Dh has been told to get back to the office

[SmiledWithTheRisingSun]

For a minimum of 2 days per week.
Is this an end to WFH?

@whiteroseredrose that might be your particular issue but these people are saying that it’s being near others. I do get the commute angle (I have a long one but have done hybrid working for a few years).

But a company can't thrive on Sallys alone. They do need some people who thrive on a bit of social interaction and contribute to the development of others rather than keeping their head down all day.

Sally can of course leave but I think her options for wfh, especially 5 days pw? will become quite limited by 12 months after this crisis ends.

I'm staying home for the time being due to space in the office. Manager is happy for me to do so, my job can't be less productive when I'm at home and customer service hasn't changed

@IcedPurple for me it's measurable (productivity) and I'm monitored every minute of the day so nobody has actually figured out a way to be less productive as well, there isn't one
My job is to answer the phone. It's visible when I'm logged in, going to the toilet, on my lunch. If I logged out then my boss would be "why are you logged out?" and calls come through automatically

I actually think hybrid working could be very damaging for women because it will be women who chose to be at home more than in the office, thus missing out on all the chance opportunities. It's human nature to discuss the next big deal with the people who are in the office on the day and to think first of the people you see most often. It will be like trying to maintain a career whilst working PT. Not impossible but much harder.

Meanwhile men will "need" to be in the office often, will still go to the after works drinks, leaving women to manage their home working so they can be at all the school pick ups etc .

Obviously a generalisation but we know that's how things will work in the majority of cases.

We were told by HR that we would be back in the office from the 21st June for 2/3 days a week. Then had a meeting with our Director, who said realistically they have reduced the work space and when we take into account the people who need to be in as they deal with the public or need to be in because of their mental health or practical reasons WFH will continue. He says he has better things to do than spend time negotiating work space for people who prefer to work from home and have proved trustworthy doing so

The hybrid model is great but it is going to see people left behind. Preference for advancement is more likely to be given to those who are ‘visible’ (i.e. those who are in the office). Out of sight, out of mind. I’d also suggest that tendency is more likely to impact women disproportionately, as they’re probably more likely to work from home full time or more often.

But a company can't thrive on Sallys alone. They do need some people who thrive on a bit of social interaction and contribute to the development of others rather than keeping their head down all day. Sally can of course leave but I think her options for wfh, especially 5 days pw? will become quite limited by 12 months after this crisis ends

Loads of companies are sticking with some level of WFH in the long term (my DHs employer is, it will save them a fortune).

Not sure why it’s Sally’s job to make Fred work effectively.
Obviously the WFH / in-office split will depend upon what job you have. I’m sure a compromise can be reached where Sally comes in 1 or 2 days a week. And very sociable types can come in more often.
I really don’t see why the Sally’s of the world have to come in 5 days a week, because the Fred’s of the world can’t be trusted to work from home. Also, I’d put money on it that Fred doesn’t pull his weight in the office either.

I don’t get to WFH, so it really doesn’t affect me personally. But it would be better for society and the environment if we had less commuting.

I think anyone who truly believed that full time working from home was going to be the 'new normal' were a bit naive.

Yes some companies may have decided to do it, but the hybrid working model seems to be by far the most popular amongst the employers of every office based person I know

@CrownKettle

The hybrid model is great but it is going to see people left behind. Preference for advancement is more likely to be given to those who are ‘visible’ (i.e. those who are in the office). Out of sight, out of mind. I’d also suggest that tendency is more likely to impact women disproportionately, as they’re probably more likely to work from home full time or more often.

Once again, sort your management out.

If a person applies for a promotion, and that promotion does not require lots of face to face interaction they should get the job.

There is a chance more women will choose to work from home than men. Best way to stop this impinging on promotion prospects is to improve the interview and selection process.

You may be right WheSheWasBad, but I'll guarantee Fred gets promoted ahead of Sally if he's more visible.

If a person applies for a promotion, and that promotion does not require lots of face to face interaction they should get the job.

But that's not how human nature works. It might be how things should be, but it isn't how they are. Just the same way that someone who does a diligent job but doesn't promote themself is less likely to be promoted even if everyone is in. That may well be a failing in management but it's a very widespread one, that will mostly affect women.

You may be right WheSheWasBad, but I'll guarantee Fred gets promoted ahead of Sally if he's more visible

Then Sally needs to put in a complaint. Fred sounds rubbish.

To be fair though if the job is meeting clients at the office. Fred would be a better option. But if is it reviewing projects from a desk, Sally should get the job.

The issue is lousy and frankly sexist management. The solution to this problem is an improved and objective promotion policy.

There is a chance more women will choose to work from home than men.

Exactly. There’s a real danger that women will fall even further behind in their careers as a result of hybrid models and the choices they make.

Best way to stop this impinging on promotion prospects is to improve the interview and selection process.

You need to be realistic. This isn’t going to happen. Face to face time is invaluable when it comes to influence and presence within the company. Who has the most influence, the person in the room or the person on zoom. It’s not rocket science predicting how this will pan out.

The question is how many of the women whose careers slow down would have otherwise left work entirely. If they are mostly women who would have had 10 years at home not working, they are probably better off. If they are the women who would have worked 5 days/week in the office, then yes they will be further behind.

Of course it will. And so it should. 2 days a week is fine and he should be grateful for that.

I think it would only be right to wait for the 'work from home if you can' advice to be dropped but other than that I am glad to hear there is a move back to a workplace. It means the mangers have been listening to those early in their careers who are disadvantaged by not having the chance to shadow other staff, have the informal chats that inspire and feel part of a team while at the same time being those least likely to have space at home to work away from their living space.

You need to be realistic. This isn’t going to happen. Face to face time is invaluable when it comes to influence and presence within the company

There’s another time women lose out on face to face time. When they take maternity leave.

Solution isn’t to get them back into the workplace as soon as possible. But to improve women’s/mothers rights in the workplace. (Still a long way to go with this obviously).

There are also people who have progressed as far in their career as they want. Like my husband, he’s happy where he is, doesn’t want a promotion. Happy to WFH doing what he does for the foreseeable. He’s not going to be tempted back into the office by a possible promotion he’s not interested in.

The idea that everyone is hankering to move up the greasy pole is simply not true.

If you are looking for a big promotion, fine, work harder, be present more often. But don’t force that on the other 90% of staff who are quite happy where they are for the time being.

Someone might not want a promotion themselves but the company know that for the progression of their staff in general they will lose out by having those with experience and developed skills a screen away from their less experienced staff. Even the very best video call won't replicate being sat a few desks away.

@OddBoots

Someone might not want a promotion themselves but the company know that for the progression of their staff in general they will lose out by having those with experience and developed skills a screen away from their less experienced staff. Even the very best video call won't replicate being sat a few desks away.

Well firstly, just do a mix of WFH and present in the office, that way everyone wins.

Secondly, your company sound like they rely on more experienced staff to coach and motivate the new ones. Do these mentors actually get paid for this responsibility? It sounds like the job of a manager (or at least someone seconded to a mentoring role) not a colleague.

But to improve women’s/mothers rights in the workplace. (Still a long way to go with this obviously).

Long term hybrid models would inevitably represent an enormous step back for women.

There are also people who have progressed as far in their career as they want. Like my husband, he’s happy where he is, doesn’t want a promotion. Happy to WFH doing what he does for the foreseeable. He’s not going to be tempted back into the office by a possible promotion he’s not interested in.

It’s not just about promotion. Would you husband want to see his influence and power in the company diminish, while others at the same level increase? I doubt it.

What people haven’t wrapped their heads around is how much more difficult a hybrid model is going to be to manage.

A range of staff with different requirements on what will suit them best. Struggling to get teams together when needed or getting hold of key people at a moments notice. Crying favouritism whenever people in the office get the best projects. Or, equally, annoyance when people based in the office feel they’re carrying more of their fair share. Lack of efficiencies managing juniors.

In the end, plenty of businesses will decide it isn’t worth the hassle. Many are rowing back on early promises already.

It’s not just about promotion. Would you husband want to see his influence and power in the company diminish, while others at the same level increase? I doubt it

He honestly would not give a shit. But his whole company are moving to a hybrid model. The vast majority of staff will only be in 1/2 days a month. Everyone is in the same boat. Company will save a small fortune due to reduced need for office space.

Long term hybrid models would inevitably represent an enormous step back for women keating I’m not sure about this. This thread was actually about a Dh wanting to keep WFH, fewer commuting hours for him, he’s able to be with the kids more and do some school runs. Doesn’t sound like a big set back for women. It could possibly lead to men taking on more childcare / domestic tasks.
Definitely not as simple as “only women will WFH which will screw them over”

DH is a business owner. He has asked his staff to come back in at least 2 days a week, with a view to making it full time by the end of summer. He has found that wfh is not great for team working, for general productivity or for keeping track of what everyone is doing.

I think a lot of people who’ve expected to carry on wfh or being hybrid are going to be surprised by companies who decide that they want staff present in the office again.

I do think it’s ridiculous that a lot of people think it’s their God given right to wfh now.

@whiteroseredrose

Looks like we're going to have to do a minimum of 2 days in. I'm gutted. I've been much more productive at home without the noise of the office and people rabbiting on.

I think where I work will do this too. And yet I don't see the point, we aren't customer facing, we have proven in stats that we've had a more productive year with way less sickness. Making us go back in is just going to piss people off.

I just keep telling them that I want to stay working from home and can see no reason why I have to go in other than they want to see a bum in a seat. Which is fine if that's what they want, but currently they get OT from me because I have no commute. They will get f all if I'm made to go back in. That's commuting time and I'm not missing out on my private life for work. I have no intention of going for promotions either so doesn't affect me.

As much as I love wfh though, I don't understand the people last year who moved to the other end of the country in some cases on the basis that their boss said it was wfh from now on. What will they do if the bosses change their minds?

I'm looking to buy a bigger house, but the size will depend on needed office space. Not going to increase my mortgage just to be dragged back in again.