I personally feel that hybrid environments are the best for an employee, but from a business perspective the most expensive as you have to pay for the rent regardless. I think layering in the understanding that it’s a culture that people gravitate to, allows for a company to make the most out of hybrid work.
Which in essence I think is Bolt’s attempt, although I admit I dont the exact nature of how the 3 days are enforced.
Also a top down approach such as this may not have been the best, as perhaps individual teams could have their own requirements based on their unique needs.
In my experience, hybrid gets you the problems of both worlds: you pay for everything twice (office + remote tools), and the quality of the interactions drops (remote attendees of a in-person meeting are usually ignored).
If you get the culture part right, then you don't need to enforce office attendence or take a concrete stance on hybrid/remote/office because employees will self-organize in a way that best serves their shared practices.
> Also a top down approach such as this may not have been the best, as perhaps individual teams could have their own requirements based on their unique needs.
I agree with that – given the size of the organization (4000+ people), it is a convenient way to address the problem though.
> If you get the culture part right, then you don't need to enforce office attendence or take a concrete stance on hybrid/remote/office because employees will self-organize in a way that best serves their shared practices.
I feel this is an extremely idealistic take. I think there are two axes here. One being the affordance to self organise that the company can allow for, and the other is enforceability of it.
I think if you want to take an average case of the team, having some members preferring to come into the office and some preferring to be remote then in essence, you have created a hybrid environment, which to my original first point was that this is the best for a team and its employees. Now, whether or not a company allows this and by extension enforces it in either direction depends on the company.
But what makes it idealistic? I think it describes what you are describing: the average team – some people will go to the office, because "practicing" is easier there and others will do that from home: for the same reason.
The question is: do you need to enforce it in the case when everybody is doing what they think is best?
Also, I do feel that we are both speaking past each other at this point. You have made some very good points that have made me rethink certain salient assumptions. I hope it has been worthwhile for you as well.
I do come from a slightly different background having worked with DAOs and local communes (mostly using Regenerative Finance methodologies) for most of my career, and as such, I think there are certain differences between industries as well that I had not accounted for.
Maybe a socratic circle kind of a gathering/event would be a fun experiment. We could have a short list of topics such as above and have the circle run through them.
Cogently put, and very relevant at the moment.
I personally feel that hybrid environments are the best for an employee, but from a business perspective the most expensive as you have to pay for the rent regardless. I think layering in the understanding that it’s a culture that people gravitate to, allows for a company to make the most out of hybrid work.
Which in essence I think is Bolt’s attempt, although I admit I dont the exact nature of how the 3 days are enforced.
Also a top down approach such as this may not have been the best, as perhaps individual teams could have their own requirements based on their unique needs.
In my experience, hybrid gets you the problems of both worlds: you pay for everything twice (office + remote tools), and the quality of the interactions drops (remote attendees of a in-person meeting are usually ignored).
If you get the culture part right, then you don't need to enforce office attendence or take a concrete stance on hybrid/remote/office because employees will self-organize in a way that best serves their shared practices.
> Also a top down approach such as this may not have been the best, as perhaps individual teams could have their own requirements based on their unique needs.
I agree with that – given the size of the organization (4000+ people), it is a convenient way to address the problem though.
> If you get the culture part right, then you don't need to enforce office attendence or take a concrete stance on hybrid/remote/office because employees will self-organize in a way that best serves their shared practices.
I feel this is an extremely idealistic take. I think there are two axes here. One being the affordance to self organise that the company can allow for, and the other is enforceability of it.
I think if you want to take an average case of the team, having some members preferring to come into the office and some preferring to be remote then in essence, you have created a hybrid environment, which to my original first point was that this is the best for a team and its employees. Now, whether or not a company allows this and by extension enforces it in either direction depends on the company.
> I feel this is an extremely idealistic take.
But what makes it idealistic? I think it describes what you are describing: the average team – some people will go to the office, because "practicing" is easier there and others will do that from home: for the same reason.
The question is: do you need to enforce it in the case when everybody is doing what they think is best?
I broadly agree with you, Dario.
Also, I do feel that we are both speaking past each other at this point. You have made some very good points that have made me rethink certain salient assumptions. I hope it has been worthwhile for you as well.
I do come from a slightly different background having worked with DAOs and local communes (mostly using Regenerative Finance methodologies) for most of my career, and as such, I think there are certain differences between industries as well that I had not accounted for.
Much appreciated :)
You are right, and I feel that at this point it would be better to continue the conversation synchronously :)
Good point!
Maybe a socratic circle kind of a gathering/event would be a fun experiment. We could have a short list of topics such as above and have the circle run through them.
Thoughts?