I trust Forbes to be correct about this about as much as I trust Forbes to be correct about anything.
They’re a trash rag that exists solely to fellate capitalist shitbags.
Fuck 'em.
Even if it were accurate, it could entirely be explained by socioeconomic or demographic reasons — e.g. the majority of Gen-Z workers:
- live with their parents or room mates, thus no peace and quiet when WFH.
- are too poor to afford food, thus depend on the free coffee, cereal, and fruit to make ends meat.
- sample size is smaller, with most not working in roles where WFH is even an option (or is viewed negatively by superiors)
- the oldest of Gen-Z are still in their 20’s, and perhaps at the age where the desire to socialise in person is strongest.
Basically, the oligarch capitalist mouthpiece is throwing shit at the walls to see what sticks, because commercial real estate is fuck.
the oldest of Gen-Z are still in their 20’s, and perhaps at the age where the desire to socialise in person is strongest.
I mean, I’d argue you yourself are guilty of what we’re accusing the article of doing here.
It’s not that older people don’t want to socialize in person with each other anymore, it’s more that after graduating high school, you’re separated from your high school friends by where you go to college, then after college, you’re further separated by where you are able to get a job, meaning “adults” don’t really have as many choices about “socializing in person” simply because every friend of theirs has been taken far, far away from them based on economic circumstances.
Source: In my 40’s and my friend group has been splintered all over the planet since I was in my mid-twenties. Kind of lead to having to be okay with keeping in touch over the internet.
We can stop attributing such things as a “choice.” Adults want just as much in-person socializing time with their friends and family, often they just simply don’t have access to it. *shrugs
See also: Death of the “Third Place.”
The top three ways people feel engaged at work are:
- Supportive coworkers
- A fun work environment
- Recognition (for Gen Z and Millennials especially).
The fuck?! Is this the shit C-execs jack off to? It’s tripe like this that gets us pizza parties instead of realistic compensation.
Having been paid very good, and today less good due to a career change. I’ll happily tell you payment gave absolutely zero impact on feeling engaged at work. If the job sucks, it’ll suck with good pay as well.
Sure, it might be easier to push through. But it will not make it more engaging. Co workers and a supporting environment sure will though.
Not to say I don’t want compensation to be higher across the board, but we should have both.
Yeah but if pay is good and but work sucks I can still focus on it and grind through the day. If pay is bad im always distracted by all the resumes im sending out.
Whoever wrote that article couldn’t be more out of touch with reality. That kind of writing may impress their corporate managers but the rest of us see right through that bullshit for what it is, which is bullshit.
Also, fuck corporate speak. Every time I see a job ad or a recruiter posting that reads like that, it’s an immediate pass.
Gen X here. This article is bad, and the author should feel bad.
What, you don’t like smoothbrained out-of-touch takes about an entire generation based on the transparent dictate of global property holdings companies?
Old Souls in Young Bodies™ my ass. People are going low-tech to escape pervasive panopticon and the endless stream of fake fucking people and conspiracy peddlers.
Any time I read these broad-brush generation articles, I have to hold my eyes still to avoid setting my skull on fire with frictive heating.
Remote learning has had a devastating effect on education. Gen Z’s time in college and high school was royally fucked by the pandemic. It’s no wonder why they would be less interested in remote work, not because they’re “old souls.”
It’s more likely we’re too young to have enough leverage at job negotiations to be able to demand WFH
There is absolutely stuff lost in pure WFH.
People of all ages and roles don’t ask the actually important “lack of knowledge” anymore in important meetings, IMO due to a fear of it being recorded and used against them.
Not to mention the ease of turning around and explaining something to someone, or overhearing a discussion and adding an expert opinion.
That said, WFH is absolutely the best way forward. We just need to determine how to regain the in-person off the cuff stuff lost in WFH.
I think the biggest thing is teams are not colocated anymore. If your going to be having folks remote one way or the other that eliminates any benefit wfo had. If not that then you get that the benefits are something that is sporadic and limited whereas wfh benefits are constant and every single day (save commuting time, save commutings money, healthier and less expensive food, see your family and/or pets, take a meaningful lunch time that actually refreshes you)
Understand that I’m absolutely on the side of WFH and I fully understand the benefits of it.
But to describe the loss of WFO knowledge as sporadic is just Trumpian levels of lying.
Edit: it would be nice to find a way to regain that which was lost without dropping WFH, since losing WFH isn’t a thing.
Im not sure you lose the WFO knowledge though. It just does not come up quite as easily. I actually find WFH results in more specific one on ones where you have to say to someone. I need to understand X, wereas in WFO it was like you just announce something is wierd or what up with X and there is an impromtu back and forth that gets the knowledge transfered. When I say its sporadic. I mean the occasions where it occurs is sporadic. So you can go days or weeks without some sort of tidbit being passed on so for all those days in office it offered no real benefit, whereas you always get the WFH benefits any time you do it.
This news source shoild be banned like when was the last time Forbes published something that wasnt ravenous propaganda?
Remote worker advocates are so unbelievably short sighted it’s mind boggling. If you argue that your job can be effectively done remotely (and some can but certainly not as much as advocates claim) then it can be done by someone in developing countries for a fraction of the cost. Not done well but decades of offshoring has shown that companies don’t care how shitty things are done if they save a few bucks.
being in the office when your work can be done remotely will not make your work less offshoreable. Pretending your work can only be done in an office will not work.
