Amazon exec says it’s time for workers to ‘disagree and commit’ to office return — “I don’t have data to back it up, but I know it’s better.”

You don't think all those come on lines make themselves up?

That shit takes work, worth more than his salary!

Yes to the expensive lunch, but Secretary? Oh no, they don't go into the office. That's for you people.

One of Amazon's core values is being data driven. If you want to change something, you colllect data about it first. It was one of employees large counterpoints to RTO at the org, the lack of data provided about its value.

This is the exec admitting they aren't following the Amazon process, but are making people do it anyway.

"Disagree and commit" is another one of their principles, i.e "we acknowledge that you disagree, but you need to commit anyway now that we made the decision." Better known as "Im the boss, so shut up."

This guy is just a bald face saying "we dont have the data to back this up so we shouldn't do it, but i said do it, so do it."

The investors are also invested in commercial real estate, so it's a win/win .

Because executives and investors are often cut from the same cloth, flaws and all. Plenty of them will have the same baseless belief that office-based work is “just better”.

Plenty of the are also investors in commercial real estate as well as tech companies, and property bubbles need regular reinflation.

I think this stuff entices investors more than anything

But that would require them to admit they were wrong and not prescient.

Corporations base so many decisions on sunk cost.

They don't have leases. They own that real estate. So its value is a considerable line item in the company's value. If they get people in office, it's a boost to the company's value. The property is hit yet sunk in their eyes.

The funny thing is, it's compatible with capitalism, just people are either afraid of change or invested in the old ways.

Amazon would love a 1% increase in employee productivity, unless it means $500MM worth of lease breaking fees and shareholders grilling them for why they signed those leases in the first place. Or worse they bought the building, and now have to sell it at a big discount.

Everyone's invested in commercial real estate because it was a cash cow. Now the party's over, and rather than acknowledge that lots of people (and cities) have a financial incentive to try and keep the party going.

Of course the shitty thing is the big losers in all this are the individual people. The workers in a city lose when property values (and cost of living as a result) are so high they can't afford rent. The workers in a company lose when they have to waste time and money commuting. But nobody seems to give a shit about the little guy...

No, it does not. It means that they think it's more profitable for shareholders.

Pretty sure Amazon gets kickbacks from the city of Seattle to keep the offices filled with ppl

"We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." --Anais Nin

A manager who thinks physical access to employees makes him an effective manager is going to push for that, even if the data says otherwise. We see this in every industry. During pandemic the headline was 'productivity is flat or increasing with WFH', now it's 'time for RTO'.

It's also not just about management, it's about real estate. Companies including Amazon have paid billions for office space, including long term leases that will be very costly to break. So if they say WFH is the future, they'll have to explain to their shareholders why they signed for (apparently unnecessary) office space that's hurting the bottom line.

https://toggl.com/blog/remote-work-statistics

https://www.strongdm.com/blog/remote-work-statistics

Couple links i found with sources for the statistics. Owllabs is a common source between tem but i tried to find at least 2 sites with different sources.

Won't really help. Most of them ignore reality and substitute their own.

If you dig into the links in the article, there is one study finding data entry workers in India worked only 87% as hard as their in office counterparts, however, the studies authors are quick to point out living conditions and management styles are significantly different there than in the US. There is also a study in the US which found that approximately 40% of time saved by not commuting went to additional work. Guess which study is brought up in more articles by FORTUNE?

https://resources.owllabs.com/hubfs/SORW/SORW_2021/owl-labs_state-of-remote-work-2021_report-final.pdf?utm_campaign=State%20of%20Remote%20Work%202021&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=180908804&utm_content=180908804&utm_source=hs_automation

I love socially interacting with my co-workers. I can just as easily do that over teams. Better honestly, as if I'm focused heavily on a task, I can take a moment to stop at a convenient spot before checking my messages. As opposed to having people literally walk up to me or just start talking to me while I'm busy doing something. The face to face conversation was nice, but the pros far outweigh the cons in my opinion.

I personally will never go back. I have adhd and being able to stay home and thusly have 0 commute time has been an absolute wonder for my well-being.

When wfh was implemented company wide at the start of Corona communication actually got better because now everyone was forced to use a chat app with video calling. That way every colleague was just one click away. The shyer ones typed out their quick requests and those who needed to see a face called with the webcam enabled. Before that it was just too much hassle for some people to write an email, use the telephone or walk through the large building to the colleague. Even quick meetings with people from four different departments were now much easier and quicker to organise.

Yep. My last job was a hybrid schedule and I was always far more productive at home than at the office. Because I was comfortable at home and had no distractions.

Same, winter is coming, with snow a commute could be 2h forth and 2h back, to do ~20 miles ; never again.

then it’s a shit bot

True.
And not only for the quality. In the last weeks I noted that, aside being basically impossible to look for a product even querying with the full brand and product name/code, that buying the same item from the brand own on-line store is ofter less expensive than buying it from Amazon (even with Prime) also accounting for the shipping costs.

The more I hear about how crappy Amazon are treating their employees the less I want to buy from Amazon again.

I'm not so sure. Black Friday shopping barely kept up with inflation this year, but cyber Monday shopping was up over 12%, so while I'm with you in the minority that prefer a real quality store, it seems most folks don't.

Their whole model with tech workers is to recruit them based on the “prestige” of working for Amazon,

At some point the "prestige" of working for Amazon will become less attractive than having a life...

Seems to work fine in Star Trek

Nice try, but maybe practice in the garage next time before stepping up for a debate.

1. What do you call somebody who admits they have no data or evidence to back up what they believe but still insists that they are right and you have to agree with them? Yeah, a religious fundamentalist is a good example. His claim was all anecdotal, he just "feels" like people work better in person based on his own subjective experience.

Now that might be fine when it comes to some things, live and let live, etc. The difference here is that he and other upper management get to just force the rest of the workers to conform to their viewpoint without any evidence. It's a structural problem.

2. I never claimed that WFH is universally better than in-office work, so strike two on that one. I'm merely critiquing his approach of forcing workers to conform to a policy that he believes in, based on no supporting evidence, just vibes. I was making a structural critique.
3. If you want my actual viewpoint, I think that WFH should be up to the employee. Some people work better in person, some people work better from home, and some (like me) enjoy hybrid because of the flexibility it offers. Also, some people are brutally punished by mandated in-office work. A person who has a 90 minute commute both ways (who typically isn't compensated for commute time,) is a perfect candidate for WFH. But because this guy "feels like" WFH is bad, he gets to just dictate that from on high instead of workers being able to figure out what works best for them and their teams.

In other words, nuance is important, unless you are a fundie who builds their beliefs off vibes and anecdotes and then imposes them on other people regardless of their views, desires, situations, or objective data.