Wordpress Parent Automattic Is Closing Its San Francisco Office Because Its Employees Never Show Up (qz.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Quartz: Automattic, the technology company that owns WordPress.com, has a beautiful office in a converted San Francisco warehouse, with soaring ceilings, a library, and a custom-made barn door. If you like the space, you're free to move in. The office at 140 Hawthorne went on the market after CEO Matt Mullenweg came to the realization not enough employees used it. As he explained on the Stack Overflow podcast earlier this year: "We got an office there about six or seven years ago, pretty good lease, but nobody goes in it. Five people go in it and it's 15,000 square feet. They get like 3,000 square feet each. There are as many gaming tables as there are people." Automattic has always given its 550 employees the choice of working remotely; the San Francisco space was an optional co-working space, spokesman Mark Armstrong said. The company maintains similar offices in Cape Town, South Africa, and outside Portland, Maine, and gives employees a $250-a-month stipend if they want to use commercial co-working offices elsewhere. And if they'd rather work at Starbucks, Automattic will pay for their coffee.

Comments

Nice, real nice

[TimothyHollins]

What I would like to know is "Does it work?". Does it really work to have all/most of your employees working from wherever they want?
I would love to believe it does, but I also know that not everyone functions the same way.
So, assuming that my previous assertion holds, how do you go about getting everyone, including the undisciplined, to function in an office-less work environment?

Re:Nice, real nice

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> Does it work?

You bet. Look how reliable and secure Wordpress is!

Re:Nice, real nice

[ron_ivi]

how do you go about getting everyone, including the undisciplined, to function in an office-less work environment?

You don't hire them; in the same way you wouldn't hire any other unqualified person.

The place I currently work also has no office, because they're too widely geographically distributed (in different countries) to easily meet in a single place more than about once a year.

Start people off as contractors -- and if they work will with your distributed team -- hire them. If they don't work in that environment, don't.

Re:Nice, real nice

[Plugh]

Same way to get "the undisciplined" to function in the face of any other adversity/distraction/what-have-you.

Do you have a daily interaction with your staff, such as a daily scrum? If not, that's your problem, you need frequent real-time interaction. It used to be called "management by walking around" and it's extremely effective. Nowadays it could be literally in-person walking around, or via video/webconf, or IM/slack, or via phone/Skype. Just make sure it's regular so people can plan for it, and make it real-time interactive. Make it in person or mandatory video at least once in a while. If in person, offer food. Even just coffee & donuts goes a long way.

Are there people who don't show up to those meetings, or who always seem to have an excuse, or just can't seem to get their shit done, or consistently produce poor-quality product? It doesn't matter whether their problem is family trouble, drugs/alcohol, or too much fantasy baseball. The work has to get done and the employees need to be able to produce, or else make way for someone who can. Those are good people to put on a buddy system (oh wait it's called "Agile" these days, right?) Make sure to give them clear realistic targets and deadlines, and let them know that if they are not met, they're not welcome to stay (and if they are met, they're fine).

Personally my executive VP drank some kind of kool-aide a few months ago, and decided that everybody has to work in the office 3-4 days a week. I'd been working from home 4 days a week for the past 12 years, during which time I got a house 45 mins from the office. I generally work 10+ hour days, despite being salaried. The loss in productivity having to drive to the office, deal with people who have too much free time and want to stop by to chat, etc, etc, is immense. I wear headphones all day so I can concentrate; most of the people I work with are thousands of miles away and we're in constant contact via webconf, IM, phone, and email. Having to come to the office is... incredibly counterproductive for me.

Re:Nice, real nice

[crackspackle]

Actually, a project oriented management style instead of a time management style works. Set quantifiable specific tasks which must be completed or modified by a certain date. Make them small enough for frequent measure to insure the overall goal is reached in time. If someone is not delivering their task, they would have to have a reasonable explanation as to why or be shown the door if it continued.

Re:Nice, real nice

[green1]

I work from home approximately 4 days a week right now. I get far more work done when I'm at home than I do when I'm at the office.

It's all about how you handle it though. I have a lot of flexibility in what I can do and when, but I only exercise it when I have a good reason to (an appointment I need to attend, etc) otherwise I sit down in my home office at 0800 and I leave at 1600 and between those hours I only leave the room to use the washroom or get lunch from the fridge. In short, I may as well be punching a time clock. My family also supports this knowing that when I'm in that office during the day I'm "at work" and that I'm no more accessible to them than I would be if I was at an office downtown (in other words, if they come to see me it should be no longer than they would otherwise place a phone call for if I wasn't home)

Each person is different though. I couldn't have done this 10 years ago, at that time I didn't have the self discipline, and I knew it at the time. Back then I had to go somewhere and punch a clock. I'm glad that I've found a way to do this though, because there are many advantages. I don't have any commute time, I DO have flexibility if I have an important appointment (e.g. if a technician needs to come out and fix my furnace, or if I have to go to a doctor's appointment, etc.) and being 50' from my kitchen has saved me a good deal on eating out (sure, I COULD pack a lunch to take to work, but it was more convenient to hit the food court, but at home it's more convenient to make my own lunch than go out and find food)

Additionally it's a good deal for my employer as the desk I use when I'm at the office is used by other people in similar arrangements when I'm not there saving quite a bit on real-estate. It also helps that the people I "work with" are scattered all over the country anyway, so going to the office doesn't get me any closer to them than I would be on a video conference from home.

As for your comment about "It seems that they were just pissing away cash by having what would be an expensive office in prime location"... yeah, they've realized that That's the whole point to the article.

Re:Nice, real nice

[Plugh]

Hello AC, nice to hear from you

Actually, it does matter. You the employer should offer (1) family counseling and (2) rehab, as medical benefits, or (3) more challenging work, since the fantasy baseball hobby is apparently more rewarding than the "productive" bullshit work you do.

You're quite right on the first two, of course. Counselling / rehab services are the right way to deal with family and substance issues. With respect to fantasy baseball and other distractions, I'd find it hard to give something more challenging to someone who's not able to get other presumably easier things done in a timely, high-quality fashion. If the employee specifically says they're bored with the current tasks, then sure, give them more and harder stuff to do -- provisionally, and make sure someone can catch the ball if this person who is already flaking drops it. Don't impact the customers just because internal styaffing issues.

The work has to get done and the employees need to be able to produce, or else make way for someone who can.

If you can't be bothered to invest in the wellbeing of your employees so that they can produce, then you're a soulless objectivist scumbag, and your company deserves to cease to exist immediately. FUCK YOU.

Well, someone's a bit sensitive on the topic. I'm not saying don't invest in people or help them succeed; I'm saying, if somebody consistently can't get work done in reasonable time at acceptable quality, they have to go. What is more fair, make everyone else work harder to carry their load? Collectivism generally doesn't incentivize people well for exactly this reason. At the end of the day, what matters is happy customers. Unless of course you're in a monopolistic situation where customers have no choice; the most extreme example of which is a government-provided service, in which people have to pay for it via taxes or else men with guns show up and *make* them pay. Not very ethical, that.

Re:Nice, real nice

[dbIII]

Fair enough. I know for some work -- especially detailed architecting/design work -- even a 15-minute meeting can spoil a whole day.

It's not about that.
In some professions or projects a team can be expected to get things done and daily feedback is pointless. Three weeks of reporting daily "still going and don't need any help" gets nothing done.

For those employees having a hard time staying on task,

It just creates tension treating everyone like those.

Re:Nice, real nice

[rwa2]

Yeah, same here. We lost our nice office digs a couple of years ago, and the skeleton crew of 4-5 peeps 3000 miles away from HQ have been working from home since then. We still meet at a co-working space once a week when we can make it.

I don't have the discipline yet... I prefer being in a office with a constant supply of tea and people to communicate with in person. We get increasingly hostile towards each other when we're working remotely. Plus I'm having some sort of existential crisis by feeling like I'm in early retirement. But that said, it is nice being able to enjoy the home we just bought, and spend time raising the children at this critical juncture in our lives, just before we lose them.

Open-Plan Offices Are Death.

[cunina]

From the looks of it, their office seems to be more of that open-plan nonsense. No wonder no one shows up. Open plan has been shown again and again to result in less productive and more unhappy employees.

Re:Open-Plan Offices Are Death.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what my current group has. Absolutely the single worst aspect of my job. Anyone who advocates for open plan
a. either has never been in one
b. or wears slip-on shoes because he's too stupid to operate velcro.

Re:Open-Plan Offices Are Death.

[SimonInOz]

I worked for a major bank. They built these beautiful new offices. Gorgeous, lovely atrium, glass lifts, great coffee machines, lovely building.
And then they populated it with desks. Not even cubicles, just desk dividers.
And then they said "pick your desk when you come into the office" - yup, hot desking.
Well, I hated it.
If you came in late, there were no desks available (so you don't want me to do any work then? Ok, sure).
When you did find a desk, you had to spend a while moving everything so it fitted you.
Then you had to get the computer going - that mostly worked, but not always.
And of course the killer - what if you need to chat with someone - where the hell are they? People wandered the office, seeking - I built a "FindPeople" app but they took years to get it installed.
And of course, it's so lovely to work among strangers every day. Great for morale.

It was horrible. I cannot imagine what miserable effect it had on morale overall, but mine certainly plummeted. Eventually my work deteriorated so much I had to leave.

Card tables?

[neurovish]

So, their office basically looks like it is a basketball court with a few card tables thrown together. Not even some external monitors. No surprise that nobody shows up to that office. At least provide some proper desks and decent KVM setups with dual monitors.

Re: Card tables?

[yabos]

Agree. Looks like shit. Who wants to work at a crappy table with a bunch of other people on laptops. Looks retarded and no privacy. Lots of startups seem to think this is the cool new thing for offices but itâ(TM)s actually just a cheap way of setting up an office so you donâ(TM)t have to get anyone a desk and private space

Re:Card tables?

[David_Hart]

So, their office basically looks like it is a basketball court with a few card tables thrown together. Not even some external monitors. No surprise that nobody shows up to that office. At least provide some proper desks and decent KVM setups with dual monitors.

Our office is open seating but each seating area has a a group of proper office desks, every other station has dual monitors, KVM, mini-walls, and lockers. It also includes tables with bar type stools, areas with stand desks, and proper office carpeting for noise reduction. Plus we have meeting rooms and huddle rooms for when you need privacy. Everything from decor, desks, chairs, etc. is set up like a real office. The main difference being un-assigned seating and the mini-walls which creates an open space.

The WordPress office looks like an empty warehouse space with a couple of card tables thrown together. I wouldn't want to work in a space like that. Without proper carpeting and sound dampening every noise would be amplified.

Re:Card tables?

[stephanruby]

Not to mention, the ping pong table is a bad idea where it's placed.

Every time a ping pong ball is missed, it will bounce on the concrete floor for one minute and it will roll 75 feet away. This is neither good for the employees actually working because of the distraction, nor is it good for the employees that are actually playing (unless they're Olympic level ping pong players). This problem could have easily been handled with some carpeting and some glass partitions.

Same goes for the movie watching/presentation screening area. The screen is obviously too small to be watched by everyone. But the visual distractions and the sound distractions that come out of that area will be one more source of distractions.

The problem with this space is that their original intent may have been to start a co-working space. Since most of their customers are bloggers, it would make sense that they do that. But then, no place seems to have been assigned to their actual employees. There is no place to put work artifacts, no place to meet privately. Like you said, there are also no large external LCD monitors. There is not even a bean bag or a small table that I could take to the side of the room so I could work without getting interrupted. A large public train station has actually better amenities than this place.

Open floorplan

[110010001000]

That is because no one wants to work in an open floorplan. They did that at my office and now no one comes in either.

Effectiveness matters more

[dbIII]

1) Don't hire them if they don't fit your culture. All workplaces should do this, regardless of what constitutes the work culture. It fosters a better working environment in general.

That's the road to failure as an org. The organisation is going to have to interact with external people who do not fit your culture and those "difficult" people are what gets you ready for those interactions and/or the people that handle them. Clients sometimes don't pay, and a nice guy who is just happy to let it all go in not the sort of person you want resolving the situation.
If you have a bunch of people as similar as a high school tennis club you end up having a bunch as ineffective as a high school tennis club while your competitors are employing world class talent.
See political fuckups from employing cronies on all sides of politics for examples. "Heck of a job Brownie" is a good example of fitting the culture instead of employing for competence.

Re:Effectiveness matters more

[dbIII]

It's called an example of hiring from a shallow pool and getting a tiny fish when a whale is required, and it's an example that everyone has heard of.
I even wrote "on all sides of politics" in an attempt to avoid such replies.
Please just take it as an example to show that I think you have been fed utter trash that led you to getting your point above so spectacularly wrong. A nice little club where everyone cheers for the same football team may be great in social situations, but when getting a job done it's a rather stupid exclusion of talent. Monocultures can also be called single points of failure. If nobody in the org understands the people you are selling to or otherwise dealing with then what appears to be an utter newbie mistake is bound to happen some day.