[HN Gopher] The work-from-home future is destroying bosses' brains
___________________________________________________________________
The work-from-home future is destroying bosses' brains
Author : zikduruqe
Score : 168 points
Date : 2021-06-10 15:38 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (ez.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (ez.substack.com)
| whiddershins wrote:
| This article presents such a dark take on the employer employee
| relationship that I can't tell if I am truly blessed for the jobs
| I've had, or this person has a distorted view of incentives and
| motivations.
|
| I really can't tell.
| haskellandchill wrote:
| You're truly blessed!
| endymi0n wrote:
| So yes, as a "boss", the work-from-home future is definitely and
| absolutely destroying my brain, but I think the whole discussion
| around control in the article completely misses my point. I
| couldn't care less about control and never cared about seat-in-
| the-ass time before.
|
| But as an engineer become manager, I can absolutely feel both
| sides here:
|
| While everything development is massively more chill remote (no
| interruptions and hey, just go fill your dishwasher while stuff
| compiles), everything about managing remotely completely sucks
| for me.
|
| Videocalls. Whiteboarding. Interviewing. Strategic work. Reading
| emotions and connecting to people. What was a matter of just
| getting six people in a war room for a week and getting that hard
| problem done now takes eternities and every meeting is an energy
| hog.
|
| Honestly, I really enjoyed being a leader for a technology
| organization, but right now, I absolutely hate it. There seem to
| be others who cope better, but it's certainly not for me.
|
| I'm pretty curious on how all of this will turn out.
| zippergz wrote:
| This is a great point. For the most part, I love working from
| home, and will never go back to an office if I can help it. But
| I completely agree that these aspects of the job are much
| harder, and the perspective of someone who has never had to do
| them is going to miss some important things.
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| I'm curious if/how this could be addressed with better
| collaboration systems.
|
| E.g., suppose everyone's WFH office had a Google Jamboard and
| high-quality videoconferencing system.
|
| If it addressed your concerns and per-employee cost was $10k
| initial + $5k/year, I would think it's still a win given the
| typical total-comp cost of a U.S.-based software developer.
| auiya wrote:
| > What was a matter of just getting six people in a war room
| for a week and getting that hard problem done
|
| As a person who at a previous job was often pulled into said
| "war rooms", we almost never "got that hard problem done", but
| we did always make management feel good about not being able to
| fully solve hard problems. Mostly these "huddle-work" scenarios
| created more problems (long term) than they solved, because
| people weren't motivated to solve the problem, they were
| motivated to leave the war room. I do my best work when I'm not
| constantly distracted by others, but many managers simply can't
| understand this and instead hamstring their employees by having
| "war rooms" and white-boarding sessions and stand-ups and deep-
| dives and all the other nonsensical ways of preventing people
| from actually focusing and accomplishing a task. Good riddance
| to the on-location office and all the hot garbo that comes with
| it; the rest of us will be quietly humming away, getting tasks
| done and solving major problems without such managerial
| hindrances.
| janee wrote:
| I agree with "war rooms" not being as effective...but
| whiteboards, standups and deep dives personally can be
| helpful.
|
| I think the key thing for me is that I never force people to
| sit in on these.
|
| When an employee starts a large piece of work they don't
| understand that I feel have some knowledge on. I ask if they
| would like to whiteboard a solution with me...or deep dive
| something in the code, or do daily standups just to talk
| about w/e is on their mind
|
| Doing these remotely is totally fine, but I do feel these
| activities...or atleast whiteboarding and deep diving is
| nicer in person for me
| fastasucan wrote:
| I'm at least 50% convinced that there is a natural selection
| where managers are the people who like that stuff but people
| who stay developers hate it. I totally agree with you, from
| the moment I step into one of these rooms with my laptop in
| hand I just want to get out of there and back to my chair, my
| monitors and time to think things through.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| "war rooms" are excellent in three cases:
|
| 1) creative brainstorming (ux, ui, branding, early
| architectural decisions) to ensure everyone can present and
| validate their ideas, and people are more on board with
| decisions as they saw democratic backing (or, at the very
| least, feel that objections they raise were heard!)
|
| 2) bringing staff that would normally be spread across
| multiple buildings and units together - the bigger the org
| and the more stakeholders involved, the more important a
| common space for (at least) the leadership team is,
| _especially_ to cut through red tape and organizational
| barriers.
|
| 3) when you have an immediate problem (outages, GDPR
| incidents) to solve and secrecy is involved - no need to
| take care about people not in the loop, seeing stuff they
| are not supposed to etc.
|
| What "war rooms" often enough end at, unfortunately, is
| cramped chicken coops. Not enough space, sales/PM people
| directly sitting and blathering in their phones next to
| developers, ... for _months_. That 's a farce.
| Aeolun wrote:
| Oh, never think that you can get away just because you are
| remote. Now we just have multi-hour 'this is a war room'
| meetings, where the entire team is trying to get work done
| while connected to a permanent zoom session.
| throwaway_25434 wrote:
| There are entire classes of problems where a group of n
| persons working effectively together will produce a much
| better solution than 1 single person on an island (where n >
| 1).
|
| In those situations, white boarding and deep dive are useful
| activities.
|
| Business owners would absolutely love it if you could just
| run a complex (high value-add, high margin) business by only
| getting a bunch of commodity developers just pulling JIRA
| tickets from a heap, quietly humming away.
|
| Reality is that, collaboration is important and is required
| in order to create non trivial products, and thus the margin
| to pay for the "people doing real work".
| thrower123 wrote:
| This claim is commonly made anecdotally by extroverts, but
| I've never seen real evidence that it is true.
| matwood wrote:
| I agree collaboration is very important. What's interesting
| to me though is that very early in my career (pre
| ubiquitous video conferencing), I worked for a large multi-
| site corp. Me and another developer were the only
| developers in the local office, yet somehow we were able to
| collaborate using phone calls and email to build some
| pretty cool software with other team members in various
| offices around the US.
|
| I'm not saying that digital tools are always perfect
| replacements, but there is a large gradient between a
| single person on an island and sitting shoulder to shoulder
| at a fold out table (which I have also done).
| fastasucan wrote:
| I think some of the reason that so many workers welcome this
| change is that they have had bad managers (which it sounds like
| you are not). For my self I had a on-site manager managing a
| team of 6-7 people out at a customer, however he failed to pick
| up on my detoriating mental health which lead to a severe case
| of burnout and me leaving the company. The signs was there, and
| I am still baffled what on earth he spent 8 hours on each day
| since the didn't do anything to stop that (at least for the
| sake of the company - I was not productive to say the least).
| Given that experience there is nothing gained in having a
| manager that I physically meet. Interesting to know if the
| different feelings people have regarding this is due to their
| experience with different managers.
|
| I hope that you find some way to adjust for the new way of
| working, if it is having regular workshops, having workers come
| in regularly, or if it all blows over and thing go back to
| normal.
| the_gipsy wrote:
| > What was a matter of just getting six people in a war room
| for a week and getting that hard problem done
|
| What would you say exactly, you "do" here?
| mediaman wrote:
| As a manager, how would you feel about a hybrid setup with
| people in the office say two days a week?
|
| Would it recapture a substantial portion of the benefits, or do
| you think you find that the manager utility of each extra day
| in the office doesn't diminish much?
| dtjohnnyb wrote:
| Sorry to hear that.
|
| This was a real jolt to read though. I've been really bullish
| about WFH or hybrid work for the future, since as an IC I've
| seen nothing but the benefits as you mention. I never thought
| of the stress of remote work in a management role though, so
| thanks for sharing!
| solids wrote:
| When the pandemic started, I was working as a manager. It was
| my 6th year in that company. I thought, working remote is the
| best that ever happened to me.
|
| Now I changed my job three months ago and remote work is
| killing me.
|
| I realized that managing remotely it's easy if you already have
| build strong relationships while in the office. You know how to
| approach each team member, who you can trust. It also takes
| much more time for people to trust you.
| dmitrygr wrote:
| > is an energy hog.
|
| Now you know how introverts feel about in-person meetings
| matwood wrote:
| > Videocalls. Whiteboarding. Interviewing. Strategic work.
| Reading emotions and connecting to people. What was a matter of
| just getting six people in a war room for a week and getting
| that hard problem done now takes eternities and every meeting
| is an energy hog.
|
| Being in any meeting or war room is also an energy hog. I do
| understand what you're saying though. What worked before,
| doesn't work anymore. Remote means management has to change. IC
| work for the most part was easy to move remote. Work that
| involved coordinating people and communication is going to take
| longer to figure out. It can be done, as many pre-COVID remote
| companies showed. But, it takes work to adapt.
| rodgerd wrote:
| > Reading emotions and connecting to people.
|
| Literally every day of my life with autism.
| extr wrote:
| Agreed. I think people don't realize how much WFH sucks for
| people who are not ICs (or don't care). Pre-pandemic, I was
| pointing my career in a management direction. I enjoyed both
| development work and managing and they both took advantage of
| different skill sets. However, in my mind, management had more
| upside in the long run, and if I was going to be going into an
| office every day anyway, might as well keep at it. So at the
| start of the pandemic I was doing remote management of a
| technical team. And all those negatives you mention started to
| add up. In the last few months I got a different job as a
| senior developer to take advantage of the unbelievable W/L
| balance of permanent WFH. I decided "being a developer
| remotely" >> "being a manager in the office" >> "being a
| developer in the office" >> "being a manager remotely".
|
| On the other hand for my partner who is non-technical and
| squarely in management, WFH is an endless nightmare of virtual
| meetings with no breaks. Hard to read people, hard to get
| people engaged, nonstop pings preventing what little focus time
| she has left. She wants to get back to an office ASAP, and I
| don't blame her.
| cyberlurker wrote:
| Why would those pings stop in office?
| silicon2401 wrote:
| Hopefully leaders can learn some empathy from this pandemic.
|
| > everything about managing remotely completely sucks for me.
|
| As an engineer, everything about working in-person completely
| sucks for me. I hate being around people, I hate hearing
| people, I hate interacting with coworkers face to face, I hate
| sitting in office chairs and desks, and I hate commuting.
|
| > Videocalls. Whiteboarding. Interviewing. Strategic work.
| Reading emotions and connecting to people.
|
| Again, these all completely suck for me in-person. I'm an
| introvert and I hate having to put on a happy face for the
| manager (my resting face looks anywhere from tired to
| murderous), I hate "sitting in a war room" pretending to focus
| while my time is just wasted by people talking, I hate
| traveling and waiting in a lobby for interviews when I'm
| already nervous, and I hate having to mime the emotions and
| interactions that leaders think are meaningful but that I just
| do because it's part of office politics.
|
| Maybe you're an exception, and it would be great if you are.
| But I've had deep and meaningful relationships with people,
| fully remotely and text-based, since I used IRC as a teenager.
| I think in 2021 it's fair to raise the bar and expect
| managers/leaders to learn basic online communication to the
| level that teenagers were doing like 10-20 years ago, rather
| than shackle everyone to the office and commutes because
| leaders can't learn how to use slack/zoom
| [deleted]
| auiya wrote:
| I don't feel the WFH pros/cons align perfectly with
| engineer/managers either. I know many managers who are very
| comfortable with managing a geo-distributed remote team. Mine
| in particular is quite good at it.
| walshemj wrote:
| You really think your peers are going to appreciate your
| attitude?
|
| Don't take this the wrong way but I think you need to think
| about Therapy.
| cyberlurker wrote:
| He plays the game in office. But it's exhausting and
| pointless. The only benefit I see of being in office is not
| having to compete with others around the world for jobs.
| arlompcritiq wrote:
| It's not clear what exactly you're referring to by
| "attitude" or how you think "Therapy" will affect it.
|
| On the other hand, I can easily see how the sort of non-
| constructive verbal lashing-out demonstrated in your
| comment could be a problem in the workplace, and a behavior
| that one can learn to avoid through Therapy.
| silksowed wrote:
| this comment thread makes it apparent that WFH, hybrid, in person
| will become part of recruitment. allow people of all types to
| self sort
| leros wrote:
| One of the interesting things that happened at my company is that
| productivity instantly doubled when we started working remotely.
| The reality at my company is that people are only getting 20
| hours or so of work done in the office - the rest is
| socialization, pointless meetings, lunches, or trying to look
| busy. When we went home for lockdown and kept working 40 hour
| weeks, not only did productive output double, but everyone burned
| out in a few weeks.
|
| In my opinion, the reality of working from home is that 20-30
| hour work weeks need to be acceptable and we should use the rest
| of our time on non-working things, just like we did in the
| office, but now that time can be more meaningful to us.
| passivate wrote:
| How does your company measure productivity?
| perfunctory wrote:
| > 20-30 hour work weeks need to be acceptable
|
| Yes, yes, yes. I am totally convinced that we can all start
| working 20 hours per week starting next Monday and the world
| will just keep going as normal. Only we will be healthier,
| happier and richer.
| mullingitover wrote:
| This is probably true - the problem with modern post-
| industrial economies is weak demand, not supply. We've juiced
| supply to the absolute hilt, but people are too busy spending
| their time at jobs and not consuming. We could easily scale
| down to 20 hour workweeks and the economy would keep on
| growing.
|
| It's a prisoner's dilemma situation though, as others point
| out. Some people are going to insist on wasting their new
| extra free time at another job. The solution would be to put
| a hard cap on labor hours per person, mandating an overtime
| pay requirement that follows the worker from job to job.
| phkahler wrote:
| >> Yes, yes, yes. I am totally convinced that we can all
| start working 20 hours per week starting next Monday and the
| world will just keep going as normal. Only we will be
| healthier, happier and richer.
|
| Well no. Because some people will use that to work 2 jobs and
| make twice as much money. Then inflation will take that into
| account, prices will rise, and everyone will end up working 2
| 20-hour jobs. If you ever want to work significantly less
| hours I suspect it will require laws forbidding people to
| work more than X, and even then people will take that second
| job under the table.
| api wrote:
| This is called the hedonic treadmill, and is why we don't
| have a more leisurely lifestyle in general.
|
| John Maynard Keynes famously predicted something like a
| 10-20 hour work week by the year 2000. You can actually
| have that today... _if you are willing to live at the
| standard of living of someone in the 1930s_.
|
| That would mean a much smaller house, much less technology,
| a very cheap car or public transit, vanilla food, only a
| few suits of clothes, and bare bones health care.
|
| Instead we tend to use our gains to get more space (houses
| today outside dense cities are _huge_ ), more tech, more
| education, better health care, designer hipster food, more
| entertainment, and so on.
| ectopod wrote:
| I have stepped off the hedonic treadmill. I prepare
| nearly all of my own food and I eat extremely well.
| Ingredients are cheap. I don't live in the USA so my
| healthcare is unaffected. The internet is a thing so I
| can (and do) continue to educate myself for free.
|
| But yes, I don't have an extensive wardrobe or a large
| house. So what?
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| You could also do that if corporate profits were lower.
| Worker productivity has far outpaced compensation for 50
| years:
| https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-6/understanding-the-
| labo...
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| Living in a 1930's home with a 2010 Toyota Corolla in the
| garage I somehow doubt that. We're talking (where I live)
| $600-1200 before tax income. In the dead of winter the
| utilities alone can be close to $500.
| gowld wrote:
| Hedonic treadmill is different. This is about labor
| flooding the market and driving its price down, and
| auction-priced (supply-constrained) goods being bid up in
| price (like housing).
| heterodoxxed wrote:
| | _a much smaller house, much less technology, a very
| cheap car or public transit, vanilla food, only a few
| suits of clothes, and bare bones health care._
|
| You would have to be highly skilled to do that, the
| average worker couldn't get anywhere close to that
| lifestyle on 10-20 hours a week.
| the_only_law wrote:
| At least I don't think so on the jobs that would actually
| allow you to work 10-20 hours a week.
| the_only_law wrote:
| > if you are willing to live at the standard of living of
| someone in the 1930s.
|
| So you'd have to live like it was the worst period of
| global economic collapse and hardship in modern history?
| deadmutex wrote:
| Problem is that if one company works 20 hours a week, and
| another works 40 hours a week.
|
| The 40 hour/week company will get more done.
|
| Also, imagine if your doctor only worked 20 hours a week.
| [deleted]
| totorovirus wrote:
| But isn't 20 hours/week or 40 hours/week a negotiated
| agreement when you got hired? If you want 20 hours/week,
| get paid less and stop whining about companies should pay
| more for less amount of mandatory work hours. The
| discussion should have been more like employees should have
| more options on choosing how many mandatory work hours they
| are willing to offer a week when signing agreement with a
| company. I am utterly surprised, though not all people here
| are from the capitalism driven world but majorities are
| talking like they are living in socialist world.
| Aeolun wrote:
| > Also, imagine if your doctor only worked 20 hours a week.
|
| I rather imagine I'd have two doctors.
| setr wrote:
| By that logic, you should be enforcing a 60 hour/week, to
| achieve even better goals.
|
| The problem is that job != job, because different jobs have
| different requirements.
|
| A doctor needs to be _available_ continuously, but he
| doesn't necessarily need to be _working_ continuously. An
| on-call doctor needs to be available 24 /7. A general
| practitioner may only need to show up for scheduled
| appointments in strict timeslots.
|
| A programmer on a long term project needs to eventually put
| in hours, but precisely when he puts in those hours matters
| less. A senior developer is productive anytime he's
| available for advice (and there are others working to be
| advised -- with off-shore resources, this can mean extended
| availability)
|
| A warehouse worker is productive only when he's explicitly
| doing labor. Being available for labor, but not doing any,
| is worthless.
|
| A programmer on a short term or last-mile phase of a
| project needs to put in the hours, but on a strict timeline
| -- there's no room to skip a day and make up for it
| tomorrow.
|
| Companies already acknowledge this, albeit implicitly. The
| higher you are in the hierarchy, the more valuable your
| availability and the less your labor. CEOs don't get to
| have strict no-work vacations, but they also don't have
| strict 9-5 work/life split, because they need to be
| available all the time. At the same time, they can go
| normal days without any real work to do, because they
| aren't needed for anything.
| watwut wrote:
| Yes. But then, people who work 40hours produce more then
| those who work 60, but it is not stopping teams overworking
| people.
|
| Meaning, productivity is not only factor.
| silicon2401 wrote:
| Why would I care about my doctor only working 20h a week?
| He could work 1h a week as long as he delivers what I need.
| barry-cotter wrote:
| This is the same problem as people working 40 hours a
| week have competing with people working 80 hours a week
| have; they mostly can't. Even if the last 20 hours are so
| marginal that really, you might as well not have bothered
| the person who worked 80 hours a week got 1.5 times as
| much done, and in any job that isn't totally routinised
| the knowledge and skills gained from working compound.
| They compound faster for those who work more hours.
| fastasucan wrote:
| I think the point of the original post in this thread is
| that 40 hour weeks are in reality 20 hour productive weeks.
| So a company working 40 hour weeks where 20 hours are
| productive have the same output as a company working 20
| hour weeks where 20 hours are productive.
| walshemj wrote:
| your assuming that these 20 hour will be 100% work which
| is unlikely
| endlessvoid94 wrote:
| I used to think this. But, I've learned that it assumes a
| bunch of things that aren't really true at many, many
| companies:
|
| - Clear goals that the team is bought into
|
| - Productive people who can sustain emotional enthusiasm
| for extended time periods
|
| - An environment where intrinsically motivated people can
| thrive, and/or incentives for extrinsically motivated
| people
|
| - A healthy feedback loop so people know when they're
| improving and are rewarded for it
|
| - etc
|
| Looked at this way, a team of 5 people working 20 hours per
| week in this type of company can vastly outperform a team
| of people working 40 hours per week at a company that lacks
| the above items. (And I'm probably missing some)
| PraetorianGourd wrote:
| That isn't how comparisons work though. You can't compare
| a 20-hour/week company with good culture to a
| 40-hour/week company with toxic culture. You have two
| variables uncontrolled in that comparison.
|
| Compare both companies at 40 or both at 20. The good-
| culture-40-hour would outperform the both the good-
| culture-20-hour and bad-culture-40-hour so why wouldn't
| all companies aim for 40/hours with a good culture?
|
| It could be argued that it is impossible to have a good
| culture and 40 hours, but that needs a lot of analysis.
| maxerickson wrote:
| You can compare apples and oranges just fine.
|
| (You are working to argue that the comparison being made
| isn't useful and haven't gotten there. For instance, if I
| was going to build a company, I'd certainly want to know
| what parts of a culture were important to a company that
| compared so well against the longer working company)
| upgrejd wrote:
| I think he was being sarcastic.
| rodgerd wrote:
| > Also, imagine if your doctor only worked 20 hours a week.
|
| That would be fabulous. Much better than doctors working to
| a regime designed by a cocaine addict that sees them punch-
| drunk from a lack of sleep by the end of their rosters.
| darepublic wrote:
| I've come to believe that big software projects are like a
| marathon. Burning up your maximum energy every step of the
| way simply isn't going to yield better results. You need to
| create a pace and keep to it. Sometimes you speed up,
| sometimes you slow down, but saying 60 hours/week from
| start to finish is gonna be counterproductive.
| eat_veggies wrote:
| You're kind of begging the question when you take "The 40
| hour/week company will get more done" as a given, because
| that is exactly what's at stake here, isn't it? People
| upthread are theorizing that those extra 20 hours a week
| really _don 't_ make us get more done, because (to quote
| one of the comments above), "the rest is socialization,
| pointless meetings, lunches, or trying to look busy"
| gnicholas wrote:
| I can't remember the last time I saw the phrase "begging
| the question" used in its traditional/philosophical form
| -- how refreshing!
| onetimeusename wrote:
| I can't convince myself that would work. What if it isn't
| that people hit a peak of productivity at 20 hours of work
| per week, it's the minimum they try to do and still be
| acceptable to their boss. This could happen if bosses just
| assume that people work close to 90-100% of the time during
| working hours. I am sure no one is honest about it.
|
| If 20 hours were the new weekly target instead of 40 it could
| negatively impact people if productivity declines on crucial
| things. That could happen if the new minimum acceptable
| amount of work to management were, say, 10 hours. So people
| would similarly spend 50% of their 20 hour working week
| avoiding work. So there could be a temporary shock throughout
| the economy as supply of things decreased until things
| adjusted.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| Your hypotheticals seem stretched; I see no reason they
| should apply. Let's try it and see?
| deadmutex wrote:
| What percentage of your company had parents of infants/toddlers
| at your company? Is it very diverse?
|
| Childcare was practically nonexistent during early phase of the
| pandemic.
| gtaylor wrote:
| And it's crushingly expensive even in better times.
| fastasucan wrote:
| This is a refreshing perspective that takes into the reality of
| what humans are able to do, over time. Quite a good idea as
| well, why not spend some time taking walks, doing housework,
| and being in nature rather than standing and chatting by the
| watercooler/coffe machine, having meetings with no benefit or
| trying to surf the web without anyone noticing.
| api wrote:
| Don't forget commute times, which can be bad especially in high
| cost of living cities where you have to live really far from
| things to afford a decent place.
|
| For us it saved everyone an average of 1-2 hours per day.
|
| Also consider the energy savings. Commuting by car every day
| uses tons of energy. Of course this is somewhat offset by more
| HVAC being consumed by houses, but I highly doubt that totally
| erases the savings from not driving so much. Cars are very
| energy intensive.
| thenewwazoo wrote:
| Did it really double, or did boundaries erode? My company has
| been very clear in that they are measuring our productivity and
| _also_ our working hours. Managers are being instructed to be
| _very_ clear about establishing work /life boundaries (with the
| specifics being based on individual need). We similarly saw an
| increase in productivity, but the increase was far smaller once
| normalized for hours worked.
| TimTheTinker wrote:
| Productivity at my workplace went significantly up (and
| stayed up), but management has been _clear_ that personal
| time is sacred, and I hardly ever see anyone on slack after
| work hours.
|
| Honestly, the biggest impediments to productivity at my
| workplace have nothing to do with _where_ we work and
| everything to do with management style (heavy-handed Agile
| /Scrum, micromanagement, the works).
| idrios wrote:
| I'm surprised this perspective is not made more often. It's
| now much easier to work past 5 or 6pm or whenever you would
| normally end. Needing to return home to your family is no
| longer an excuse to stop working because you can be with your
| family while at work. All it takes is one developer on your
| team working evenings or weekends for the other developers to
| feel like they need to be working late too. There's also the
| fact that managers right now are more concerned about whether
| their team is working enough, rather than being concerned
| about their team working too much.
| lamontcg wrote:
| As someone who has done full time WFH for more than 5 years
| one skill you need to pick up is the ability to shut down
| around 5-6pm and avoid work on the weekends, which actually
| takes some self-discipline.
| CalRobert wrote:
| "Needing to return home to your family is no longer an
| excuse to stop working because you can be with your family
| while at work."
|
| If you have young children or infants you can spend your
| time caring for them and worrying that those with older
| kids (or no kids!) will judge you.
| ricardobeat wrote:
| I find myself doing the opposite. It's much easier for me
| to step away at 6pm sharp knowing that if anything happens
| I can jump back in an instant, vs the worry of being the
| first to leave the office, and being stuck in a train for a
| half hour.
| jlarocco wrote:
| Funny how different people are on this.
|
| When I worked in an office I never worried about being
| the first to leave, and didn't even realize other people
| do.
|
| For me, the biggest downside of working from home is how
| easy it is to get distracted by non-work. I go grab a
| coffee and end up putting dishes away, cleaning up, etc.
| and next thing I know an hour's passed by so I'm working
| late or feeling guilty.
|
| I've been working on my time management, in general, and
| that's helping.
| MarkSweep wrote:
| At my previous company this was only true for a week or two.
| Then some VP discovered how to use MS Teams and the daily two
| hour meeting started.
| jedberg wrote:
| The whole idea of a salary is relatively new, since the
| industrial revolution. There were examples from earlier, but for
| the most part, everyone was what would now be a contractor. You'd
| negotiate to do a project for a set fee, or you'd negotiate to do
| whatever the boss needs at an hourly or daily wage for however
| long the boss needed you.
|
| The tradeoff was stability for flexibility. People at the low end
| of the wage spectrum accepted lower daily wages for the stability
| of employment, and then the trend moved upwards.
|
| It looks like the trend is now reversing at the highest salary
| levels. Most people now realize that having a salaried job isn't
| all that much more stable than being a contractor (in the US)
| with at-will employment in 49 states.
|
| I can definitely see a future where more software engineers are
| paid per project instead of a salary. And maybe some companies
| will continually hire certain people that they like over and over
| again.
| akiselev wrote:
| That's an incredibly broad generalization to draw over several
| thousand years of human history. I'd argue since at least
| ancient Rome the predominant model for societies has been the
| clientela patronage model [1] and its feudal derivatives. The
| employment model is a formalization of that relationship that
| sets up basic "serf rights" that were otherwise open to
| horrendous abuse before. The contractors of yore were
| mercenaries - they were usually paid more than the soldiers in
| standing armies (sound familiar?).
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronage_in_ancient_Rome
| jedberg wrote:
| Like I said, there are examples that predate the Industrial
| Revolution, but the idea of an average worker having pay
| stability is pretty new: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salary
| barry-cotter wrote:
| This doesn't really aid your argument. The client patron
| relationship is a lot more like a master servant relationship
| than an employer employee one. You are not equals in any
| sense in a client patron relationship. And it's a personal
| relationship, not a contractual one.
| passivate wrote:
| If you're a consultant you have to be comfortable with
| "selling" yourself, building your brand / networking to bid and
| win new projects. All this stuff is a hassle if you're not a
| social person. Its not a scientific result, but most of the
| engineers I know just want to work long-term on something cool
| and stick with a known company.
| jedberg wrote:
| Yeah, that's the downside, but there are lots of headhunters
| even today that will find and negotiate contracts and then
| take a piece of it.
|
| As more people move towards that model, I can see a race to
| the bottom in fees that those companies take. It'll be
| similar to the way actors get hired -- you get into a
| relationship with an agency but they're just negotiating
| contracts for you.
| someguydave wrote:
| the marketing for contractors becomes easier when companies
| are forced to buy labor on the market
| macintux wrote:
| I think that hinges so heavily on healthcare that it's hard to
| predict whether gig employment will suffice for more people.
| jedberg wrote:
| Yes, agreed. A public option would help.
|
| But for example, I pay for my own insurance. There are
| programs now where you can pay for your own insurance with
| pretax dollars, so my contracting rate just accounts for
| this. Since it's likely that high pay software engineers will
| be the first to go, they are also the most likely to be able
| to absorb that cost and risk, even without a public option.
| betterunix2 wrote:
| "The whole idea of a salary is relatively new, since the
| industrial revolution"
|
| Actually salaries are much more ancient than that:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_legion#Pay
|
| Basic pay for a member of a Roman legion was 225 denarii per
| year, later increased to 300, and then again increased to 500
| to adjust for inflation. Higher ranked officers received higher
| salaries.
| jedberg wrote:
| Like I said, there are examples that predate the industrial
| revolution, but they were mostly limited to government and
| public service jobs.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salary
| jacksnipe wrote:
| I don't want to discount this kind of reason for wanting to
| "return to the office", and I think it's definitely part of the
| cause.
|
| However, speaking as an Individual Contributor, I want to be back
| in the office so badly. I miss feeling really, humanly connected
| to my teammates. There's just no positive sense of camaraderie.
| Sure, we can bitch together about things, but I just find myself
| unable to connect with my coworkers as fellow human beings in my
| monkey sphere.
|
| Before we went WFH I legitimately loved my job. Now I hate it.
| ghaff wrote:
| Of course, you're depending on your coworkers feeling likewise.
| silicon2401 wrote:
| As an IC, I fully support extroverts going back to the office.
| I just want introverts like myself to have the option to never
| go back to the office. I don't understand why people think it's
| either one or the other
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| As an introvert myself, I think I totally get your take on
| this.
|
| But I've also been the only remote member of an otherwise in-
| person team. It was a truly terrible experience (as many
| others have written). I fear that the policy you're
| suggesting would make everything better for those in the
| office (the extroverts) and worse for those working remotely
| (the introverts).
| stank345 wrote:
| FWIW I'm definitely an introvert and I can't wait to get back
| in the office. I don't want to have to talk to people all day
| but I _really_ want some actual meatspace interaction. Being
| locked up for a year with two small children and only my wife
| as the other adult to talk to has not been good for my mental
| health.
| thrower123 wrote:
| Because it is one or the other. If office-first people are
| allowed to regain preeminence in a company, then that company
| will be back to abusing engineers by sitting them in hot-desk
| open office situations next to shouting salespeople in short
| order.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| You're advocating for a position as "a guy in a room" [0],
| and we've all been taught how dangerous and harmful that
| person ends up being for an organization that's trying to
| ship good software on time.
|
| What you're asking for is, frankly, not reasonable. You want
| to be left alone to code, and that is simply not how software
| development works anymore (and arguably it never worked that
| way). [0] -
| https://blog.codinghorror.com/dont-go-dark/
| twobitshifter wrote:
| Imagine a non-pandemic environment where you could go to a
| buddy's house and work. Or for many people, their closest
| relationships are with their spouse and family. You no longer
| have to be separate from them for most of your waking hours.
| Work picks your "friends" for you and in many cases you won't
| get along. It seems like you were lucky to be in a good
| situation.
| loopz wrote:
| I wouldn't want to mix friendships and work. I'd also be wary
| about alliances forming outside of the workplace.
| jimmyspice wrote:
| I think they meant working at a non-colleagues house. At
| least, that's what I plan to do when it's possible, every
| now and then. I think the change of pace would be nice,
| back at university I'd do the same with people not on my
| course. Being genuinely fond of each other makes time go
| faster.
|
| Of course, I'd also want to work outside of the office,
| with my colleagues too. A change of environment every now
| and then can't hurt.
| rodgerd wrote:
| > Imagine a non-pandemic environment where you could go to a
| buddy's house and work.
|
| I'm imagining it and it sounds like the literal worst thing.
| h4waii wrote:
| You _could_ , not have to. You would have the _option_ to,
| while for most people they simply do not.
| matz1 wrote:
| Instead of 100% return to the office how about having
| (optional) get together offline meetup every once in a while,
| it can be about work or simple lunch.
| ebiester wrote:
| How do you do that when everyone lives x,000 miles away now?
|
| Why would I stay in <big city close enough to commute> and
| pay <outrageous> rent/mortgage if I'm remote?
|
| (Honest truth: that's what remoter weeks are for.)
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| Could flying the remote staff to an in-person meeting every
| 1-2 months be a good balance? As long as the flights are
| reasonably short (e.g., within the continental U.S. or
| within the E.U.), it's probably still cheaper than
| maintaining office space for the remote workers.
| ghaff wrote:
| Quarterly is more doable. That's basically what my
| extended team did pre-pandemic.
| throwaway_25434 wrote:
| And now you are discriminating against senior people with
| family/kids who just can't fly out of town for a week
| every couple months.
| enobrev wrote:
| Just chiming in to say some of us live in the big expensive
| cities precisely because of the life we lead outside of
| work. Otherwise, agreed.
| a-dub wrote:
| I've always thought it would be interesting to experiment with a
| 3 day work week where all work is done onsite, no remote access
| is possible and no after hours access is possible.
|
| I bet productivity would double.
| [deleted]
| itqwertz wrote:
| I could care less about what happens to my bosses.
|
| I'm never going back to an office unless they pay for my gas,
| mileage, time spent in traffic, office wardrobe, etc.
|
| It's unfortunate for these companies that they were so reluctant
| previously to allow anyone but a reverse-schedule off-short
| worker have the privilege of not having to be in the office. The
| cat is out of the bag.
| SunlightEdge wrote:
| At the moment one big reason remote work looks very attractive
| because 9-5 is still seen as the norm.
|
| I'm all for remote work and think its superior in pretty much
| every dimension you measure workers on.
|
| Having said that in a world where remote working is seen as the
| norm I do wonder how I will feel. I can see more and more
| technology being introduced to monitor staff at home for example.
| And the competition for jobs might spike.
|
| Personally I think I'll be ok. Here's hoping I can never go back
| to an office. But yeah I wonder if I'll still feel the same in a
| few years...
| EMM_386 wrote:
| > And the competition for jobs might spike.
|
| And salaries may drop precipitously if you are in one of the
| higher paid countries, because you are now competing with
| people who may be equally as qualified as you but can make WAY
| less and afford a very comfortable standard of living anywhere
| in the world.
|
| Even within countries. Why may San Fran salaries when you just
| found someone in Fargo, SD that can do the same job and would
| prefer to stay there.
|
| I realize companies are discussing keeping Silicon Valley
| salaries wherever their employees choose to live, but that
| can't last. You could pack up and move to another country and
| live like an absolute king.
| WesolyKubeczek wrote:
| Haven't we had basically this with outsourcing ("same" work
| for way less money)? Was it not, all things considered,
| nightmare fuel on average?
| bsder wrote:
| > I realize companies are discussing keeping Silicon Valley
| salaries wherever their employees choose to live, but that
| can't last.
|
| 1) Now that managers have realized that the programmers don't
| need to be in Silly Valley, the next realization is that they
| can hire outside Silly Valley and pay less. There are a whole
| lot of people in cities like Pittsburgh who will be happy to
| get 10% less than Silly Valley to get a remote job. And then
| 10% less than that to get a remote job. Lather, rinse, repeat
| until salraies are at the cost of living for the area.
|
| 2) Once they do that, they will realize that they can lay off
| almost everybody with a high salary for no net loss.
|
| If you're just a programmer, life is about to get bad. Hope
| you banked money while you had it.
| matwood wrote:
| Honest question. How many people who can get jobs at SV
| companies are still sitting in crappy towns in the US? I'm
| sure there are some, but I'm not sure there as many as
| people think.
|
| The world wide developer pool is certainly a bigger issue,
| but that's been around a long time. Remote is only part
| (and I would argue a small part) of the reason that
| outsourcing isn't used more often.
|
| I think what we'll see is the super low salary areas rise
| and the super high areas come down a bit. I don't think
| it's about to 'get bad' for anyone with the skillset to
| work at a SV company though. In fact, it's more likely
| about to get much better for everyone else. I've already
| seen salaries in my locale go up since local companies are
| now competing with nearby big cities companies who are now
| comfortable with remote workers.
| bsder wrote:
| > How many people who can get jobs at SV companies are
| still sitting in crappy towns in the US?
|
| The entire ModCloth Pittsburgh team, for example?
|
| If you see some of the talks by the former ModCloth CTO,
| he points out that the Pittsburgh team was _better and
| cheaper_ than the Silicon Valley team by a good margin.
| Part of that was the fact that the Pittsburgh team had
| more _experience_ that the Silly Valley team because they
| didn 't jump ship every three years. Part of that was the
| fact that the Silicon Valley FAANGs absorbed the
| _actually_ good programmers so what you were hiring in
| Silicon Valley was the mediocre second tier who _thought_
| they were first tier and you had to pay them first tier
| salaries.
|
| And don't underestimate the number of people who don't
| want to move. At least 1/3 of my college graduating class
| didn't want to leave Pittsburgh.
| Animats wrote:
| How to manage work-from-home will probably be figured out, but
| you won't like it.[1]
|
| [1] https://www.teramind.co/
| handrous wrote:
| I'm quite confident this is what any kind of WFH arrangement is
| going to look like for most people, in the near future. Some
| segment of the Tech Elect will not have to suffer it, but most
| people will, including programmers (most of whom aren't in
| FAANG or fancy start-ups or finance, and hell, some of those
| might resort to this kind of thing, too).
| reidjs wrote:
| I think it's inevitable. If the software naively measures
| keystrokes or idle time, there are obvious ways to trick it.
| Unfortunately less technologically adept employees might not
| be able to circumvent it
| Bendy wrote:
| I agree with the article but I am nonetheless pessimistic. I do
| think remote work will stay, the relentless force of capital is
| now on its side, but I'm afraid that's only because even in a
| remote work paradigm the "managers" will still discover new ways
| to control, abuse and enjoy their employees.
| aeternum wrote:
| It's easy to deride middle management especially when they try to
| micromanage by requiring people to be in-office or via other
| forms of surveillance.
|
| However measuring productivity / output is an really tough
| problem. If you're a manager, how do you tell if your team is
| spending 50% of the time slacking vs. working on a problem that
| is twice as difficult as everyone thought? Especially with
| software, estimation is notoriously inaccurate.
|
| I think one of the only methods is competition. Was another
| company or team able to deliver the same feature with less
| resource expenditure?
| blackbear_ wrote:
| > If you're a manager, how do you tell if your team is spending
| 50% of the time slacking vs. working on a problem that is twice
| as difficult as everyone thought?
|
| Why not... Ask them directly? If you understand the type of
| work your team is doing it should be easy to figure that out.
| If you manage software engineers and have no idea how software
| is created no metric is going to save you.
|
| > Was another company or team able to deliver the same feature
| with less resource expenditure?
|
| How many corners did they cut do deliver faster? And how long
| will it take before they get crushed by technical debt? There
| is always a trade-off between quality and velocity. High
| velocity is immediate to see, but good quality takes time to be
| appreciated.
| aeternum wrote:
| >There is always a trade-off between quality and velocity.
|
| This is a common trope but is rarely the case in my
| experience. Components designed to be flexible and 'future-
| proof' are the ones that quickly become overengineered,
| resulting in late deliveries and costly maintenance.
|
| Writing the minimum code required to solve the problem is
| often a winning strategy.
| ev1 wrote:
| https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/26/teleperform...
| the_gipsy wrote:
| So you are saying is that the solution is to just cram people
| into an office. They are forced to work or something, some part
| of the time, right? It's not like there's much to do after
| gossipping and smalltalk. No need for you to do anything,
| really. Easy work, smart!
| dmitrygr wrote:
| > how do you tell if your team is spending 50% of the time
| slacking
|
| You don't! As long as they deliver what you ask of them, and do
| it well, it is none of your business if they used 40 hours a
| week or 1 hour a week doing it, if they played with their kid
| while doing it, loaded their dishwasher, or called their mother
| while doing it.
| balfirevic wrote:
| Who is doing the estimates of how long thing will take to
| deliver?
| dmitrygr wrote:
| Any GOOD manager. Probably in collaboration with the team
| and possibly a PM
| ebiester wrote:
| That's already a problem in the office culture. I may be able
| to tell if you are diligent, but I can't tell if you are
| productive. And as a manager, I would rather have three hours
| of effective work than 8 hours of ineffective work.
|
| That means you have 5 more hours for meetings.
| 13415 wrote:
| Is that a joke or meant seriously? I really can't tell.
| CarelessExpert wrote:
| > If you're a manager, how do you tell if your team is spending
| 50% of the time slacking vs. working on a problem that is twice
| as difficult as everyone thought?
|
| I... talk to them? Ask them questions? Probe to see if they're
| running into issues? Offer help, support, possible solutions,
| or just be their rubber duck?
|
| If I sense there might be issues, I probe into the team,
| solicit anonymous feedback, and otherwise discretely ask for
| other people's perspectives.
|
| Is it a perfect science? No. Can you get fleeced by staff for a
| while? Absolutely. But the low performers eventually reveal
| themselves if you're paying any attention. And the reality is
| the vast majority of people genuinely want to do a good job. So
| my preference is to trust my staff to be honest and hard
| working, recognizing the rare possibility that I could end up
| the victim of a sociopath who deliberately tries to abuse that
| trust.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| > If you're a manager, how do you tell if your team is spending
| 50% of the time slacking vs. working....
|
| It's sort of strange that we even take this point of view: that
| somehow human output is to be measured in the way a machine's
| output is measured or the efficiency of a light bulb.
|
| But that opens up a whole can of worms....
| zug_zug wrote:
| Well so the basic idea is this:
|
| Either we can A) evaluate/measure engineers' output (e.g.
| commits/tickets), and promote/hire/fire based on whether they
| do enough of it per/day ("meritocratic"?)
|
| B) Just plop engineers in chairs, and peer over their
| shoulder to make sure they aren't on reddit all day, and then
| trust that however long it took them to build the thing was
| reasonable.
|
| A is really hard, it was the false-promise of agile. But in a
| remote culture, you either have to do A or install screen-
| monitoring software on your engineers to do B (or just
| hope/pray).
|
| Of course perhaps there's another option, like a technical
| manager who reviews the volume/quantity of PRs and assesses
| based on that, but seems rare.
| kwyjibo1230 wrote:
| Agreed. I think the intent of the previous commenters was
| more along the lines of "How do we determine which employees
| are working earnestly and effectively vs working without
| motivation or ineffectively?"
|
| Its important to take time out of the question, because time
| spent, after a very small minimum, isn't a strong indicator
| of performance.
| 21eleven wrote:
| While not fun to point out, there is such a thing as toxic
| people who intentionally under perform at their jobs.
| aeternum wrote:
| Agreed, a team that spends 50% of the day staring out the
| window may actually be thinking and come up with a solution
| that beats another team. Output/results are ultimately what
| matter and since we all have finite lifetimes, results per
| unit time is also quite important.
|
| But isn't competition ultimately the only yardstick by which
| we can measure this?
| milansm wrote:
| One of my most experienced and respected colleagues likes
| to say: "when it looks like I'm not working at all that's
| when I'm working the most".
| juancn wrote:
| The mistake is thinking about hours instead of output. The notion
| of full-time comes from the factory model, where your output is a
| function of the time you spend working.
|
| For knowledge work, we have known this is not the case for a very
| long time.
|
| Peter Drucker has written rivers of ink about the subject.
|
| The most valuable knowledge work, many times happen in the
| unlikeliest of places: the shower, working out, on a walk,
| watching tv, etc.
|
| Solutions to problems come when they do, not when you want them
| to. The main thing that happens at the office is the busy work.
| granshaw wrote:
| Similar to value based billing in the consulting world
|
| I wonder if we'll see a future where everyone will be
| contractors paid by value delivered, and companies compete to
| keep different people on retainer for capacity. Fun to ponder
| about
| throwaway_25434 wrote:
| It seems very unlikely that this would lead to value based
| pricing.
|
| On the contrary: with async WFH + everyone-a-contrator, the
| supply of work will become much more homogeneous and
| undifferentiated, which will lead to commoditization.
|
| Doesn't mean prices will converge to minimum wage! But
| bargaining power will shift in favor of the buyer (i.e. the
| businesses)
| [deleted]
| commandlinefan wrote:
| My fear is that the author is 100% correct but that what will go
| away in the near future isn't the office itself, but full-time
| salaries.
| munk-a wrote:
| I've always found it weird that working a salaried position
| means you've got to have your butt in a chair 9-5 regardless of
| anything else going on - but you also need to be on hand to fix
| problems at 10PM without any compensation earned. It might
| honestly be nice if we transitioned professional work to hourly
| compensation - I think that would _strongly_ reinforce the
| bounds of what you, the employee, owe the company and what
| compensation you should earn in exchange.
| passivate wrote:
| In my state (WA), we can't have all of our employees in the
| exempt status [1]. I'm guessing its the same for most
| companies in WA?
|
| [1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/exempt-employee.asp
| pnutjam wrote:
| I push back on that and comp the time. I wish there was
| better regulation around comp time.
| munk-a wrote:
| At least in BC (and this is almost certainly illegal) a
| coworker of mine was once working for Telus and was denied
| the ability to take vacation in November and December due
| to it being a rush season - but was then also denied a
| request to have their unused vacation time either paid out
| or carried over. Neither of these halves are illegal on
| their own - together they're almost certainly illegal but
| damnit if labour laws aren't as clear as mud.
| handrous wrote:
| If a shift to hourly happens, I _suspect_ we 're going to see
| reluctance from a lot of businesses to pay actually-
| equivalent hourly rates, which will give them sticker shock
| ("$200/hr!? I was only paying about $100/hr before with
| salaries!" Right, but your workers were only spending an
| average of half their time on stuff that will count as
| hourly-billable work--numbers exaggerated for ease of
| calculation, but that's the reaction I expect, in general),
| coupled with a lot of newbies willing to take those too-low
| rates because they haven't done the math, and think the rates
| look high, especially if we're talking (as we most likely
| are) contract-type work without any kind of benefits. IOW I
| expect a reduction in total effective comp for the sector, at
| least for the first few years, if that shift is widespread.
| hprotagonist wrote:
| It's a fundamental debate about the nature of pay and work.
|
| Do you think you are paying $X/year to achieve Y goals? Or, do
| you think you are paying $x/hour to put an ass in a chair?
|
| Which one you pick seems to decide how you feel about flex time,
| remote work, ... .
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| The real issue at hand is that businesses do not like getting
| played the same way they've been playing employees for a long
| time. If I get my work done in 50% of the time I don't get to
| take any time off, and the "quota" moves up without moving up my
| pay (or at least not proportionately) .
|
| However if I'm late on my work there certainly will be "overtime"
| ... So which is it? Is it that I am paid for a certain quantity
| of work however long it takes, or that I'm paid for however much
| i can accomplish in a certain amount of time? (and during certain
| hours I might add...)
|
| They're contradictory so it cannot be both.
| mdorazio wrote:
| It's neither. Unless you're 1099/hourly or in sales you get
| paid to be available to work during a set period of time
| (generally not specific hours), regardless of how much you
| accomplish during that time. Keep in mind this works both ways
| - if you finish your work in 5 hours and spend the next 3
| messing around on Reddit or whatever you still get paid for 8.
| Getting paid for actual hours worked isn't as much fun as you
| probably think.
| bagacrap wrote:
| messing around on Reddit for 3 hours is a lot less useful
| than what I'd be doing at home if I had 3 hours to spare
| lopatin wrote:
| TLDR: Middle managers are scum. "If you disagree you are part of
| the problem". Remote work makes it harder to satisfy their need
| to control you. And that's why corporations want you back in the
| office.
|
| Am I missing anything?
| maliker wrote:
| I agree. I read: "Middle managers are often graded on the work
| of their team, which means that they are actively incentivized
| to steal work and do little of their own."
|
| Seems like they would be incentivized to help their team
| perform and keep them happy (so they don't quit).
|
| I image this person would learn a lot from being a middle
| manager.
| yunohn wrote:
| You mention a best case scenario for middle management, while
| the article discusses a more worst case one.
|
| As always, reality is someone in between. Though in my
| experience, there's usually more toxic middle managers.
| munk-a wrote:
| I, as much or more than most, fervently agree that companies
| don't own us - we exchange work for pay and that is a
| relationship that works best if respect flows both ways which,
| recently, has been declining.
|
| That all said - most of this article is just a rant about how
| terrible middle managers are and I feel where that's coming from
| but it's not an absolute. Management can be extremely strong at
| shielding you from unnecessary distractions and silliness when
| it's done well. There is real value in middle managers and, since
| transitioning to remote work, my manager and their manager have
| both been working hard to ensure that devs are able to stay as
| productive as they were while also striving to protect and defend
| personal time.
|
| I totally sympathize with people that have worked under space-
| occupiers and from what I've seen it's utterly miserable - but
| staying full remote doesn't mean a flat company structure is
| suddenly optimal for every workplace.
| xemdetia wrote:
| I agree that even middling quality middle managers provide
| plenty of value, but there definitely is a class of manager
| that does not know how to engage with all of their employee
| charges and make them effective. Most of the egregious side
| hustle situations I've run into have come from particular
| employees that felt they were so close to the chopping block
| that it didn't matter anyway, as they felt abandoned by their
| management chain either perceived or in fact. Most others have
| at least been respectful that the full time salary = time
| priority and because of that and reasonable task management it
| became not a problem.
| rodgerd wrote:
| > Management can be extremely strong at shielding you from
| unnecessary distractions and silliness when it's done well.
|
| It is unfortunate that a good manager, not unlike a good
| sysadmin, is invisible; you never realise how much of a shit
| umbrella they are.
| munk-a wrote:
| This is why, one on ones are great but you should also
| occasionally meet your manager and talk with them in a less
| formal setting. If you're out at dinner celebrating a new
| project release (especially if the drinks are flowing) - then
| you'll hear about all the shit they're keeping off your back.
| syndacks wrote:
| Hi, I started reading your article and then stopped because I
| didn't know what it was about. Consider leading with a more
| coherent argument in the first two paragraphs.
| vinceguidry wrote:
| I really wish Hacker News would stop being the place for people
| to share this kind of feedback. There's a comment section on
| the article itself.
| CarelessExpert wrote:
| > Now, someone insufferable will read this and say "NOT ALL
| MIDDLE MANAGERS," and let me tell you, if you're thinking that,
| you are probably part of the problem.
|
| Clever. Take the obvious objection--that this is all based on
| stereotyping of the role and, frankly, cynical assumptions about
| the way management is or can be structured--and then just turn it
| into another symptom of management dysfunction!
|
| How very tautological: Before you tell me I'm wrong, let me tell
| you you're wrong for telling me I'm wrong.
|
| And yes, I'm a manager. And no, I never spent time '[walking] the
| floors, "[keeping] an eye on people" and, in meetings,
| "[speaking] for the group."'' because I have far far more
| important things to do, like helping my staff understand the
| corporate vision so they can make good, independent decisions;
| helping solve problems for my staff when they come to me with
| issues; working with our sales team to manage customer
| expectations and negotiate on projects and solutions; managing
| the expectations of senior management based on the information
| I'm getting from my staff. And the list goes on and on.
|
| But, who am I to say. I'm just a middle manager who is, I'm sure,
| just part of the problem...
| ectopod wrote:
| Clever. Completely avoid the question.
|
| As an excellent middle manager, is having your staff working
| from home a problem for you? If so, why?
| splistud wrote:
| I don't get the feeling that people fully appreciate the gravity
| of 'my team is more productive now that we work at home'. That
| means your team does not need to be a team. The work is mostly
| commoditized and completely outsourceable, in whole or in part.
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| It sounds like you're saying a group of collaborating persons
| is only a "team" if they're physically colocated.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-06-10 23:01 UTC)