Zoom CEO Says In-Person Work Essential for Innovation and Team Bonding (businessinsider.com) 202
An anonymous reader shares a report: Zoom CEO Eric Yuan told employees this month that the company was making the surprising decision to send some workers back to the office regularly because its flagship remote-work product didn't allow employees to build as much trust or be as innovative as in the office, according to a leaked meeting recording viewed by Insider. Zoom, one of the main enablers and beneficiaries of remote work, told employees living within 50 miles of a Zoom office that they must work there at least two days a week. The top reason for the mandate, Yuan said at the August 3 meeting, is that it's difficult for employees to get to know each other and build trust remotely. "In our early days, we all knew each other," Yuan said. "Over the past several years, we've hired so many new 'Zoomies' that it's really hard to build trust." He added: "Trust is a foundation for everything. Without trust, we will be slow." The second reason, he said, is that Zoom doesn't enable employees to have the conversations and debates that lead to innovation. "Quite often, you come up with great ideas, but when we are all on Zoom, it's really hard," Yuan said. "We cannot have a great conversation. We cannot debate each other well because everyone tends to be very friendly when you join a Zoom call."
Friendly?! (Score:5, Insightful)
We cannot debate each other well because everyone tends to be very friendly when you join a Zoom call.
My team is very supportive of one another, but that doesn't stop us from calling out bullshit.
In yesterday's monthly team meeting, I led the pushback against the misguided policy change the supervisor announced to us.
Frankly, I think it's even easier to do that on Zoom than in person.
Re:Friendly?! (Score:5, Insightful)
They're using double-speak here.
By 'friendly' they actually mean 'You can trap a co-worker at their cubicle and force the issue.'
Zoom? They can take their headset off, mute you, or just leave the call.
So you don't harass equal level co-workers 1-on-1 over Zoom because you really can't.
So any 1-on-1-ish interactions between equal level co-workers the pushy ones are forced to play much more 'friendly' by that metric.
Re:Friendly?! (Score:5, Insightful)
We cannot debate each other well because everyone tends to be very friendly when you join a Zoom call.
My team is very supportive of one another, but that doesn't stop us from calling out bullshit. In yesterday's monthly team meeting, I led the pushback against the misguided policy change the supervisor announced to us. Frankly, I think it's even easier to do that on Zoom than in person.
+1. This seems to be a team-specific problem, which means the real problem is earlier in the summary: "Over the past several years, we've hired so many new 'Zoomies' that it's really hard to build trust." What that really translates is that they've hired too many new college hires, who are less secure in their careers, and thus tend to be more afraid to challenge authority. This is what happens when your workforce is too junior. They make stupid mistakes because there's nobody around with enough seniority to feel comfortable saying, "Um, if we do that, you're going to have [problem 1], [problem 2], and [problem 3]."
Remove more easily replaced (Score:3)
... the real problem is earlier in the summary: "Over the past several years, we've hired so many new 'Zoomies' that it's really hard to build trust." What that really translates is that they've hired too many new college hires, who are less secure in their careers, and thus tend to be more afraid to challenge authority ...
Not quite. There is also the fact that as a remote worker you are far more easily replaced than a local worker. That too makes them more likely to be "yes persons".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
... the real problem is earlier in the summary: "Over the past several years, we've hired so many new 'Zoomies' that it's really hard to build trust." What that really translates is that they've hired too many new college hires, who are less secure in their careers, and thus tend to be more afraid to challenge authority ...
Not quite. There is also the fact that as a remote worker you are far more easily replaced than a local worker. That too makes them more likely to be "yes persons".
That's not really true. Yes, employees are competing against a larger, more global talent pool, but employers are competing against a larger, more global employer pool, so those differences cancel each other out for the most part, with the possible exception of people living in high-cost-of-living areas like the Bay Area, but for the most part, people living there aren't remote workers anyway. If anything, access to a larger pool of employers means that the best people have more mobility than they did fiv
Re: (Score:2)
... employees are competing against a larger, more global talent pool, but employers are competing against a larger, more global employer pool, so those differences cancel each other out for the most part ...
Not really. You will more easily find people who more precisely meet your needs in the larger pool, and that fit works both ways. The employer is also more attractive for that reason. Note that the fit advantage is temporary. Two or three months on the job and such differences disappear. The former partial fit is now a good fit.
Additionally, it is easier to let the remote person go, they are not someone you have really bonded with, they are more of an acquaintance on video.
If anything, access to a larger pool of employers means that the best people have more mobility than they did five years ago, ...
Not really, going from good fi
Re: Remove more easily replaced (Score:3)
Um, no. If remote workers weren't holding some good cards, this going back to the office drama would have already gone down a lot differently.
Every single time one of these big ballsy return announcements is made, day two is the well not that team, or that one, definitely not them, oh shit half that team just quit, phase. That part never makes the news.
Anyone still remote at this point has already survived one or more half hearted attempts to return to the office. Replacing people just isn't easy.
Re: Remove more easily replaced (Score:4, Insightful)
That totally depends on the job. Just saying everyone needs to come in is as useful 8as saying everyone in a construction company needs to wear safety shoes, even if they just use a computer all day.
Re: (Score:2)
That totally depends on the job. Just saying everyone needs to come in is as useful 8as saying everyone in a construction company needs to wear safety shoes, even if they just use a computer all day.
FWIW, in warehouses and construction sites it's not about your role. It's about being on the warehouse floor or in the construction site.
:-)
A good pair of work boots are as comfortable as tennis shoes. And for the ladies probably more comfortable than their normal daily shoes.
Re:Friendly?! (Score:5, Insightful)
I also wonder if there's a tendency for CEOs to have whatever personality traits or other mental configuration that makes them want (or need) this kind of in-person environment, even if the employees don't want it or might even do better without it. Having met a few different CEOs I tend to think that they are wired a bit differently than most people.
Re: (Score:3)
They can't do that real measurement. That's the problem, and is the fundamental flaw in how these CEOs that demand in-person work operate.
With Slack, it is possible to get metrics on how often people engage in Huddles, for example, that last at least 5 seconds..
https://slack.com/help/article... [slack.com]
But this is key... you *can't* get data with Slack (as far as I know) on how long those huddles last or, more importantly, what was discussed, because they aren't recorded. So a CEO would never know that X had a hud
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
haha In my company pre-pandemic no one wanted to walk across campus or even to a different floor in the same building. So everyone would book the closest conference/meeting/phone room and Webex or zoom in the meeting. We often had 3 people on a call, that were physically in the same building often just meters apart. Working remote just made that easier and more honest.
Longer rant.
Being a member of gen X, I general associate an event with a location. I watch TV on my big TV while sitting on the couch. I do m
Re: (Score:2)
I'm GenX myself, but I never had that connection between physical places and their "proper use". There were certain things that could only be done in certain places in my youth, like watching TV, so what I did was to move anything I had to do to the room where the TV was. If that TV had been smaller, I probably would have moved the TV instead.
I usually moved whatever was easier to move to whatever was harder to move if I needed two things in one place. I didn't really care about the place where I did things
Re: Friendly?! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost as if it takes a cultural buy-in for remote work to be effective. Who knew?
Marketing cannot manange WFH (Score:2, Insightful)
Trade shows and conferences (Score:3)
despite their customers saying it has been a complicate success and epic cost savings.
[citation needed]
I expect for conferences it is. For example Apple World Wide Developer Conferences. Watching the slideshow for a technical presentation in person is not really better than watching the slideshow on video. Video is actually better given the ability to rewind.
Unless you have a private 1on1 sort of meeting with Apple engineers about your specific problem them physically traveling is probably not necessary.
Pretty much the same for most any technical conference.
Now there is a team building component for
Re: (Score:2)
The value I got from conferences was the 1:1 time at a company's booth or being able to meet the right person I needed via whomever was at the booth if that person was just marketing.
I agree that the actual presentations of 1:many in large rooms could be done remotely with no real loss in value.
Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Then what the hell is their product good for?
only partially (Score:5, Insightful)
Their product is good for partially replacing physical work interactions - not totally.
Re: (Score:3)
Their product is good for partially replacing physical work interactions - not totally.
Actually he said that Zoom is not even good for having a conversation, so really it's not good for anything, including it's primary design purpose: allowing people to communicate with each other.
Re: (Score:2)
Then what the hell is their product good for?
I can't wait to hear them spin this in a investor/shareholder meeting.
Video Conference is for people outside your office (Score:3, Insightful)
Then what the hell is their product good for?
Not having to travel for a meeting or conference. More for things outside your local office.
Re: (Score:3)
I like that, not having to travel for a meeting...at my office. For those of us who live in big cities, travel time to work can easily be an hour each direction.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Interesting (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Would I form deep bonds with people I never see? Afraid not....
That's a feature, not a bug. Work is for making a living, not for forming bonds. The two should never meet. While my coworkers are generally good people, they will never be my friends. The few times I allowed those spheres to meet ended terribly.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, this has little to do with recent events, most of their customers have been asking this for a few years now.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you have asked the same question of telecommunications companies in the 90s and early 00's that sold teleconference solutions?
It's a product that supplements your normal meetings, offering the ability for people not physically present to still attend. I thought that would have been obvious, but clearly not so much.
Opinion as Policy (Score:5, Interesting)
Like many "leaders" I have encountered in my four decades of work in the technology sector, it's yet another CEO expressing his opinion as policy with no backing facts or actual observed effects. Eric Yuan is part of that entitled club of people who actually have no skill in the job they are attempting but get by because a board doesn't actually care as long as the share price increases. I run out of fingers to count the number of times a CEO has told me "I read in a book" or "There was this great article on how" and then followed that up with policy and business plan changes based on those sources without any critical thinking. Yuan may be qualified to do his role as a financial guardian for the company, and communicate those results to shareholders and the board, but should absolutely not be making staff decisions at this level - IMO no CEO should be involved in the day to day running of the business - this is why you have managers reporting to you, who hopefully know what they are doing. (Not a given, as stupidity tends to flow downward as mini empires form in the political structure of a company. This kills a lot of companies, even big ones.)
That's what it means to have masters (Score:2)
So we get monopolies and duopolies while we're all distracted by petty little moral panics ('woke') and you can't go work for another company because 80% of the market is owned by 2 companies and the other 20% are just low paying start ups hoping to get bought out before they get crushed.
You don't even n
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If a CEO/business leader actually said that they based their conclusions on management observations and data that would be one thing -- but I have never seen this.
I just kind of assume the decision is based on a mixture of feedback, data, judgment, etc.
They all take the easy way out and just say, "this is what we are going to do". That just creates distrust and angst - completely counter to what Yuan states he wants to build. We are not the faithful - give us your reasoning based on the data and we can accept that even if we don't agree with the conclusion. Anything else is just theater.
I think that's more a management tactic, if you say "we're gonna do X because of metric Y and my conversations with people like Jane and Fred (or even other management)" then people who don't like the decision start trying to attack metric Y and try influencing (or convincing) Jane and Fred.
On the other hand, if the CEO says "we're gonna do X" then you're gonna do X. When giving news people don't like it's best not to
Re: (Score:2)
>On the other hand, if the CEO says "we're gonna do X" then you're gonna do X. When giving news people don't like it's best not to give people the false appearance of an opportunity to negotiate.
Giving the feedback, data, and judgements that were involved in making the decision is not giving people the false appearance of an opportunity to negotiate.
He did say "Trust is a foundation for everything. Without trust, we will be slow." Well, giving up the data that lead you to your decision is trust. Not do
Re: (Score:2)
Right, and the problem is, these CEOs can't actually get the data needed to make their decisions, or have limited ability to do so. You can't get data on how long Slack huddles last, and what was discussed in them. Unless you require your employees to record all zoom calls, you have no way of knowing that X made a bunch of impromptu zoom calls with team members to discuss a particular problem, even if they are doing so.
It is possible to actually put into place tools that *will* allow you to get these metr
Re:Opinion as Policy (Score:4, Insightful)
I've pointed this out here many times on this issue, and I have yet to hear a good response.
Opinions that bonding and serendipitous ideas happen better in person are a classic example of confirmation bias. That is, management in person sees these interactions happen, and so they *assume* that they happen better in person; yet they can't, by definition, see these interactions happen remotely. CEOs have no data, and have no way of getting data, on how many people reach out to each other on a daily basis with ideas or for short huddles on Slack (for example) to discuss problems or hash out solutions or to "innovate" remotely. It's just an opaque issue. They literally CAN'T get this data, and yet they are making productivity decisions without it.
How many CEOs ask their management teams, "Can you find out for me how often people on your remote teams reach out to each other daily with impromptu calls to solve problems or to have discussions on new ideas" and then make their decisions based on that? I suspect very few ask that specific question.
In my organization we do this all the time... people set up quick "calls" to chat via Slack or Zoom to solve an issue or to get clarification on a topic. This is the sort of thing that I would be walking over to someone's desk in an office to do (or even Slacking them in the same office!), and I don't see how doing it remotely is any less productive.
Re:Opinion as Policy (Score:4, Insightful)
Honestly, this smells a lot like motivated reasoning. Employees generally like working from home so try to justify that it's just as good or better.
On the other hand, travelling for academic conferences is a bit of a perk for academics, and during COVID most of those conferences went remote. And the experience of those professors was that remote was way less useful. They lost a lot the benefit of informal conversations between and after talks, and remote work groups were way less effective.
Of course a conference is explicitly about collaboration, but still they're seeing a big advantage to in-person.
Now, the academics probably have some motivated reasoning as well, but I think it's likely that remote does, on average, lead to a loss in productivity and collaboration.
It could also be true that benefits in employee well-being and reduced office costs are worth it, but I don't buy that there's zero downsides.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
...which... you can do via zoom? You are in a call, someone says something interesting, and you send a personal chat to that person during the zoom call mentioning you like their ideas, want to subscribe to their newsletter, and can you have a quick separate call after the main one is done?
I mean, for all of the things people say are better in person, there are equivalents in the remote world. There are tons of companies that are making remote work WORK.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible that these professors are not using the tools correctly remotely do do the same stuff they were doing in person. You can have breakout rooms in Zoom or with Slack after a meeting to allow people to get together to discuss a subset of an issue; my organization does this all the time.
You thinking it's likely that remote leads to a loss in productivity is just an opinion, and you'd need data on this to back it up. This data is notoriously hard to get, but it is still needed if you are doing Due
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible that these professors are not using the tools correctly remotely do do the same stuff they were doing in person. You can have breakout rooms in Zoom or with Slack after a meeting to allow people to get together to discuss a subset of an issue; my organization does this all the time.
They also do that, they still find the collaborations aren't as good.
You thinking it's likely that remote leads to a loss in productivity is just an opinion, and you'd need data on this to back it up.
The claim that remote is just as good is also just an opinion.
This data is notoriously hard to get, but it is still needed if you are doing Due Diligence to make a company-wide policy.
Furthermore, lets say that working remotely leads to a 10% loss in productivity... but because of all the cost savings from real estate and other expenses, it's 15% cheaper for company X, and they then make 5% more profit than the did before they went remote. Is the loss of productivity in that case such a bad thing? How do you even quantify that?
If you're being pedantic enough about the data then management is almost unable to act since there's a lot of stuff for which good data is unavailable. That's the point of trying to get good people in management, because they need to act on incomplete data.
For my startup I can say with almost certainty that remote working is not working well because some of the founders were ext
Re: (Score:2)
Company and local culture will determine how often remote people reach out or are included. It will vary greatly across companies and countries.
It has been my entirely personal anecdotal experience that remote workers feel isolated, are isolated, don't feel like part of the team, and really aren't part of the team. This has been at different companies and has been the same no matter if I was the remote, I was local team or I was management.
I have met others over the years who had the opposite experience.
I
Re: (Score:2)
You're making the assumption that it's nothing but his opinion. I suspect he's getting feedback from many levels of management across the company..
And that's part of the problem. Those managers aren't interested in what's best for the company or customers. Only what's best for their career. At least in the tech industry moving into management is often the only path for career development and ultimately higher pay. Sometimes it's called a "team lead" or "senior" whatever. The idea is simple, if you're good at doing a job then you should be good at managing people doing that job. And since you were so good managing people doing the job then the amount of work your team can accomplish should be multiplied by the number of direct reports assigned.
In every company I've worked for the first level manager is basically there to take roll and make sure the class is quiet and focused. Those first level manager are evaluated on 1. how good they are at "managing people" (are they good at controlling the class), 2. being seen and looking busy. Career advancement depends almost entirely on personal interaction with the layer of management above you. If you or they aren't in the office how can you advance. This style of management is poorly suited to remote work. Maybe managers should be evaluated on how well the tasks assigned to their team(s) are accomplished and management promotions should be tied to skill, proficiency, and merit instead.
Seems like all of the big tech companies are moving from remote to hybrid. Perhaps there simply aren't enough managers available who can effectively manage/evaluate a fully remote team.
The CEO shouldn't be making decisions on company wide remote working policy?
If not them then who on earth should be making those decisions?
In a company the size of Zoom the CEO should set the strategic direction, vision, and goals of the company. And no remote work policy shouldn't by a strategic direction, vision, or goals of the company. CEOs shouldn't be making decisions about detailed policy or day to day operations. If the people reporting to the CEO aren't achieving the CEO's goals or are creating bad policy then the CEO should replace them. Who should be making those decisions? Personally I think it should be left to each manager to figure out how their team works best. As a CEO you should empower your managers to empower their direct reports to make choices and decisions consistent with the goals and vision of the CEO and company.
So your answer is basically that no company wide policies are possible?
Alternately, the majority of managers are in favour of such a policy but would rather not be responsible for being the bad guy to their team. So the CEO absolves them of responsibility by setting the company wide policy and if particular managers really wa
who's next? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Next will be probably an ice cream maker telling employees that ice cream should be supplemented with some other food.
Will they be wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
I love the cookie dough ice cream at Baskin-Robbins.
Irony? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, no, no, we don't get that here. See, uh, people ski topless here while smoking dope, so irony's not really a, a high priority. We haven't had any irony here since about, uh, '83, when I was the only practitioner of it.
Oh, yeah. I remember Slashdot in '83. You got to it by gopher on the host slashdot.micro.umn.edu.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
that was a reference to the character played by Steve Martin in the movie Roxanne.
Yeah, but I couldn't resist taking it one step farther. :-)
Re-org (Score:2)
Someone doesn't want to be CEO any more. He basically just said that their entire marketing strategy for the last 3 years is total bullshit, and they're not drinking their own kool-aid.
I'm guessing that he'll be stepping down for "health reasons" or "family reasons" before too awful long.
Re: (Score:2)
What's idiot proof about zoom? I've been on countless meetings that started 10-15 minutes later because some key person was having trouble connecting or getting sound to work or whatever.
how about innovate in remote-work space? (Score:2)
It's the lots of people, not the remote (Score:2)
Of course a lot of people don't all know each other. That's a fundamental truth of human interaction and has nothing to do with Zoom calls.
Even if you pack hundreds of people into the same office building, how many of them talk to each other? Few. How many of them go to all the other floors of the office to meet all the other people? None.
Zoom has at least four offices on three continents [blog.zoom.us]. The people one one office are not going to be walking up to people in other offices to talk to them.
If the CEO can't wo
I don't necessarily disagree... (Score:2)
I do believe that having face to face meetings with coworkers and clients do improve personal relationships and make remote work easier. Having a personal relationship (how's your kids, how's the family, how was that vacation, ...) with people provides a bond that can withstand disagreements encountered in virtual meetings.
That said, I don't support the "back to office" mandates because I don't think that is necessary at all, at least for my job (which is probably similar to most at Zoom).
I think Yuan is ju
Re: (Score:2)
Fire the dud and replace him with someone competent.
It's the solution for every incompetent person. From janitor to CEO.
First step to team bonding ... (Score:2)
Why put the effort into bonding when you and your teammates are expendable?
Re: (Score:2)
The first thing I learned after college was "everyone is expendable" at a company.
That includes your boss, their boss, the CEO and the entire Board.
No one is safe. Ever.
If you want a grantee in life, I can give you two and only two: death and taxes.
No joke.
Everything else? Shit happens.
Once you fully absorb that concept and adjust your life and attitude to take it into account you'll be much happier and find life much less stressful. Example, "Oh, my incompetent dick boss fired me because of some stupid
Re: (Score:2)
>No one is safe. Ever.
I found working as a contractor 20 years ago in my 20's and 30's, having to find work every year or two, set me up well for that statement. Building the skills to create networks of people in industry meant that when I needed a job, I called a friend. So glad I did that.
All of those relationships were built through face to face engagements though...
Silence of the... office (Score:2)
Manger comes to work... hears *crickets*
goto *panic mode*
include $unreasonable_assertions
Says; "We must make everyone who's still stupid enough come to the office, because we have to somehow justify the existence of offices and I oh so miss bullying people in person!"
Tired of these threads. (Score:4, Insightful)
The camps are hopelessly divided. We shouldn't bother wading into the fray any more on this one. It's the same tired rhetoric without any signs of resolution or agreement.
CEO trashes own product (Score:2)
Also essential for doing layoffs (Score:2)
Can you say "Constructive Dismissal"?
Re: (Score:2)
What does MS trust violations have to do with our 1% slave masters punishing us for their own amusement?
My team is doing great remotely (Score:5, Informative)
We are spread all over the world and work together to build computer models. Productivity is great and keeps increasing as we continue to improve practices. Nobody has any intention of returning to the office.
We are not having any trouble bonding to the extent necessary for coworkers.
Fly one's own plane (the dog food test) (Score:2)
Years ago, I recall research that purported to prove that in-person was best, all distributed was second best, and hybrid (groups in different conference rooms) was worst. Assuming it is true, one would think a company like Zoom, whose core value proposition is to provide tools for remote and hybrid work ... would make that their primary modality (even IF it is somewhat less effective) to *ensure* they are making their tools and processes as effective as they can be ... if the tools aren't good enough for t
In-Person Work Also Essential For... (Score:5, Insightful)
Add to the list!
- Bullying
- Sexual harassment / assault
- Theft of personal items
- Uncomfortable working conditions
- Lack of privacy
- Poor food options
- Increased greenhouse gas emissions
- Increased traffic accidents/deaths
Re: (Score:2)
How many times have you suffered any of the following at work?
1) Slammed into your locker or shoved head first into a trash can
2) Sexual assault / rape
3) Been mugged for your wallet or car jacked in parking lot
4) Had to turn down the office AC because it was "uncomfortable"
5) Had someone read your personal journal you left on your desk
6) Stopped you from bringing your own food or going to your favorite lunch place
7) Planet was destroyed
8) Been run over
Asking for a friend......
Re: (Score:2)
If he says so (Score:2)
Zoom CEO says Zoom is garbage (Score:2)
That's what he's saying.
I don't need to fucking bond... (Score:2)
I'm sure there's data (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm fairly sure the data comes from a dark place that smells funny.
Just goes to show you... (Score:2)
how out of touch these CEOs really are. How do they know that in person work is more productive? Did they actually ask their employees? I doubt it. Maybe they had one of their underlings conduct a survey but if it's like most places, the CEO will ignore the survey results unless it is in line with what they already want to do.
No - this has nothing to do with productivity and everything to do with sunk costs of giant office buildings. These buildings have to be paid for and the CEO has a duty to their shareh
The ache will pass (Score:2)
Buck up little mentors, the unknowing can still receive knowledge from you and advice if you become low, a place in the landscape that attracts and in so doing, others flow to. This will be fulfilling to you if you desire only to impart knowledge and wisdom. But if you desire more than that, a quick decision perhaps. I will definitely sleep on it first.
All
Re: (Score:2)
in a physical meeting, you can gather much more information about people.
Plus, I guess it's easier to lie via zoom compared to face-to-face meetings...
Re: (Score:2)
Talk for yourself. I cannot [wikipedia.org].
I would be literally at a disadvantage in a face to face meeting with a client. Why would you be stupid enough to send me to one?
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong link. Sorry [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What bullshit. Since this whole mess started in 2020, I've never seen anyone, anywhere say that working from an office shouldn't be an option, once the pandemic was under control.
What I have seen is people point out the benefits of WFH vs. RTO, with statistics to back up their claims, while also admitting that some people need/prefer the in-office environment.
What I've also seen is a lot of people calling those who prefer and are more productive in the WFH "anti-social misanthropes," as a way of attempting
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny. It's usually not the WFH enthusiasts that try to tell the people who prefer to work in an office that they MUST NOT stay at home. At least I never heard anyone go on a crusade to force people to stay OUT of the office.
I have noticed a lot of a push towards forcing people back INTO the office, though.
In other words: Projecting much?
Re: (Score:2)
I have. Care to point to any instance of someone preferring WFH trying to tell RTO enthusiasts that they cannot?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...a rash of comments by anti-social misanthropes who are absolutely right that they themselves shouldn't work with others and so that means that nobody else should either.
That's a fair argument. But we've lived in the other world where a rash of overly-social misanthropes who insist that everyone needs to see and talk to everyone all the time. And that means everybody should work the same way. The argument isn't for all or nothing. It's about choice, you can work how you work best and I can work how I work best.
Re: (Score:3)
but as soon as they're allowed to do it, the ones that are just scammers demand they be allowed to work from home too, and the next thing you know they're posting videos of themselves on TikTok showing off their "lazy girl job."
Which tells me that HR should be doing their jobs. People are going to slack off whether they're in the office or working from home. Most only slack off a bit. Some, it becomes a problem. That's where HR is supposed to step in and take appropriate measures, up to and including firing those who're incapable of having enough discipline to perform their job function.
It's not the scammers who're ruining it for everyone entirely. It's the lazy HR departments and managers who equate a badge scan and a warm chair
Re: (Score:2)
HR? HR doesn't even know what I'm doing. At best, on a good month, they can make my paycheck arrive on time. But that's pretty much the top of what I'd grant them in abilities.
Get your managers into gear. They are the ones that MUST be able to gauge their workers' ability to perform. If not, fire the manager and hire a competent one.
I can assess the productivity of my team. Which is hard in security. You need to know a lot yourself to not get bullshitted. But yes, even here it is possible to judge the good
Re: (Score:2)
The only advice I could give your friend is to quit and go to a saner company. If you can't fire the duds, leave.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a very simple way of dealing with them. Fire them. And make sure you link their video on your Twitter so your C-Level friends know who to avoid.
That shit ends pretty fucking quick, I tell you that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Do open-source projects have the same organizational dynamics as typical businesses - schedules, scope and budget requirements?
Hint: Open-source projects are "best effort" activities that sometimes produce business valuable results.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you heard of Linux?
Re: (Score:2)
Do open-source projects have the same organizational dynamics as typical businesses - schedules, scope and budget requirements? Hint: Open-source projects are "best effort" activities that sometimes produce business valuable results.
Most business projects are also "best effort that sometimes produce business valuable results": the only difference is the whole theater a business spins around those projects that gives the impression that things are "managed, planned and under control", which is often more upper management delusion than reality.
Re: (Score:2)
After working for a while, you notice that the word "professional" says nothing about the quality of someone's work, only that he does it for money.
Re: (Score:2)
Open-source projects are "best effort" activities that sometimes produce business valuable results.
Sounds quite a lot like a lot of companies I had the (dis)pleasure of working with and for...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't understand the push for a return to an old and outdated way of accomplishing tasks. Remote work is better for the company, the environment, and the worker. Decoupling the where from the work would allow employees to live in affordable areas which reduces corporate payrolls. It allows the company to better match employee talent to task, since the company isn't limited to employees in region or employees willing to relocate. Fewer in office workers means companies can reduce their real-estate expenses
Re: (Score:2)
>that seems entirely reasonable
Citation required.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it isn't reasonable to want my cadaver at some particular place when doing my work is independent of where I place it. It's arbitrary, which is the polar opposite of reasonable.
Ponder this: I'm in 2 days, Monday and Tuesday. Fred, who I work with, is in Thursday and Friday. What exactly do we benefit from one of us sitting in the office on either of those days?
It's pointless. And I refuse to do pointless busywork.
Re: (Score:2)
I've done projects spanning years with a dozen or more members who I never met, though I know more about their family situation and their private life than I knew about people I sat next to at work.
Collaboration and cooperation is not a function of physical but emotional proximity.