CHICAGO | Economic & Business Development

[SamInTheLoop]

del

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by marothisu

I can assure you it has already started to happen. My company (big, powerful one) has already apparently held back promotions last year for those with poor in office attendance. And they're 100% paying attention and enforcing now. We've been back in the office regularly (hybrid) for nearly 2 years now and only in the last month have I started to get comments from very upper management about specific people under my "control" and how they need to be in the office more. It recently became part of my management dashboard to see every single person's percentage and it's now on weekly staff meeting agendas for us to enforce it. Before this year it was only a suggestion and someone who came in 10% of the time still got a pass. Not anymore.

Other companies have very recently said it (i think Zuckerberg recently strongly suggested it..). I guarantee that companies will start rolling back Hybrid schedules. May not be this year or even next year but it will happen in the next small handful. I know for a fact some companies are using missing financial expectations as an excuse to get people back more often.

LOL. Watch what happens. This isn't something that Jamie Dimon or a similarly-minded ceo can force onto the macroeconomy, though it seems like some old school boomer (or boomer by mentality) execs actually think they can. Genie is out of the bottle on this one.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

LOL. Watch what happens. This isn't something that Jamie Dimon can force onto the macroeconomy, though it seems like some old school boomer (or boomer by mentality) execs actually think they can. Genie is out of the bottle on this one.

Well I'd hope that hybrid is here to stay but these things go thru phases every handful or few handful of years. These are things that are already starting to happen and at companies who were championing WFH/Remote or Hybrid to begin with. People are looking for excuses and the current happenings in a few industries are exactly that.

[twister244]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Well I'd hope that hybrid is here to stay but these things go thru phases every handful or few handful of years. These are things that are already starting to happen and at companies who were championing WFH/Remote or Hybrid to begin with. People are looking for excuses and the current happenings in a few industries are exactly that.

I think a few large companies are huffing and puffing about return to the office, but in-large I just don't see it happening.

Folks who want to come in will, the rest will continue to WFH, and if their company presses them enough - They will go find a job somewhere else.

Something to remember about remote work, you aren't limited to employers locally. You can basically work for any company in the US, or even parts of the world remotely. When I was in Milan last November, I met a guy at WeWork who works for a US-based company. Married a wife in Italy and now lives there, working remotely.

Again - Doesn't matter who much Jamie Dimon / Elon / Mark / etc says it - We aren't coming back to pre-pandemic office occupancy anytime soon.

[sentinel]

I just started a new job which is fully remote, and I'm beyond thrilled. The company is based outside of Atlanta and is a subsidiary of a much much larger global firm, but the parent company is based in Europe, and they have a much more relaxed attitude about WFH, hybrid, etc., because from what I can tell so far, they're more concerned about quality and proper education for very specific roles, compared to forcing employees to be part of a 'work community'...which to me, is just another form of corporate control/trying to validate and justify middle and upper management roles, which to me are frankly more expendable than the people doing actual work.

Some people hate the idea of WFH and even the hybrid model, and they NEED to be surrounded by other people in an office-type environment..and that is perfectly normal, healthy and reasonable. But if there's one key takeaway from the past 2-3 years, is that work can still be done efficiently, collaboratively and just as effectively working remotely.

For me personally, I have a pretty healthy and full social life, so I don't feel the need to constantly fraternize with people from work, even though I already have a really great rapport with my boss and the rest of my team..and it doesn't feel forced in any way. Mileage may vary, obviously, and I completely get that people need to physically be around others to have a fulfilling professional life. I'm just happy to be in the position I'm currently in, because it still gives me freedom to live in the area, and go about my personal life doing what and when I want in the City and suburbs, without forcing me to go into a physical office, and all of the headaches that entails.

[moorhosj1]

This is a very personal topic for most people as they have specific preferences. In my experience, I work for a very large tech company, we went fully remote for 3 years. I have started coming back to the office once a week. I have seen more and more people each month (today is the most I've seen since March 2020). We are not being forced by management.

It is possible that some companies are actually seeing lower productivity than they expect and want to test whether WFH is the culprit. Labor Productivity rates since late-2020 don't look great. Meanwhile, wages have increased quite a bit.



https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2023/no...arter-2022.htm

[Kngkyle]

Mandating in-office days is just a way for tech companies to shed employees without paying severance. It's quiet firing. Exceptions will be made for key contributors.

I do expect hybrid to become the norm if it isn't already. The tradeoff will be less opportunity for career advancement and lower pay for those that are fully remote. I suspect that is a tradeoff that many are happy to take.

But yea, we're never going back to the level of office usage from 2019. Legacy office buildings need to be converted to residential by the dozens. Over the long run I see this (resident-ification of the Loop) as a net positive even if it's painful in the short term.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

Mandating in-office days is just a way for tech companies to shed employees without paying severance. It's quiet firing. Exceptions will be made for key contributors.

I do expect hybrid to become the norm if it isn't already. The tradeoff will be less opportunity for career advancement and lower pay for those that are fully remote. I suspect that is a tradeoff that many are happy to take.

But yea, we're never going back to the level of office usage from 2019. Legacy office buildings need to be converted to residential by the dozens. Over the long run I see this (resident-ification of the Loop) as a net positive even if it's painful in the short term.

To your last point, there is a unique opportunity right now to address both the lack of need for dedicated office space and the lack of housing around the country simultaneously. If only there was some connection between the two??? Hmmm

[Chisouthside]

I would imagine that the board members and CEOs of alot of these large companies probably have a vested interest in workers coming back into the office as many would probably have significant investments in real estate. So i would also imagine that there would be a small push to bring people back. My company is mostly hybrid but the fully remote slots are not being passed down to the next person in line when someone with a fully remote slot either is promoted or leaves the company and my company is one of the biggest employers in the city,

[SamInTheLoop]

There will no doubt be continued C-suite temper tantrums. Ultimately to no avail.


On the plus side for skyscraper enthusiasts, there's always the chance that this hubris/ceos' belief in their own bs/'book-talking'/corporate nostalgia will result in another large tower launching (probably too optimistic to add "or two"). Smaller chance than I would have said last year, but a chance nonetheless. Looking at Jamie Dimon specifically.

On the flip side, that would only serve to weaken the office market further, as any anchor would vacate gobs of space that in all likelihood only be backfilled at an historically glacial pace, if not sitting vacant until eventual conversion.

[munchymunch]

Originally Posted by moorhosj1

This is a very personal topic for most people as they have specific preferences. In my experience, I work for a very large tech company, we went fully remote for 3 years. I have started coming back to the office once a week. I have seen more and more people each month (today is the most I've seen since March 2020). We are not being forced by management.

It is possible that some companies are actually seeing lower productivity than they expect and want to test whether WFH is the culprit. Labor Productivity rates since late-2020 don't look great. Meanwhile, wages have increased quite a bit.

Interesting point; I'm curious to see how that's calculated, considering the inflation and slowing economy we've faced. I do think in some professions; there's absolutely a direct correlation between working with others in an office and increased productivity. However, I wonder what the actual cost-benefit exists between paying for office space rather than just fully committing to full WFH. There are so many exogenous factors that go into this topic, though, that it only really can be sorted out by a city by city, neighborhood by neighborhood, and industry by industry basis.

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by moorhosj1

This is a very personal topic for most people as they have specific preferences. In my experience, I work for a very large tech company, we went fully remote for 3 years. I have started coming back to the office once a week. I have seen more and more people each month (today is the most I've seen since March 2020). We are not being forced by management.

It is possible that some companies are actually seeing lower productivity than they expect and want to test whether WFH is the culprit. Labor Productivity rates since late-2020 don't look great. Meanwhile, wages have increased quite a bit.



https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2023/no...arter-2022.htm

The productivity puzzle. Such an important topic. But one that economists overwhelmingly are clueless about....not a knock on economists, they just haven't cracked this one. What I'm talking about here is short-term and in 'real time'. Over the long term, and looking back (10+, but really 20+ years) you get some satisfactory explanations. Also subject to significant revision in terms of the higher frequency data.

Having stated that, this particular time period is absolutely wild with respect to what has been going on with the economy, the labor market and thus productivity. Massive disruption and dislocation, supply side issues, swings between goods and services etc etc. All due to the pandemic and continuing reverberations of it. We simply don't have a good idea at the moment what's truly happening to productivity, let alone why. We'll know much more about this period in 5-10 years. What we can say is that apparently labor market productivity in the 2010s was pretty sluggish.

Prediction: No, we will not see - in hindsight - productivity surge in the 2020s due to AI. (this viral marketing campaign - really trying to get various market participants and others to empty their pockets for them - about the dangers of AI will eventually be revealed for just that). Limited job destruction, but some tech financiers and others will get really rich in the short term with this play.

[SamInTheLoop]

Moorhosj's point about this being a very personal topic for a lot of people is I think correct. It isn't for me personally - I tend to look at most things from a very detached analytical frame. I myself am quite old school in this regard when it comes to office/remote etc. However, I also like to inhabit reality. And the direction of traffic is very clear here. No amount of ceo's stomping their feet and clutching their pearls and getting all red in the face and (it's a pale gang) will alter that. Neither will a recession, mind you.

[marothisu]

What I was talking about before is what I was personally noticing in some regards. I think hybrid is going to stay around for awhile, but do not be surprised if in 5 to 10 years it goes further out of fashion. I hope not but if CEOs and others near that level want people to come in more and more, then they also have to deal with a few issues:

1) the schedules of services such as doctors/dentists and day care are sometimes not optimal. There are appointments I take my young kid to which are never open anymore on the weekends. It forces me to have to work from home on those days. I do come into the office now, after the appointments, only because they're taking note but before that I'd just stay at home. There's also some day cares that close too early which is really hard for parents to even pick up their kids from if they're working at the office and a normal 8 or 9 to 5 job.

2) Real estate concerns. There are companies out there which did expand a lot in the pandemic (even if some of them have had some layoffs recently). Their real estate footprint isn't conducive anymore to their head count and even if they wanted to have everyone in the office, they couldn't. I have heard of some companies who have started to scale back hiring literally because of this too. They have to start getting more creative in terms of utilizing space and who is in person and when. Finding space/leasing, permitting, the actual build out, etc takes so long that it is legitimately hampering some companies who have come back to the office from expanding more not just in Chicago but other cities like NYC. It's an interesting conundrum of a company who wants to be in the office who doesn't have enough space but needs to grow still.

The pandemic kind of threw a bunch of things off kilter, and there's a lot of things apart from the obvious that would have to get back to pre-pandemic ways for more people to even come to the office 50%+ of the time even if they want to but can't right now.


Personally, I like being in the office but I like the flexibility of being at home a few days a week. I work with people from all time zones in the US and some in Asia - I'm on calls all the time, but there ARE definitely times where being in person has helped a bit with some brainstorming sessions. I think that 75% of the people who ultimately fall under me are pretty trustworthy at home but there's actually more than just 1 or 2 who we've had some issues with when they're at home unfortunately.


At the end of the day, I'm happy to see The Loop will (hopefully) become more of a 24 hour neighborhood. I cannot stand how dead of a place it is on a week night west of State St (minus a few very small areas). It really has a chance to become much better and maybe in 5 to 10 years we'll hear less of "nobody hangs out in the Loop after work." Whether this pandemic happened or not, I think it's pretty needed anyway.

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

It is never (should be careful about using the word.....but I think prudent here) getting anywhere close to pre-pandemic levels.....in fact, the new equilibrium is pretty much here.....if anything, I'd expect another step back rather than material further progress. What's funny is the massive portion of real estate industry folks who continue to delude themselves....so much so that many are - I kid you not - actually cheering for a recession because they believe that will tip the balance of leverage in the labor market back to employers who will use it to enforce back-to-office mandates. Kid you not, that's a thing. Delusional. And plus, you know what's not good for real estate (typically!), geniuses? Um, recessions.

The expectation that every job needs to be done in an office--even if you just sit there and type all day and don't talk to anyone--is over. If you're just filling out medical billing forms or answering support calls at a call center, your productivity can be tracked quite well. If you don't need to pay for real estate and the job gets done just as well at home, those jobs are going to be at home.

But just like in 2019, the person who calls into the meeting from home because of a sick child is being productive. But he or she is less productive. When everyone gets together at my company, things happen serendipitously that don't or can't happen over Teams, email or a phone call.

(Productivity boost from being co-local and more closely guiding activity) - (extra cost of real estate) + (productivity boost from easier hiring due to providing the work-at-home-perk) = Some Number. If it's positive there will be more in-office and if it's negative there will be less in-office jobs.

I think there will be a lot more work from and flex- and hybrid-schedules than in the past. Probably a lot more! But corporate culture is super important. And the benefit from being in-person is real. If I had law firm and I had to determine a policy right now that we would use for 10-years, there's no way I'd make it "mostly remote or work from home." I'm confident that's not the best way to grow a law firm. But I also wouldn't make it 100% in-office either, because I think that would make it harder to hire.

I think anyone who is extremely confident about how this is going to shake out is over-confident, regardless of their position. There are a lot of variables. And of course, if the value of office real estate drops far enough due to lack of demand, the price will drop to meet the market and the equation will shift to favor in-office.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum

But just like in 2019, the person who calls into the meeting from home because of a sick child is being productive. But he or she is less productive. When everyone gets together at my company, things happen serendipitously that don't or can't happen over Teams, email or a phone call.

this is total nonsense. if you have a sick child youre dealing with than yes of course youre not as productive, but thats not an apples-apples comparison. study after study showed that productivity actually went up during remote work. people save endless hours of their lives from not commuting for one - and for better or worse guess what, a lot of people wind up taking calls or working earlier/later from home because they dont need to worry about rushing out of the office to catch a train or beat the Kennedy logjam.

my day is nearly entirely meetings (read: Teams calls), and those calls already entail people spread across the entire country, and even around the world. so regardless of where local teams are physically sitting, its already structurally "remote" in that sense. it makes no difference if X person is sitting in their den, or a padded phone room in an office building - the same conversation is happening.

i do think theres a need for younger team members to have more 1-1 nurturing to develop their skills, and a lot of that i agree cant happen remote. i think thats the bigger tug to bring people back in at least partially, but i dont agree that productivity is an actual real factor. being in the office is incredibly distracting - trend towards open office means many distracting conversations happening simultaneously, people stopping by unannounced (thus interrupting concentration and workflow), aimless banter etc (ah yes, that "culture" of pretending to like the people you work with).

lets also not forget that for in many cases going into the office entails a performance, especially for women, who substantially moreso than men are expected to look a certain way and maintain a certain societal standard (all of which takes an enormous amount of time and effort and money) and have to deal with objectification once they do show up, which they are freed from by being remote on their own terms.

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

my day is nearly entirely meetings (read: Teams calls), and those calls already entail people spread across the entire country, and even around the world. so regardless of where local teams are physically sitting, its already structurally "remote" in that sense. it makes no difference if X person is sitting in their den, or a padded phone room in an office building - the same conversation is happening.

I have been work at home remote for 18 years. My day is also mostly Teams calls. And when I go to the office for a week or when I fly overseas to HQ for some meetings, productive things always happen that don't happen over Teams.

I pop my head into someone's office and ask a question that I forgot about 100 times. I look at something in person. We open up a document and look at it in 10 five minute chunks rather than one 50-minute chunks. We sit around a table and do training for a half day and over lunch rather than for one hour every Monday for a month. People ask questions that would be a little awkward to bring up on a video call with 16 faces.

We haven't had an in-person executive meeting since 2019 and I'm extremely confident that our product development and focus is well behind where it should be, even though those meetings have been replaced by 4x the frequency of Teams calls. The same conversation is not happening.

I'd hate to have to go back to an office full time. But as one of the Country's top 0.1% most experience remote workers who manages a team of remote workers who were remote before the pandemic, it's extremely clear that in-person has advantages. As I wrote, so does remote. If you're very confident that one way is the best then you're over confident.

[Via Chicago]

the point is, even if people are "in office" they are still by and large not as accessible as you are making it seem. everyone is tied to their Teams calls, in office or not. our entire working culture has become sitting on calls. actual "work" happens in the scant few minutes you find in gaps during the day. and the odds that aligns with anyone else you need to collab with is slim to none, since they all are also getting pulled in a million directions.

im not saying this is necessarily ideal either. its actually a huge problem with our entire notion of white collar work. meetings to discuss meetings. but arbitrarily ordering people to show up 2-3 days a week without addressing those root issues solves nothing and just breeds resentment for having time wasted on top of already not having enough personal time in our lives. the most precious thing to actually achieve the productivity you say you value is actually the ability to concentrate and work without interruption, in large blocks of time. OR to have actual dedicated time for collaboration, without having other expectations heaped upon that time. and thats whats actually been wholesale deprived in our working culture - and yet everyone wonders why they get to the end of the day and cant figure out what it is they actually did.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

everyone is tied to their Teams calls, in office or not. our entire working culture has become sitting on calls. actual "work" happens in the scant few minutes you find in gaps during the day. and the odds that aligns with anyone else you need to collab with is slim to none, since they all are also getting pulled in a million directions.

sounds like hell.

im so fucking glad that my new 5 days/week in-office job does not stress meetings (in-person, virtual, or otherwise).

a lot of it has to do with working for a small architecture firm where everyone i need to work with is in literal ear shot of me.

just hours and hours per day lost in drafting-land, one of my happy places, and a place i was incapable of finding over the previous 3 years of WFHing.

thank Pizza God that i will never have to WFH ever again!

[Via Chicago]

i work for an agency. its reality.