case at any company I've ever worked at. So, :shrug:
>> Privacy. Some of my coworkers have taken to giving me their phone number so that we can talk outside Slack because they worry that Slack is being watched now.
This is one factor I should consider more, I (among others) control our companies communications platforms so I know the security, who has access, what they can see (and cant see) etc.
If I was not on that team this may also be a factor for me.
as to emotions... Again this is why I work on computers.. I take a Vulcan outlook to emotions.
I find that a colourful emoji like [hmm, HN can't display an emoji] feels very different from a text emoticon or tag.
It's such an illusion, too - the sender doesn't even see the same emoji character as I do because of different fonts and devices. Some emojis look sad or angry on some devices, and smiling on others. There's plenty of room for misinterpretation.
I don't know why you're being downvoted. It's a valid opinion that I happen to share. I have a great home office but I still want to be around other humans.
Because we don't have stats on what % of home-office owners want to go back to work and there's no way of knowing whether his anecdote is just a token exception, or a representation of a larger outlier. Maybe 1% of home-office owners want to go back to work, maybe 49%. The comment's anecdote doesn't do anything.
More importantly, the comment has nothing but an anecdote that's attempting to make a statement on what the stats will probably be. There's no fact-based discussion possible, only whether you think the anecdote is "representative" or not. Which you have to decide based on your prior beliefs, because the post doesn't contain new information ("X population has nonzero people who disagree on belief Y" is not new information).
I guess I should ask: what discussion could be had around this anecdote, other than "guess the % who agree"?
