Return to office - your situation

[survivalist]

Sporky said:

Countdown said:

it may well be that the "office" works for some people.

It works for extraverts. Sadly they're both the majority, and, in general, incapable of understanding introverts.

I think the office environment can work for a spectrum of employees. One of my biggest bugbears of enforced work from home is that the quieter members (introverts, if you prefer) of the business seem to have become less represented than previously.

Pre-pandemic it was relatively easy to spot a colleague who clearly wanted to contribute but may have felt shy / reluctant to do so. Face to face it’s much easier to make them feel comfortable and put their opinion across.

On VC, it’s much harder to give that comfort and much easier for the quieter colleagues to stay silent.

Mentoring new or inexperienced staff has become much harder as well.

If you’re just executing a process the WFH is fine. It’s also stagnant.

In reality, extroverts are still extroverts on a zoom/webex/teams call. They can still dominate the conversation and get the outcome they want. The difference is that you lose the ability to read the body language of the ‘introverts’.

[Sporky]

survivalist said:

the quieter members (introverts, if you prefer)

I don't - the two have little to do with each other. For example, I'm a fairly sociable introvert. Our MD is an unsociable extravert (he's a lovely chap, but quiet and reserved) . I know extraverts who are classic shrinking violets, and introverts who are way past assertive.

This is the problem - introverts generally understand extraverts, because there are lots of them, and the world is set up for them. Extraverts generally don't understand introverts.

[Electro1980]

survivalist said:

Sporky said:

Countdown said:

it may well be that the "office" works for some people.

It works for extraverts. Sadly they're both the majority, and, in general, incapable of understanding introverts.

I think the office environment can work for a spectrum of employees. One of my biggest bugbears of enforced work from home is that the quieter members (introverts, if you prefer) of the business seem to have become less represented than previously.

Pre-pandemic it was relatively easy to spot a colleague who clearly wanted to contribute but may have felt shy / reluctant to do so. Face to face it’s much easier to make them feel comfortable and put their opinion across.

On VC, it’s much harder to give that comfort and much easier for the quieter colleagues to stay silent.

Mentoring new or inexperienced staff has become much harder as well.

If you’re just executing a process the WFH is fine. It’s also stagnant.

In reality, extroverts are still extroverts on a zoom/webex/teams call. They can still dominate the conversation and get the outcome they want. The difference is that you lose the ability to read the body language of the ‘introverts’.

That’s not an issue of office vs remote meetings, that’s an issue of well run vs poorly run meetings. You can see what people are looking like they want to say something, but equally remote meetings give the chance for people to put their hand up or put a question or statement in chat.

However, neither of those are ideal. A well run meeting should include everyone, but mostly they are dominated by a few loud people (who may be introverted or extrovert).

[Sporky]

survivalist said:

If you’re just executing a process the WFH is fine. It’s also stagnant.

We've found quite the opposite. My team does system design, which is probably the least process-driven activity in the company. They've all been happier and more productive working from home. Design requires a strange mix of uninterrupted time to focus on the work, and occasional interruptions to disctract your conscious brain and give the subconscious some time to solve problems for you. The office is far too distracting - it's open plan with everyone in one space.

We went in about 5 years from in every day we weren't seeing customers, to WFH two days a week, to WFH four days a week, to in the office once a month, and now none of us have been in the office for over a year. At each change measured productivity went up (with the caveat that measuring is tricky - I keep an eye on number and value of quotes produced, but we don't have a way to track quote revision time), as did happiness (or at least moaning about being in the office went down).

I don't look after the more process-driven staff, but they seem more of a mix. Some certainly seem to benefit from the structure of being in the office, some less so.

The near-purely process driven roles have been more of a mix -

[skwdenyer]

Sporky said:

At each change measured productivity went up

Are you sure this isn’t an example of the Hawthorne effect?

[Sporky]

They don't know I do it - they don't have targets. I do it as an additional informal measure of workload, and to see if changes make a difference. It's informal and I don't treat it as particularly accurate, but it was interesting to see.

Theres been nothing to suggest that working from home has caused any significant issues for my team.

[anonymous-user]

Sporky said:

I don't - the two have little to do with each other. For example, I'm a fairly sociable introvert. Our MD is an unsociable extravert (he's a lovely chap, but quiet and reserved) . I know extraverts who are classic shrinking violets, and introverts who are way past assertive.

This is the problem - introverts generally understand extraverts, because there are lots of them, and the world is set up for them. Extraverts generally don't understand introverts.

My understanding is that this simply isn't true. You only have to look round an average office to see that the vast majority are 'middle of the road personality' types, and a much smaller smattering of extroverts and introverts.

Most people are just 'normal' and the term for this is 'Ambiverts'. They make up around 50-68% of the population. Extroverts and Introverts make up the remainder, and generally, are in reasonably equal numbers to each other.

"Research supports this idea, increasingly pointing to the existence of "ambiverts"—people with balanced, nuanced personalities composed of both introverted and extroverted traits. In a Wall Street Journal interview, psychologist Adam Grant estimated that ambiverts make up between a half and two-thirds of the population"

https://www.today.com/health/winning-personality-a...

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-gen-y-...

[skwdenyer]

Sporky said:

They don't know I do it - they don't have targets. I do it as an additional informal measure of workload, and to see if changes make a difference. It's informal and I don't treat it as particularly accurate, but it was interesting to see.

Depending upon your view of the study, it was the change & the sense of involvement in that change that contributed to the productivity improvements, not the measurement per se. But opinions are divided

[Sporky]

Painless said:

That’s just not true.
Some people just value the company or others.

Yes. We have a word for such people - extraverts (or extroverts if you prefer). From experience, they don't understand introverts.

I'm confident that all the people saying I'm wrong are extraverts, which pretty much proves me right.

[Sporky]

Lord Marylebone said:

My understanding is that this simply isn't true. You only have to look round an average office to see that the vast majority are 'middle of the road personality' types, and a much smaller smattering of extroverts and introverts.

Perhaps an oversimplification on my part, but from an introvert's point of view, most people are extraverted. It is of course a spectrum so it's easy to define a middle area as large as you like and claim that most people are therefore in that middle area. Make that middle area smaller and fewer people are in it. All it tells you is how big the middle area has been set by the person making the claim.

If I said (and I'm not making this claim, just illustrating the point) that only 20% of people were ambiverts, that'd mean 80% are introverts or extraverts. At that point it comes down to where you position that 20% on the scale, and indeed on how you measure. But on a night out, if you've had enough and want to go home to read a book, it's not the introverts insisting you stay out later.

[Sporky]

Dagnammit. Looking back I have rather overstated things; apologies for the various hyperbole.

I do think that the return to the office inherently suits extraverts more than introverts (that, I think, is pretty obvious), but I am open to alternative views and interested in how others see it.

[Welshbeef]

School holidays has always been difficult for working families due to the obvious fact 13 weeks school holidays and generally 5 weeks per employee meaning 3 weeks not covered + that would also mean no holidays together as a family.

I can see the Hybrid setup /flexible working especially over those school holiday periods being a very pragmatic way of supporting families.
However the flip side really is that IMHO those who can WFH very generally are higher earners again sadly meaning the lowest paid suffer/inconsistent.

[dxg]

Sporky said:

I want to hear Brian's thoughts on the topic.

Shut up Meg!

[nunpuncher]

Latest from my employer is that they hope to start bringing people back in to my local office around 6 July. Nobody will be forced back, maximum will be 50% capacity each day.

Over the last few weeks I've started to feel like I would actually like to go back in. Not so much on a regular basis as its not really needed. more just to have the option. However, there are a few things that make me wonder if it's really worth it. We'll have to complete an online health survey each day before we come in, masks in communal areas as the building I'm in has several other companies, In person meetings are to be limited and a max number of people will be set for each room, you will only be able to use certain desks and there will be at least 1 empty desk either side of each person.

So TBH I don't really see the point other than it being a day out.

[sevensfun]

nunpuncher said:

Latest from my employer is that they hope to start bringing people back in to my local office around 6 July. Nobody will be forced back, maximum will be 50% capacity each day.

Over the last few weeks I've started to feel like I would actually like to go back in. Not so much on a regular basis as its not really needed. more just to have the option. However, there are a few things that make me wonder if it's really worth it. We'll have to complete an online health survey each day before we come in, masks in communal areas as the building I'm in has several other companies, In person meetings are to be limited and a max number of people will be set for each room, you will only be able to use certain desks and there will be at least 1 empty desk either side of each person.

So TBH I don't really see the point other than it being a day out.

Key benefit for me is splitting work from home properly and colleague interaction for lunch/breaks

Little other benefit and a ballache with canteen shut/taking laptop around

[Teebs]

We were back in the office last week, Team A & Team B with 35% capacity for each team. Masks on when moving around, temps taken on the way in.
Considering I was looking forward to returning, it was a sterile and drab affair.

We've always been flexi working but the office used to be a fun place to visit, certainly isn't in the current situation! Grim.

[Drezza]

I was in yesterday for the first time since March 2020, my god it was awful. They've got rid of all the mugs so I couldn't even have a brew (have to bring your own mug), have to wear masks when walking about and I can't hear anything people are saying as everyone's muffled by their masks. There was only 2 people in an office that normally has about 60 people, was a bit eerie.. I'm in 3 days a week starting from next week.

[anonymous-user]

This is quite interesting about how different offices are handling things. Some of it sounds very overzealous.

As I mentioned a week or so ago, my recent few days back in the office seemed perfectly normal.

No masks whatsoever, no areas out of bounds, no special rules, kitchen area available as usual complete with the usual ‘help yourself’ tea/coffee/milk etc.

They have the office cleaner in every morning at 7am to spray and wipe all the desks and surfaces which is good, but apart from that, nothing to report.

6 of us went out for dinner and beers after work and that seemed busy and ‘normal’ as well.

I guess some employers are obsessed with the worry that if Covid is spread in their workplace they may be somehow liable and also potentially end up with a load of staff off sick.

[s2kjock]

We have recently been told that when restrictions ease (likely end of June, but we'll see .........) it will be largely a matter of choice for staff as to where they work (100 odd staff in 4 floor building). Apparently the bosses have been so impressed by our ability to get through the work while at home over the past year that they feel they can allow this. It is caveated with the "business need" for people to attend, and I can see problems with interpretation of this.

The department I work in has c 30 odd staff, most of which work in small teams, which vary every week or two, and before WFH we did a lot of the work at clients' premises, plus we have many trainees who work towards professional qualifications. The trainees need regular and close supervision to ensure they develop skills and knowledge as well as get through the work efficiently, and teams need to be working closely together to communicate on tasks effectively. This is an area we have really struggled with over lockdown, and has generally been something that middle management have had to deal with as the bosses only see the end product.

We really need to get back to having everyone working together in their teams, but not sure how practical that is going to be if (a) there is an element of choice, and (b) we have restricted numbers to allow social distancing at least initially.

I am keen to get back into a "normal" busy office myself, mainly as I am finding it mentally very difficult to concentrate working alone at home now - but then I am a short walk from the office (no public transport commute) and happen to have my own desk out of the way of most others so any social distancing concerns are minimal. Had I to sit on a bus for 45 minutes and desk share I would be much less keen in the short term.

[nunpuncher]

Our CEO is taking quite a hard line on the return to office policy. It's a US company and as they are slightly ahead of most countries in terms of being "over it" they have been slowly returning over the last 2 months with increasing pressure coming down from the top for middle managers to "insist" people come back in.

It's a very narrow stance to take as we have a wide range of roles, some of which require or benefit from in office work and some where it really shouldn't make a difference. It'll be interesting to see how it pans out as in the last week alone we have lost 10% of our team in the US.