Dell is telling the truth about remote work - 23 February 2024

A recent article from The Register reports on consequences of a recent return-to-the-office (RTO) program at Dell Computer.   From the article:

The implications of choosing to work remotely, we're told, are: "1) no funding for team onsite meetings, even if a large portion of the team is flying in for the meeting from other Dell locations; 2) no career advancement; 3) no career movements; and 4) remote status will be considered when planning or organization changes -- AKA workforce reductions." 

The last three points are the most significant.  The first point is optional - some companies will fund team meetings and some will not.  I think Dell is wrong on this point, but it is their company so they make their rules.  

The most important point is - no career advancement.  Let us say you are the manager and you are faced with a key decision, assigning important tasks, choosing a promotion candidate, or simply assigning bonus budget.  You have two employees, one who is often in the office where you see their work, see their interactions with other team members, and see their presentations, and a remote employee that you see intermittently, see no interactions, and see only video presentations.  Which one are you going to select for rewards and the best assignments?  Pretty obviously the on-site person.  If you think that is wrong, ask your mother if it is OK to just call from now on, and you will stop your in-person visits.  Ask yourself if you would rather put your kids to bed and read them a story rather than read a bedtime story over the phone.  No mother or kids?  What would your dog think?  Expanding on this, no career movements is a reasonable extension.  As a manager, you can choose a local candidate that you see routinely or you can choose someone who is always at the far end of a phone line.  Not hard to choose.  Finally, the old rule is "out of sight, out of mind" and that will trump over "absence makes the heart grow fonder" - when it comes time to downsize, it is far easier to lay-off someone on a phone line compared to someone you see routinely in the office.  It just is.

Note that "routinely in the office" includes hybrid and full-time office sightings.  Seeing someone Monday-Wednesday-Friday is closer to Monday-Friday than never or rarely.  I am not arguing against work-from-home, simply stating boundaries.

Furthermore:

Another employee said: "Choosing to be remote does indeed put career advancement at a standstill."

As one advances up the ranks, there are more and more leadership and team skills required to work on larger projects.  If your job is one person (you) in one place (your home or office), then advancement within these constraints is possible.  But if your job requires interactions and teams, that is best done in-person.  To advance, you need to demonsrate those leadership and team skills, and you cannot do that sitting alone in your home-office with the dog.

So if you want to be a Lyft driver or work on small projects for the rest of your life, work from home.  But if you want to advance in the corporate environment, get to the office.