To think ‘hybrid working’ is a bit shit actually?

[OctopusDare]

(Full disclosure: I’m really hoping all the replies are “YABU because my employer is doing it properly and it’s great”, to give me some hope to look elsewhere. Please also let me know if you’re hiring.)

My office job went WFH at the start of the pandemic. This was shit for those of us who don’t like WFH, but okay, pandemic. This year we have been trying ‘hybrid’ working. What this means is that coming into the office sometimes is ‘encouraged’. In practice it looks like this:

• Senior people mostly don’t, except their bosses want them to, so what we get is them regularly hassling us to “have a conversation with your manager about what works for you and your team! But come in sometimes! But it’s entirely up to you! But also you should definitely come in sometimes,” on Zoom calls from their lovely garden offices.

• About two-thirds of people say they want to work out of the office some of the week, but that they don’t want to go in if it’s nearly empty, they only want to go in if there are other people there to work with. And this never seems to get co-ordinated, so in practice people just… don’t go in because it’s empty because of all the other people who aren’t there because they don’t want to go in if it’s empty.

• For those of us who are in, the office is bleak and weird to work from and feels like a post-apocalyptic disaster film.

• Because of all this it’s really hard to train up new people to do anything other than very process-based work. We have lost some newer recruits because they felt like they weren’t getting to meet people or learn from them, and because they didn’t like the choice between working from home and working from a near-empty office on their own.

• There is ENDLESS whining, on and on and on and on, from some of the people who want to WFH full-time and feel like they’re being ‘pressured’ to go back in. “But I am more productive from home!”, says the person who just emailed a distribution list of 40 of us to complain yet again at length about how much he hates offices.

• Endless amounts of time trying to work out “hybrid ways of working” which all just end up the worst of both worlds. Like meetings - the rule is now that we encourage meetings to be in-person, but everyone in person should have their laptops in front of them with cameras on and talk to the camera, so that the people joining from home don’t feel left out. Which is rubbish. So people don’t do it and just work from home, which the managers then complain about, which… etc etc etc.

I liked the idea of hybrid working, but in practice it feels like the worst of both worlds. All the bad points of WFH except with added faff and stress and whining and uncertainty.

Are there places which are making this work? (And by ‘making this work’ I do not mean ‘the office is open for people who want it i suppose but I personally don’t leave my house’, we already have that, I mean a proper mix of in-person and at-home.) Or is hybrid just inevitably shit?

It seems to be split between the people who feel they're forced to go in (and aren't actually going in, mostly, but think they might have to in the future), and the people who feel forced to work in bleak, lonely offices in ways they don't like. People have different preferences.

I'm fine with people who aren't me preferring to WFH, or preferring the kind of 'hybrid' which is basically 'I am going to WFH permanently except I might amble by the office once every couple of months'. You want that, fine. But if you (a generic 'you', I'm thinking of some of my colleagues) wanting that relies upon trying to strongarm those who don't want that into shutting up about it or psychologically re-educating themselves into learning how WFH is really the best way FOR EVERYBODY and the only reason you're not loving it is because you don't have friends, or whatever, then no. That's not a reasonable ask of people, and it is not a sustainable argument for your (generic, again) way of working.

I do not like working from near-empty offices and being nagged into 'hybrid' meetings that aren't by better-paid seniors WFH in big houses. It is what it is.

I don't really understand this - how are they trying to strongarm you into anything? And if it doesn't bother you that people prefer different ways of working to you, then why do people sitting at home during meetings bother you?

We do hybrid meetings, they work fine, it doesn't bother me who is sitting where, it's generally not on my radar when I'm in a meeting!

I hybrid work, and there's a general rule that people who are coming in try to come in on a Wednesday. Tuesday and Thursday are also popular. Monday and Friday are always very quiet. When the winter hits, I will be in all day every day to save on heating costs! I wonder if that will be what finally pushes some people to go back to full time in the office.

I don't really understand this - how are they trying to strongarm you into anything?

Paraphrased: “I don’t see why people are complaining about this. They just want other people to go back to the office. You shouldn’t make me want to go back to the office. You have an office you can go to, that’s you sorted, stop pointing out that you find it miserable that it’s empty because that is just trying to force people like me back, and I have now moved to Dibley 300 miles away and don’t want to commute.”

And if it doesn't bother you that people prefer different ways of working to you, then why do people sitting at home during meetings bother you?

As I said earlier: “the rule is now that we encourage meetings to be in-person, but everyone in person should have their laptops in front of them with cameras on and talk to the camera, so that the people joining from home don’t feel left out. Which is rubbish. So people don’t do it and just work from home, which the managers then complain about, which… etc etc etc.”

It is fine if this would not bother you. It bothers me. Not everyone likes to do meetings this way.

It's varied from team to team with us. My wider team is spread all over the UK so not being in the office, given no teams are co-located, was less of a big deal for us.

Now my division are being mandated to go in 1 day a week from September and 2 days a week from November. I don't mind it that much as long as I'm not going in to sit by myself in a deserted office which has been the case every time I've gone in so far. Apparently we've all got "too comfortable working from home" and it's not good for us to be so isolated. I think the truth is that senior leadership have got twitchy about paying thousands and thousands to maintain empty buildings. Personally I don't give two hoots about socialising with my colleagues. They are just people I work with, not my friends.

This is interesting to me because I was asked to moderate a discussion about this before wfh started. (I wasn't in HR so had no responsibility for implementing it).

It was one of the oddest days of my working life because the people who were against it were effectively saying "I want people in the office because I WANT that. Our needs should be considered". So I asked "do you want days where people are compelled to come in?" And they said "yes", and seemed baffled at the idea that we would lose risking good staff because of it. Or that people might be quiet and resentful.

It felt like talking to you now. You think it's unfair for people to be allowed to work at home all the time because you don't like it. But that balances against years of people going in when they didn't want to and quite possibly didn't have to.

All it is, in summary, is that the working conditions don't suit you. No one is being unfair or asking anything unreasonable of you.

So the only solution is you find another job, but it reads as if you think the company owe you a different solution.

You say
"I do not like working from near-empty offices and being nagged into 'hybrid' meetings that aren't by better-paid seniors WFH in big houses. It is what it is."

I understand the first part of this - you don't like the empty office, but what is the second bit about? You want them to come to the office to keep you company?

tbh I love hybrid meetings.

the time keeping has much improved. meetings actually start and end when scheduled.

WFH destroyed my mental health and I ended up suicidal due to the lack of contact with people, IT issues, unsuitable workspace at home and nowhere to set one up, and having my very stressful job bleeding into every part of my home life.

It genuinely perplexes me how people can not understand that

This. I’m 100% remote and if that changed I’d simply leave and go elsewhere (no problem finding companies that need my skills). Hybrid simply doesn’t appeal at all to me, and having to commute into an office reduces my productivity dramatically.

It's a different type of social interaction. if you're in an office you have numerous short conversations with different people during the day. That's enough socialising for me. Going to (say) meet a friend for a drink is a different type of socialising. I also don't want to go out and see a friend every evening (and I've never found that exercise classes involves much chatting -2 minutes at the end maybe?) as sometimes I just want to veg at home or do things with my family. or my friends want to do things with their family and not meet up with me all the time.

most of the people I work with live within 10 minutes drive from the office and many could walk or cycle. Long commutes are not a factor for everyone. And if they are doing the extra socialising you suggest, that's not really taking cars off the road, just shifting their usage.

So, basically, it sounds to me like it isn't them trying to force you to think like them - it's them answering you after you've been complaining to them that you don't like working in an empty office. Which I can understand them doing, hybrid working is so new it only takes a few very vocal complainers to have the whole thing removed and force everyone back into the office full-time. Which it kind of sounds like you want.

Most people have some conditions about their job that they don't like, very few have perfection - some like the building but hate the travel times, some like the hours but hate all the meetings, some (like most of your co-workers pre-covid, presumably) like the work but hate the lack of work life balance. The job has now changed to give them that, and that's great for them; but it might not be everyone's thing, and you either have to find a way of coping with the change, or leaving for somewhere with conditions you prefer.

@VladmirsPoutine : "I will just say that people who hate WFH really genuinely perplex me."

Eh? You are so dim you can't grasp it?
I can appreciate all the reasons why different people, different personalities, like wfh,hybrid,full office. Can't you? Give it some thought. If you have 1/2 a brain cell, all the reasons will occur to you.

It felt like talking to you now. You think it's unfair for people to be allowed to work at home all the time because you don't like it. But that balances against years of people going in when they didn't want to and quite possibly didn't have to.

For me, at my organisation, the policy was never that everyone would work from home. It was that once pandemic restrictions allowed, we would be hybrid. This is now what's in place. But the reality of 'hybrid' seems pretty shit.

Some people's response to this shitness is "well they should just scrap this whole 'hybrid' thing and let us WFH forever, or redefine it as 'everyone does what they like'". Some other people's response is "they should set clear definitions for what they mean by hybrid that better include both home and office time."

You clearly think that the first group should be deferred to on this, and that those of us in the second group should find another job. Why? And why should "I'd like to do a job closer to the one I signed up for, thanks" be seen as somehow an unfair imposition on those who don't want that, and would have to choose between doing the job they applied for and finding one they like better elsewhere?

*"I do not like working from near-empty offices and being nagged into 'hybrid' meetings that aren't by better-paid seniors WFH in big houses. It is what it is."
I understand the first part of this - you don't like the empty office, but what is the second bit about? You want them to come to the office to keep you company?"

Again, and I did spell all this out in my OP but I appreciate that was a while back in the thread now, I don't think it's reasonable for senior people to follow organisation-wide rules when they aren't prepared to follow said rules themselves.

It seems that what you're angling for here is for me to have a revelation that really I just need more friends, and then I'd appreciate the true joys of my tumbleweed office, endless moaning from colleagues and stupid 'hybrid' meeting setups. I am sorry to disappoint you.

"I don't think it's reasonable for senior people to follow organisation-wide rules when they aren't prepared to follow said rules themselves" - that should be "I don't think it's reasonable for senior people to insist that others follow organisation-wide rules when they aren't prepared to follow said rules themselves", of course.

@EmmaH2022 I completely agree. Those wanting to WFH aren’t requiring anything of other people, whereas those wanting to work in the office and have company are requiring something of other people. That’s why their argument will always fall down. In circumstances where WFH contributes to well-being (and where that is not the case, people are free to go into the office) mandating people to go into the office simply so that Linda has someone to chat to is not going to fly.

We have a rota. Some people are in every day and have been throughout. Others are in one-three days a week. This would work but we have have two office buildings. Until recently those in the office were spread out between the two so, plenty of space. Now we're all crammed into one, with the other being for management to have face to face meetings in when they wish. The rest of the time, they're at home same as they have been for two and a half years. It's causing a lot of bad feeling.

That is really poor.

Alternately: "We're not REQUIRING you to do your job in a way you find soul-destroying and awful! It's just an inevitable consequence of the unilateral change I want to impose on the organisation, and on the conditions we all signed up for, which I would now like to change. If you don't agree with me you are MAKING me not change the way we all work, which is mean of you because this suits me"

Not sure that's going to fly either, tbh. Certainly the compromise my job has found at the moment just seems to be making everyone grumpy.

Yes, it is.

Thing is, the rota itself is ok. Mostly people who are in every day are ok with that, for the rest there are niggles as it's poorly served by public transport but two days is better than five in that sense, so it could work, just about.

But no, they had to take that building for themselves and fuck it all up.

Reading all of these posts with interest. I started a new job at the beginning of the year, to find that virtually all the management work almost exclusively from home while the frontline staff are in every day. I've seen my line manager in person twice in that time. They've reduced the amount of desks so all office staff hotdesk (which I hate) and long standing members of staff have been allowed to 'choose' their desks, so its not a true hotdesking environment anyway. Learning from existing staff has been very difficult when most of the ones I interact with are WFH most of the time, don't answer emails or Teams calls, don't turn up to online meetings and there's no 'rule' about who is in the office and when. I always put in my calendar the days I'm WFH and when I'm in, but I seem to be the only one who does that.

Also, with no management on site I've noticed there's a lot of poor working practice going on with those going in, not doing their hours, and bullying among staff. Management know this (I think) but would rather WFH than come in and tackle it. When managers do come into the office, they spend most of the day in online meetings anyway.

I've WFH in different capacities for over a decade, and it has its own challenges, but I've never worked quite like this before.

But they CAN make unilateral changes, my sister's firm changed counties! Lots of people had to wfh or leave.

you say everyone is unhappy. Are they? It sounds like the majority want to wfh and have to make a noise when people try to push them back to the office.

you've achieved the impossible, as happened with my experience at the seminar.
I find myself on the side of senior mgmt. An event so rare, I might need a brandy and a lie down!

can't you and the people who like the office just fix some days to be in together?

I'm freelance but thinking of going back to a secure job, if there's really so much 100% home working and not having to do a Teams meeting every day.

sounds like those of us who prefer output to be measured might actually be in favour atm? Looking for a job is a job in itself so I'm not sure.

But it isn’t making everyone angry, it is only making those who want to work from the office angry or get a significant portion of their social interactions from the office.
So what is the alternative? Force those who are happy to wfh to come in full time in order to satisfy those who want to work in the office. That isn’t pleasing everyone, it is just making someone else unhappy, but it just isn’t you.

I'm not sure anyone wants their colleagues in solely for "someone to chat to". I'd like my colleagues to be in because it's quicker and easier to be able to talk to them and have meetings in person rather than endless Teams calls. I'd also like colleagues that I don't have endless Teams calls with to be in, so I can find out what they are doing as well - because this helps me to do my job better, enables me to find out about new opportunities and learn new things.

This week a new person started in my team. She came into the office solely because she's just moved house and doesn't have broadband set up yet. But she's spent the week asking me (because I was in) lots of questions and checking things. This would easily have taken twice as long if she's had to try to do it virtually - and yet it's only chance that she came in.

Telling people they can do what they want means that people who like wfh and perhaps are established in their career or do a job that doesn't need them to collaborate others will wfh. Whereas people who would like to occasionally have f2f meetings because it makes their job easier and more efficient have to struggle on.

And I disagree that people wfh are not requiring things of others.
My colleague's refusal to cone in, even occasionally means I have to spend approximately an hour getting the answer to a question that would take 2 minutes if I could ask him directly.