Will Work From Home Be a Permanent Trend

[samwise]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-16/gorman-sees-morgan-stanley-future-with-much-less-real-estate

 

Yes says the CEO of Morgan Staney, Cover survivor.

 

Bad for office REITs I guess, good for slack and MSFT.

What happens when all the banks go full WFH and have to start paying/reimbursing employee internet access? Will they attempt to cut costs by taking on the Telcos?

Good question. I don't know the answer. But can't you get unlimited plans decently cheap in most places?

[Jurgis]

shhughes1116 - Can you expand on this topic "I will share one interesting observation, at least in my opinion.  Good leaders can lead, whether their staff is remote or in the office.  Shitty managers are shitty managers, regardless of where their staff are located.  I think remote work really highlights those that are good at leading and connecting with people, and those who believe leadership is randomly showing up at your office door to "make sure you are working". " 

 

Not shhughes1116, but hey here's my 0.02.

 

Personally, I separate good managers and good leaders.

 

Good managers are the ones who take care of the team. It's all cliche, but they are the ones who care that team members get responsibilities according to their strengths and weaknesses. And at the same time encourage team members to improve their weak sides. And care about team member personal and professional growth. Interface the team with higher management and other teams. Deal with politics. Build team spirit and camaraderie. Make sure the team is valued. Makes sure the team gets adequate support and renumeration.

 

Good leaders are much less common. For me a good leader is someone who directs the team into new high value and/or high growth directions as they appear or even before they appear. It is someone who notices trends before others and gets the team positioned accordingly. Ideally it's Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, but it doesn't have to be someone who produces iPhone. The leadership could be something less groundbreaking. It could be someone who first notices move to cloud computing and pushes company's product to be rewritten as SaaS on AWS. It could be someone like Munger who pushes Buffett to switch to moaty businesses. (Buffett himself is a leader in certain aspects too). It could be someone who noticed that ETFs are coming and converted mutual fund shop to ETF shop. Or just positioned the team inside the organization accordingly.

 

Some people would call a person a leader even when that person focuses on existing strengths or focus areas and never changes direction. E.g. someone who gets a management role in a company known for frugality and keeps the team focused on saving every cent in product costs. Or someone who leads a team that produces a great software package and keeps that project steady on track. I personally don't consider such people leaders. IMO they are managers - without any negative connotation attached to that term.

 

Of course, in the real world there are shades of grey . Most great managers have to show some leadership if they stay managers for a long time. They cannot stay at the same place or their team would become irrelevant. Converse is true less often: leaders can be lousy managers or not managers at all.

 

I mostly agree with shhughes1116 that good manager can deal with distributed team. IMO it's not as easy as dealing with co-located team though. Personal interaction matters, shared activities in office matter. Remote manager loses a number of tools that help and faces higher hurdles to do best for the team.

[lnofeisone]

shhughes1116 - Can you expand on this topic "I will share one interesting observation, at least in my opinion.  Good leaders can lead, whether their staff is remote or in the office.  Shitty managers are shitty managers, regardless of where their staff are located.  I think remote work really highlights those that are good at leading and connecting with people, and those who believe leadership is randomly showing up at your office door to "make sure you are working". " 

 

Not shhughes1116, but hey here's my 0.02.

 

Personally, I separate good managers and good leaders.

 

Good managers are the ones who take care of the team. It's all cliche, but they are the ones who care that team members get responsibilities according to their strengths and weaknesses. And at the same time encourage team members to improve their weak sides. And care about team member personal and professional growth. Interface the team with higher management and other teams. Deal with politics. Build team spirit and camaraderie. Make sure the team is valued. Makes sure the team gets adequate support and renumeration.

 

Good leaders are much less common. For me a good leader is someone who directs the team into new high value and/or high growth directions as they appear or even before they appear. It is someone who notices trends before others and gets the team positioned accordingly. Ideally it's Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, but it doesn't have to be someone who produces iPhone. The leadership could be something less groundbreaking. It could be someone who first notices move to cloud computing and pushes company's product to be rewritten as SaaS on AWS. It could be someone like Munger who pushes Buffett to switch to moaty businesses. (Buffett himself is a leader in certain aspects too). It could be someone who noticed that ETFs are coming and converted mutual fund shop to ETF shop. Or just positioned the team inside the organization accordingly.

 

This is a very subtle (and succinctly put) but one of the key differences between leaders and managers. This is one of the differences that junior staff don't connect when they complain that partners/senior leaders don't pay attention to them/their development areas/etc. This is also one of the hardest mental shifts to make as one progresses in the career (the other natural hurdle is going from contributor to manager). These shifts aren't time-bound and are very career and person-specific. Unfortunately for US Gov't, a lot of promotions occur based on time in service and once someone is promoted the support and training are barebones. Not an easy way to be successful or have a measured risk appetite (i.e., be innovative).

[rkbabang]

One thing I've noticed now that I've talked to quite a few people about this subject (co-workers, family, friends, and neighbors) is that personality has a lot more to do with it than anything else.  Introverts love it (I definitely fit into this category) and extroverts absolutely hate it.  I've talked to a lawyer who works in Boston and has about an hour commute and she just loves working from home (she's an introvert), yet my uncle who also works in Boston as an executive in an insurance company, but lives in Rhode Island with an EXTREMELY long commute can not wait to return to the office.  He can't stand working from home, just absolutely hates it.  I think it works for some jobs and not others, but it also works for some personalities and not others.

 

[arcube]

shhughes1116 - Can you expand on this topic "I will share one interesting observation, at least in my opinion.  Good leaders can lead, whether their staff is remote or in the office.  Shitty managers are shitty managers, regardless of where their staff are located.  I think remote work really highlights those that are good at leading and connecting with people, and those who believe leadership is randomly showing up at your office door to "make sure you are working". " 

 

Not shhughes1116, but hey here's my 0.02.

 

Personally, I separate good managers and good leaders.

 

Good managers are the ones who take care of the team. It's all cliche, but they are the ones who care that team members get responsibilities according to their strengths and weaknesses. And at the same time encourage team members to improve their weak sides. And care about team member personal and professional growth. Interface the team with higher management and other teams. Deal with politics. Build team spirit and camaraderie. Make sure the team is valued. Makes sure the team gets adequate support and renumeration.

 

Good leaders are much less common. For me a good leader is someone who directs the team into new high value and/or high growth directions as they appear or even before they appear. It is someone who notices trends before others and gets the team positioned accordingly. Ideally it's Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, but it doesn't have to be someone who produces iPhone. The leadership could be something less groundbreaking. It could be someone who first notices move to cloud computing and pushes company's product to be rewritten as SaaS on AWS. It could be someone like Munger who pushes Buffett to switch to moaty businesses. (Buffett himself is a leader in certain aspects too). It could be someone who noticed that ETFs are coming and converted mutual fund shop to ETF shop. Or just positioned the team inside the organization accordingly.

 

Some people would call a person a leader even when that person focuses on existing strengths or focus areas and never changes direction. E.g. someone who gets a management role in a company known for frugality and keeps the team focused on saving every cent in product costs. Or someone who leads a team that produces a great software package and keeps that project steady on track. I personally don't consider such people leaders. IMO they are managers - without any negative connotation attached to that term.

 

Of course, in the real world there are shades of grey . Most great managers have to show some leadership if they stay managers for a long time. They cannot stay at the same place or their team would become irrelevant. Converse is true less often: leaders can be lousy managers or not managers at all.

 

I mostly agree with shhughes1116 that good manager can deal with distributed team. IMO it's not as easy as dealing with co-located team though. Personal interaction matters, shared activities in office matter. Remote manager loses a number of tools that help and faces higher hurdles to do best for the team.

 

Well said.

[BG2008]

shhughes1116 - Can you expand on this topic "I will share one interesting observation, at least in my opinion.  Good leaders can lead, whether their staff is remote or in the office.  Shitty managers are shitty managers, regardless of where their staff are located.  I think remote work really highlights those that are good at leading and connecting with people, and those who believe leadership is randomly showing up at your office door to "make sure you are working". " 

 

Not shhughes1116, but hey here's my 0.02.

 

Personally, I separate good managers and good leaders.

 

Good managers are the ones who take care of the team. It's all cliche, but they are the ones who care that team members get responsibilities according to their strengths and weaknesses. And at the same time encourage team members to improve their weak sides. And care about team member personal and professional growth. Interface the team with higher management and other teams. Deal with politics. Build team spirit and camaraderie. Make sure the team is valued. Makes sure the team gets adequate support and renumeration.

 

Good leaders are much less common. For me a good leader is someone who directs the team into new high value and/or high growth directions as they appear or even before they appear. It is someone who notices trends before others and gets the team positioned accordingly. Ideally it's Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, but it doesn't have to be someone who produces iPhone. The leadership could be something less groundbreaking. It could be someone who first notices move to cloud computing and pushes company's product to be rewritten as SaaS on AWS. It could be someone like Munger who pushes Buffett to switch to moaty businesses. (Buffett himself is a leader in certain aspects too). It could be someone who noticed that ETFs are coming and converted mutual fund shop to ETF shop. Or just positioned the team inside the organization accordingly.

 

Some people would call a person a leader even when that person focuses on existing strengths or focus areas and never changes direction. E.g. someone who gets a management role in a company known for frugality and keeps the team focused on saving every cent in product costs. Or someone who leads a team that produces a great software package and keeps that project steady on track. I personally don't consider such people leaders. IMO they are managers - without any negative connotation attached to that term.

 

Of course, in the real world there are shades of grey . Most great managers have to show some leadership if they stay managers for a long time. They cannot stay at the same place or their team would become irrelevant. Converse is true less often: leaders can be lousy managers or not managers at all.

 

I mostly agree with shhughes1116 that good manager can deal with distributed team. IMO it's not as easy as dealing with co-located team though. Personal interaction matters, shared activities in office matter. Remote manager loses a number of tools that help and faces higher hurdles to do best for the team.

 

Jurgis,

 

Thank you for such a great feedback. 

[SharperDingaan]

There is nothing like a field trial to seperate the men from the boys.

WFH was a permanent trend before Covid, post Covid there may be more of it, but there are limits. The reality is that if you are to be effective in any kind of service business, there has to be some face-to-face time with both clients and co-workers; it's just a matter of how much.

 

WFH quickly separates the leaders from the managers. Leadership and EQ amplifies under WFH, as it's all about change management and adapting to changing stimuli; the technology just acts as a lever - both up AND down. The sh1te manager before Covid, is unemployed under WFH.

 

Your success is measurable, buy how many additional people are knocking on your door. Essentially the equivalent of 'alpha' in the investment world, that a PM brings to the table. And like the investment world, it's rare, and you need to pay up for it.

 

So ... what's the 'permanent' effect of all this ???

 

If I'm a good leader, I'm good with managing people that WFH, I can access the technology, and I can vote with my feet .... why am I working for you? and why should I continue to be loyal to you? 'Cause unless you have a very good value proposition for me - you're dead weight. More meaningful engagement, or I walk ...... terrifying, to a weak manager.

 

The cream rises to the top, it rises on merit, and a little more rapidly.

All good.

 

SD

 

 

 

 

 

 

[oddballstocks]

A topic near and dear...

 

I have WFH for 10+ years in various roles.  As a consultant to a health care company, doing investment research, and starting a software company.

 

During this time I've had access to an office when I needed.  For maybe 2-ish years (not continuous) I've worked out of an office.

 

I'm an extrovert, very extroverted, but I love working from home.  What I find in an office is I can talk all day and accomplish nothing.  But I feel great because I was just talking.  At home I can be focused, get work done, then get on the phone and talk.  I'm on the phone all the time and it scratches the same itch as talking in person.

 

I also have small kids (from 10 to 3), but since I've done this their entire life they know the drill.  I have a home office and if the office door is closed it means "do not bother and please be quiet."  If the door is open they can come in and share things with me.

 

When the kids are in school it's extremely quiet, but even now it's not bad.  This is really no different than summer when they're home all the time.

 

I love that there's no commute.  It's also nice to be able to take a bike ride or go swimming at lunch.  There are days when I'm just in a funk and I'll go do something menial to think about my problems.  In an office the only option for this was to take a walk, which I did often, but sometimes you can't due to weather.

 

As for meetings in-person.  There are dozens of co-working spaces near me and they all have the ability to rent conference rooms by the hour.  That's not an issue.

 

I think it's heavily job type, heavy personality (self-motivated).

 

Here's something anecdotal.  Some companies already run like this but they don't know it.  When I consulted in health care it was a 15k person company.  They had multiple locations and teams were split geographically.  Every meeting was at your desk, you called in and used screen sharing.  Over the years I was there the office emptied out because people realized there is no functional difference of being in a cube or being at home.  Management realized this too and kept hiring without expanding their office space.  When I left years ago I remember something like 55% of the company was at home, I'm sure it's more now.

[arcube]

This is the end of the office as we know it

 

The pandemic already pushed millions to work from home. Many of them will likely go back to a very different office.

 

https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/4/14/21211789/coronavirus-office-space-work-from-home-design-architecture-real-estate?utm_source=pocket-newtab

 

 

[Jurgis]

This is the end of the office as we know it

 

The pandemic already pushed millions to work from home. Many of them will likely go back to a very different office.

 

https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/4/14/21211789/coronavirus-office-space-work-from-home-design-architecture-real-estate?utm_source=pocket-newtab

 

I really hope that our company won't institute "grab a temp desk" office. This totally sucks (as do open plan offices).

 

My cube is my castle.

[rkbabang]

This is the end of the office as we know it

 

The pandemic already pushed millions to work from home. Many of them will likely go back to a very different office.

 

https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/4/14/21211789/coronavirus-office-space-work-from-home-design-architecture-real-estate?utm_source=pocket-newtab

 

I really hope that our company won't institute "grab a temp desk" office. This totally sucks (as do open plan offices).

 

My cube is my castle.

 

That wouldn't bother me at all if I could work from home most of the time.  There is nothing in my office I care about or need.  If I have a mouse & keyboard and a couple of big monitors, and as long as it's a cubicle and not an open office, I'm good.