Support NeoGAF

[CuNi]

It always amazed me how people not just accept but even viciously defend corporate demands left and right.

Do you guys also glady give head when your bosses wife can't?

I'm not even considering jobs without WFH anymore and why should I.

 

[mckmas8808]

Your employer wants you in the office...shock horror.

It's waaay deeper than that. No need to make fun.

 

[Dirk Benedict]

A complex issue, but ultimately if you need them more than they need you, they hold all the power.

Good thing this industry is brimming with talent. You can find it all over.

 

[tusharngf]

i would never go back to office. I have been working from home since 2015 and never stepped into the office after. I switched job as well recently but somehow landed on a WFH offer. I saved money/time on travel plus its flexible at home.

 

[BbMajor7th]

Maybe some are lazy. But think of it like parent and child. Managers call the shots.

This is the absolute worst kind of management and almost always delivers middling-to-terrible results, high staff turnover, and extra work for HR.

Good management is about understanding the strengths and interests of your staff and making the right accommodations within your team and department to ensure that they're able to bring the most value and benefit. Managers who take the 'because I said so' approach, backed up with the 'if you don't like it, find something else' admonition invariably end up stuck in the same shitty positions for years, blaming their subordinates for their own lack of career progression.

When seniors demand improvements they have too little imagination or competence to get their team motivated and on-side, so they tighten the screws even more. Anyone with an ounce of ambition or talent leaves and all that's left are the kind of people who like to be treated like children: totally disengaged drones who never make any recommendations or try to improve things and who are only there to collect a salary. These managers are almost always insecure little pricks who should never be trusted with power in the first place.

It always amazed me how people not just accept but even viciously defend corporate demands left and right.

Do you guys also glady give head when your bosses wife can't?

I'm not even considering jobs without WFH anymore and why should I.

Some people genuinely believe there's a kind of nobility and 'natural order' in brow-beating and being brow-beaten in the workplace; that there's certain aspirational valor in slogging your guts out for twelve straight hours without being offered so much as a five-minute sit down; that being a doormat for people who work half as hard as you and earn three times as much makes you one of the good guys - one of the sensible, 'down-to-earth' sorts; that anybody with the courage to expect a little better is a lazy, self-entitled snowflake who thinks the world owes them a free ride.

I remember once working bar out in New Zealand - I'd started at eleven in the morning and by four o'clock I was starving hungry and ready for a sit down. I asked my supervisor (who was probably only earning a dollar more an hour than me) and he said 'you'll be lucky, I haven't had a break yet and I've been here since half-eight'. I just shrugged and said 'well, who's fault is that?' He fired me on the spot (I was only a temp worker), but it said everything: he was shitty manager who thought his own misery and overwork justified all his staff putting up with the same.

I'd worked bar for years previously and was one of only a handful of people in the bar who actually knew how to pull a beer or mix a drink. All the other staff were just seasonal temps on Holiday Visas who'd never set foot behind a bar. Those people kept their jobs (and never received proper training - just abuse when they made understandable mistakes) and the place had absolutely dismal reviews as a result. The sweetener? They were so fucking incompetent that, having fired me on the spot, they kept paying me for another four weeks for hours that I hadn't worked.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

i would never go back to office. I have been working from home since 2015 and never stepped into the office after. I switched job as well recently but somehow landed on a WFH offer. I saved money/time on travel plus its flexible at home.

This. I can put the kids to school ,they are happy. I can take pick them up, they are happy. I can go running during lunch - better health, better work, better performance.

Guys, this is really simple - companies have multi-year lease agreements they paid hundreds of millions of dollars for, that's the real reason they want you in the office. Performance my ass, show me the KPIs.

 

[ProtoByte]

It always amazed me how people not just accept but even viciously defend corporate demands left and right.

Do you guys also glady give head when your bosses wife can't?

I'm not even considering jobs without WFH anymore and why should I.

What's amazing is the religious zeal from people like you over WFH. You get so insulted by people laughing/questioning this case: when people are being told go into the office for just 2 days in probably the most multidisciplinary and consequently collaborative sector in tech, at a publisher that has demonstrably had productivity and quality issues over the last few years to the point that it's put them in an extremely vulnerable market position.

My bet is that AC Mirage's delays where a big reason for this.

 

[BbMajor7th]

What's amazing is the religious zeal from people like you over WFH. You get so insulted by people laughing/questioning this case: when people are being told go into the office for just 2 days in probably the most multidisciplinary and consequently collaborative sector in tech, at a publisher that has demonstrably had productivity and quality issues over the last few years to the point that it's put them in an extremely vulnerable market position.

My bet is that AC Mirage's delays where a big reason for this.

I'm more amazed by the fact that you guys never point the finger at the people in charge, just the ones on the ground floor who are clearly not being whipped hard enough by their slave masters. "Productivity, productivity!" The zealous champions of 'work harder not smarter'.

 

[ProtoByte]

I'm more amazed by the fact that you guys never point the finger at the people in charge, just the ones on the ground floor who are clearly not being whipped hard enough by their slave masters.

Who's "you guys"? The narrative is always that it's all Kotick, Guillemot, or Wilson's fault, always.

People working at big publishers are not slaves to anyone. Especially not in Montréal where workers are two steps away from becoming Parisians in terms of their striking and protest habits.

But please, tell us how we should point the finger solely at "the people in charge" whoever their names are.

 

[BbMajor7th]

Who's "you guys"? The narrative is always that it's all Kotick, Guillemot, or Wilson's fault, always.

People working at big publishers are not slaves to anyone. Especially not in Montréal where workers are two steps away from becoming Parisians in terms of their striking and protest habits.

But please, tell us how we should point the finger solely at "the people in charge" whoever their names are.

Kotick and Guillemot? Those guys are scummy and lightning rods for ire, to be certain, but they don't make these decisions: it's all middle management - people you've never heard of. I've worked in corporate publishing for well over a decade and seen exactly how this goes times and again.

And Parisians? They stand up for themselves - they don't take shit. I admire anyone with the courage to push back when people start taking the piss. If it wasn't for people like that we'd all be way worse off. One thing you learn once you get off the shop floor and into the upper echelons (and I've done both) is that productivity is only a metric held against the rank and file.

 

[ProtoByte]

Kotick and Guillemot? Those guys are scummy and lightning rods for ire, to be certain, but they don't make these decisions: it's all middle management - people you've never heard of. I've worked in corporate publishing for well over a decade and seen exactly how this goes times and again.

Publishing for books?
In any case, explain what happened. Ubisoft's middle managers/project directors were too ambitious or something?

And Parisians? They stand up for themselves - they don't take shit.

Other than a lackadaisical economy and slowly backsliding quality of life, sure. As long as their boss doesn't tell them to do overtime.

One thing you learn once you get off the shop floor and into the upper echelons (and I've done both) is that productivity is only a metric held against the rank and file.

You're not a sage here, and you're not talking to someone who works on shop floors.

 

[BbMajor7th]

Publishing for books?
In any case, explain what happened. Ubisoft's middle managers/project directors were too ambitious or something?

No, not book publishing - much closer to this industry. I have no idea of the situation at Ubisoft, all I know is that if you move the company onto a flexible/hybrid model and don't think it through, you don't get to punish the staff for your own lack of oversight. In broader brushstrokes, flexible working is becoming a bigger draw for talent than compensation and that is not set to change. If any company wants to attract talent, they need to be competitive in the hiring market and those demanding fixed office hours will struggle to attract talent.

It's in their long-term interests to create a working hybrid model: if they're pissing off the staff they already have, they'll also be putting off the staff they might look to hire in the future.

Other than a lackadaisical economy and slowly backsliding quality of life, sure. As long as their boss doesn't tell them to do overtime.

Could have slightly more to do with vast economic downturn across the globe: the fallout from a global pandemic, the increasing economic impact of climate instability, and runaway inflation being driven by speculation in the commodities market. I mean, the IMF have said that corporate profit is the key driver behind inflation in Europe, but I suppose it could be train drivers spending a couple of days on the picket line... in any case, I think I understand your key message here: don't stand up for yourself, you'll be worse off in the long run.

 

[ProtoByte]

No, not book publishing - much closer to this industry. I have no idea of the situation at Ubisoft, all I know is that if you move the company onto a flexible/hybrid model and don't think it through, you don't get to punish the staff for your own lack of oversight.

But they did think it through, and said the 100% remote work would be facilitated depending on factors like productivity. Clearly, those factors have lapsed.

In broader brushstrokes, flexible working is becoming a bigger draw for talent than compensation and that is not set to change.

I'm sure a nice "official" recession will change that. Lol

Could have slightly more to do with vast economic downturn across the globe: the fallout from a global pandemic, the increasing economic impact of climate instability, and runaway inflation being driven by speculation in the commodities market. I mean, the IMF have said that corporate profit is the key driver behind inflation in Europe,

Of course the IMF would say that dumb shit. They would never place the blame where it should be placed. Politicians driven by either fear or power madness decided to whip the public into a frenzy based on half-truths, locked down the world economy and printed more money than ever before without any of it being backed by productivity. People took that glorified Monopoly cash and flooded the market with spending. On top of that, Europe decided to "sanction" Russia for their invasion of Ukraine after more than 15 years of putting the cards in Russia's hands by depowering their own energy sectors because of climate change panic, driving up the price of energy and everything else as a consequence.

but I suppose it could be train drivers spending a couple of days on the picket line...

If everyone's on the picket line looking for pay rises, then it will cause some wage inflation, yes. But one or two sectors doing it? No.

in any case, I think I understand your key message here: don't stand up for yourself, you'll be worse off in the long run.

My message here is don't misidentify the problem and actually consider the long run. The world doesn't revolve solely around you and the short term.

 

[BbMajor7th]

But they did think it through, and said the 100% remote work would be facilitated depending on factors like productivity. Clearly, those factors have lapsed.


I'm sure a nice "official" recession will change that. Lol


Of course the IMF would say that dumb shit. They would never place the blame where it should be placed. Politicians driven by either fear or power madness decided to whip the public into a frenzy based on half-truths, locked down the world economy and printed more money than ever before without any of it being backed by productivity. People took that glorified Monopoly cash and flooded the market with spending. On top of that, Europe decided to "sanction" Russia for their invasion of Ukraine after more than 15 years of putting the cards in Russia's hands by depowering their own energy sectors because of climate change panic, driving up the price of energy and everything else as a consequence.


If everyone's on the picket line looking for pay rises, then it will cause some wage inflation, yes. But one or two sectors doing it? No.


My message here is don't misidentify the problem and actually consider the long run. The world doesn't revolve solely around you and the short term.

 

[ProtoByte]

Yeah, gif it up, jackass. You've got nothing to say.

 

[Solarstrike]

Sad. Common people, get it together

 

[BbMajor7th]

Yeah, gif it up, jackass. You've got nothing to say.

I mean, how do you respond to something like that?

Of course the IMF would say that dumb shit. They would never place the blame where it should be placed. Politicians driven by either fear or power madness decided to whip the public into a frenzy based on half-truths, locked down the world economy and printed more money than ever before without any of it being backed by productivity. People took that glorified Monopoly cash and flooded the market with spending. On top of that, Europe decided to "sanction" Russia for their invasion of Ukraine after more than 15 years of putting the cards in Russia's hands by depowering their own energy sectors because of climate change panic, driving up the price of energy and everything else as a consequence.

Just to take this by itself: inflation in energy is driven by free-market commodity speculation that is not properly regulated (thank Alan Greenspan and Bill Clinton for this). When you rely on fossil fuels, you rely on the people who own the supply: countries like Syria, Iraq, Iran Venezuela, Russia, Saudi Arabia. When they get embroiled in conflict the price of oil goes up on the assumption that supply will be disrupted - Putin literally made a mint from invading the Ukraine because oil prices shot through the roof; when ISIS captured Mosul, the same happened, and Saudi Arabia got an unexpected windfall. Europe and America could have neutered Putin and others decades ago, by simply regulating commodity speculation, but being that most Western economies (particularly pension funds) are tied up in Commodity Indexes, they can't... our financial institutions have literally hobbled us.

This is all very standard economics - you can literally chart most of the majority fluctuations in the political sphere - from the Arab Spring to the UK Housing Crisis - by charting fluctuations in the price of oil and wheat. I'm always down for a serious discussion, but what you're saying is just not supported by any appreciation or consideration of complex array of interlocking systems of global economics.

Also, who do you think is donating the bulk of funding to all these 'politicians'? It sure as hell ain't rank-and-file workers on the picket line, it's the same insanely wealthy oligarchy that's running corporations and financial institutions.

 

[ProtoByte]

I mean, how do you respond to something like that?

Just to take this by itself: inflation in energy is driven by free-market commodity speculation that is not properly regulated (thank Alan Greenspan and Bill Clinton for this). When you rely on fossil fuels,

I.e. when the world needs to run? Lol, fossil fuels aren't going anywhere unless there's a massive breakthrough in nuclear fusion on either technological or political bases. By the way, the Germans were a prime example that's been decommissioning its nuclear facilities for years.

you rely on the people who own the supply: countries like Syria, Iraq, Iran Venezuela, Russia, Saudi Arabia.

United States, Canada, the former of which was a net exporter WITHOUT the artificially low imports not long ago. Most of South America too, I'd imagine, is rich with the stuff, but are either too commie or too unstable (usually a mixture of both) to actually use it. Some of those countries are joining in on the green panic too, unfortunately.

There's plenty of energy to be had in non-"spooky woo" countries, but because of NIMBY-ism we create situations like this.

When they get embroiled in conflict the price of oil goes up on the assumption that supply will be disrupted - Putin literally made a mint from invading the Ukraine because oil prices shot through the roof; when ISIS captured Mosul, the same happened, and Saudi Arabia got an unexpected windfall. Europe and America could have neutered Putin and others decades ago, by simply regulating commodity speculation, but being that most Western economies (particularly pension funds) are tied up in Commodity Indexes, they can't... our financial institutions have literally hobbled us.

It's an assumption that the price will go up because it's true. When the supply of something goes down or becomes more expensive in cost to produce by natural or artificial and demand either stays the same or rises, the prices go up. Duh? How are those standard economics for you?

Regulating commodity speculation really just means regulating prices. And that is a terrible idea.

This is all very standard economics - you can literally chart most of the majority fluctuations in the political sphere - from the Arab Spring to the UK Housing Crisis - by charting fluctuations in the price of oil and wheat. I'm always down for a serious discussion, but what you're saying is just not supported by any appreciation or consideration of complex array of interlocking systems of global economics.

Standard economics, he says, while ignoring and hence implicitly arguing with the notion that printing almost half of your currency in circulation with no productivity behind it isn't going to cause massive inflation? Inflation that was here BEFORE the war in Ukraine? Dear God.

Productivity also fell by 7.5% in the States last year, so...

Also, who do you think is donating the bulk of funding to all these 'politicians'? It sure as hell ain't rank-and-file workers on the picket line, it's the same insanely wealthy oligarchy that's running corporations and financial institutions.

What? Unions are a massive donors to Washington. Lol

I'm not really complaining about the picket liners, anyway. Do what you want, I guess. But if it's not actually working, and in fact is working in contravention to your stated goals, who's the idiot?

In any case, this discussion isn't about any of that. You were trying and failing to justify why nobody should be okay with or even support the idea of game developers to be in the office twice a week?

 

[TrebleShot]

The toothpaste is out of the tube on WFH, twice a week isn’t too bad, its fine but If it has been promised that its the new status quo for an organisation than it should be respected, doing otherwise is both disingenuous and unprofessional.

Unless of course they are willing to take the brunt of the cost for example providing somewhere to stay for those that live far away or even Expenses and travel = work so therefore travel takes place in work hours.

I am a self employed contractor and charge time and a half for any travel taken outside of core work hours. My time is Not free not is my expertise.

You can’t go on pretending like this is 5 years ago where people have done their jobs remotely and in most cases been equally if not more productive, move on or get left behind because I can tell you there are many companies out there including the biggest in the world who are flexible about these sorts of things, you begin to look a little dated and when your not financially rewarding people correctly they then look at their other benefits such as WFH policies etc, talented good people are hard to come by.

 

[BbMajor7th]

I.e. when the world needs to run? Lol, fossil fuels aren't going anywhere unless there's a massive breakthrough in nuclear fusion on either technological or political bases. By the way, the Germans were a prime example that's been decommissioning its nuclear facilities for years.

Nuclear isn't a massive concern in terms of climate change - and fusion is potentially even better in that the byproducts (helium) can be fed straight back in - there've been several major breakthroughs in the last year.

United States, Canada, the former of which was a net exporter WITHOUT the artificially low imports not long ago. Most of South America too, I'd imagine, is rich with the stuff, but are either too commie or too unstable (usually a mixture of both) to actually use it. Some of those countries are joining in on the green panic too, unfortunately.

Communism has been in decline in South America for years - Venezuela is a good example of how 'actually making use' of fossil fuels has bankrupted the country. When Hugo Chavez came to power that was actually one of the things he promised to end: an economy built solely on oil; that soon went to hell when he needed cash to keep himself in power though.

It's an assumption that the price will go up because it's true. When the supply of something goes down or becomes more expensive in cost to produce by natural or artificial and demand either stays the same or rises, the prices go up. Duh? How are those standard economics for you?

Not true. In 2008, wildfires in Russia impacted grain production. The commodity speculators hiked global food prices in response, but in reality, 2008 recorded the highest food yield in recorded history. The same happens with oil prices during conflict, supply is uninterrupted but the prices shoot up anyway. The reason is that speculation is not about knowing what something is worth - about supply or demand - it's about perception and how traders will react and it becomes a self-fulling prophesy. Oil speculators think supply will be constricted so hike the prices, hiked prices cause constriction in the market.

Regulating commodity speculation really just means regulating prices. And that is a terrible idea.

Allowing people to make obscene amounts of money by betting on whether or not people will be able to feed their families or heat their homes is actually really fucked up, especially when the betting can actually affect people's real-world ability to do just that.

I'm not really complaining about the picket liners, anyway. Do what you want, I guess. But if it's not actually working, and in fact is working in contravention to your stated goals, who's the idiot?

Except it's not, collective bargaining has secured massive gains for the entire workforce over the past century, from basic health and safety to paid leave, and people were far more militant and unionised in the early twentieth century than they are today. The concept of this being modern, snowflake entitlement is completely false: our great, great grandparents were way more willing to stand together for better.

In any case, this discussion isn't about any of that. You were trying and failing to justify why nobody should be okay with or even support the idea of game developers to be in the office twice a week?

I never did, I think most people know that's a pretty good setup. The staff in question are pissed off that they were led to believe one thing and are now being told another. I'm saying that's on management for not doing their homework - homework they get paid handsomely to make sure they do.

Anyway, we're into politics now and way, way off topic, so. I'm gonna leave it there. If you want to discuss further, DM me.

 

[Celcius]

The longer this thread goes on is more proof you need to get back to the office! Wasting time complaining still.. sheesh. The foundation of our workforce was not built upon sitting on your fat keisters. Just because your job is pretending to update spreadsheets or something doesnt mean you dont have to be physically present! Cant have your cake and eat it too, my boomer colleagues always say. Your corporate family needs you, and youre being selfish.

Quit with the these elaborate justifications to stay at home! Its not working!

Any further insolence will be categorized as the new communist rebellion, those who seek to undermine progress under the guise of remote productivity. All a sham!

"Your corporate family needs you"
YIKES

 

[StreetsofBeige]

This is the absolute worst kind of management and almost always delivers middling-to-terrible results, high staff turnover, and extra work for HR.

Good management is about understanding the strengths and interests of your staff and making the right accommodations within your team and department to ensure that they're able to bring the most value and benefit. Managers who take the 'because I said so' approach, backed up with the 'if you don't like it, find something else' admonition invariably end up stuck in the same shitty positions for years, blaming their subordinates for their own lack of career progression.

When seniors demand improvements they have too little imagination or competence to get their team motivated and on-side, so they tighten the screws even more. Anyone with an ounce of ambition or talent leaves and all that's left are the kind of people who like to be treated like children: totally disengaged drones who never make any recommendations or try to improve things and who are only there to collect a salary. These managers are almost always insecure little pricks who should never be trusted with power in the first place.


Some people genuinely believe there's a kind of nobility and 'natural order' in brow-beating and being brow-beaten in the workplace; that there's certain aspirational valor in slogging your guts out for twelve straight hours without being offered so much as a five-minute sit down; that being a doormat for people who work half as hard as you and earn three times as much makes you one of the good guys - one of the sensible, 'down-to-earth' sorts; that anybody with the courage to expect a little better is a lazy, self-entitled snowflake who thinks the world owes them a free ride.

I remember once working bar out in New Zealand - I'd started at eleven in the morning and by four o'clock I was starving hungry and ready for a sit down. I asked my supervisor (who was probably only earning a dollar more an hour than me) and he said 'you'll be lucky, I haven't had a break yet and I've been here since half-eight'. I just shrugged and said 'well, who's fault is that?' He fired me on the spot (I was only a temp worker), but it said everything: he was shitty manager who thought his own misery and overwork justified all his staff putting up with the same.

I'd worked bar for years previously and was one of only a handful of people in the bar who actually knew how to pull a beer or mix a drink. All the other staff were just seasonal temps on Holiday Visas who'd never set foot behind a bar. Those people kept their jobs (and never received proper training - just abuse when they made understandable mistakes) and the place had absolutely dismal reviews as a result. The sweetener? They were so fucking incompetent that, having fired me on the spot, they kept paying me for another four weeks for hours that I hadn't worked.

I also said somewhere that manager/worker and parent/child are similar.... the better you can prove you're good the more flexibility you get. My parents let me play games, go to bed after midnight, stay out late and watch soft core sex comedy movies on good old CityTV (for those in Toronto you know what I mean. lol). They didnt give a shit because me and my siblings never got in trouble, never smoked or did drugs and got good grades. My bosses in probably all jobs I've had are chill because I get my work done. If I want to leave at 3 pm nobody has ever said no and get back to your seat until 5 pm.

Bosses act micromanagey when their workers are numbnuts. Are all bosses great? Nope. But you also cant say all workers are great either. Goes both ways.

 

[Meicyn]

What's amazing is the religious zeal from people like you over WFH. You get so insulted by people laughing/questioning this case: when people are being told go into the office for just 2 days in probably the most multidisciplinary and consequently collaborative sector in tech, at a publisher that has demonstrably had productivity and quality issues over the last few years to the point that it's put them in an extremely vulnerable market position.

Nah. This is mostly a failure of imagination on your part, misunderstanding the root issue.

The problem isn’t removing WFH. WFH is a privilege, not a right. The problem is pushing blanket policy that applies to all personnel, period, as a consequence of team performance not being met. It’s the laziest possible approach to individual problems, and it brings into question why you even have middle management at all if they need upper leadership to make such decisions.

Spoiler

Let’s say as a manager, you have oversight of a team of 5 workers, Jim, Paul, Anne, Sarah, and Oscar.

Jim is your average guy, does exactly what you ask him to do. No more, no less. He rarely misses a deadline, and if he does, it might be by a single day at most. This is balanced by him sometimes turning in his work a day or two early.

Paul is a slacker. If you don’t micromanage him, he will do zilch. Extremely creative type, does incredible work when he actually works. But otherwise? He’ll just sit there and collect a paycheck.

Anne is a great worker, but she’s always late. She’s a perfectionist through and through and insists that any module she codes is as efficient as possible. She’s extremely proud of delivering the highest quality work out of anyone. But she’s never on time.

Sarah is another slacker. She’s similar to Paul in some regards. Produces more work on average than Paul, but it’s often not as good, and you get the impression she isn’t trying.

Oscar is your golden child. He is ambitious and clearly vying to be promoted, and has expressed he wants to be a game director someday. He always does more than asked and has never been late for anything, ever.

So you have three people that turn in their work late, one that turns work in mostly on time, and one that always overperforms. But that overperformer can’t possibly make up for the slack that the other three have created. Your project is falling behind. So what do you do?

A good manager will approach each of their workers and get to the root of what’s going on. They‘re all WFH, so I would probably be telling Paul and Sarah that they have to come to the office twice a week, explaining that their WFH privileges are being partially revoked because their output is unacceptable, and they need to explain themselves. If the trend continues, WFH may be removed for them entirely, or they may be fired outright. They might get it back if they can consistently produce results over the next three months.

Anne produces great work, but she has to meet suspenses, so I would have a discussion with her on deadlines being non-negotiable. If the trend continues, the next time I would likely revoke her WFH privileges. I’d keep an eye on Jim to make sure the current balance with his output is maintained, and Oscar is self-regulating and I’d be pushing upper management to consider giving him more responsibility.

Or I can just pass the buck, whine to the corporate overlords that WFH is destroying productivity and then wait for them to push blanket policy that punishes slackers and producers alike. I’m sure Oscar will show up to the office with the same drive and initiative he had before and won’t have an ounce of resentment! I’m sure Jim will likewise be glad that he also got screwed after being told he could do WFH.

Middle management exists to tailor decisions based on circumstances. When you have individual problems, you create individual solutions. Those team members who aren’t pulling their weight? Absolutely take their WFH privileges away from them. But you do not fuck over your good workers when they’re doing what they’re supposed to.

If blanket policy needs to be pushed out to resolve productivity issues, it sounds to me like some middle managers are incapable of doing their job and might need to be let go.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Nah. This is mostly a failure of imagination on your part, misunderstanding the root issue.

The problem isn’t removing WFH. WFH is a privilege, not a right. The problem is pushing blanket policy that applies to all personnel, period, as a consequence of team performance not being met. It’s the laziest possible approach to individual problems, and it brings into question why you even have middle management at all if they need upper leadership to make such decisions.

Spoiler

Let’s say as a manager, you have oversight of a team of 5 workers, Jim, Paul, Anne, Sarah, and Oscar.

Jim is your average guy, does exactly what you ask him to do. No more, no less. He rarely misses a deadline, and if he does, it might be by a single day at most. This is balanced by him sometimes turning in his work a day or two early.

Paul is a slacker. If you don’t micromanage him, he will do zilch. Extremely creative type, does incredible work when he actually works. But otherwise? He’ll just sit there and collect a paycheck.

Anne is a great worker, but she’s always late. She’s a perfectionist through and through and insists that any module she codes is as efficient as possible. She’s extremely proud of delivering the highest quality work out of anyone. But she’s never on time.

Sarah is another slacker. She’s similar to Paul in some regards. Produces more work on average than Paul, but it’s often not as good, and you get the impression she isn’t trying.

Oscar is your golden child. He is ambitious and clearly vying to be promoted, and has expressed he wants to be a game director someday. He always does more than asked and has never been late for anything, ever.

So you have three people that turn in their work late, one that turns work in mostly on time, and one that always overperforms. But that overperformer can’t possibly make up for the slack that the other three have created. Your project is falling behind. So what do you do?

A good manager will approach each of their workers and get to the root of what’s going on. They‘re all WFH, so I would probably be telling Paul and Sarah that they have to come to the office twice a week, explaining that their WFH privileges are being partially revoked because their output is unacceptable, and they need to explain themselves. If the trend continues, WFH may be removed for them entirely, or they may be fired outright. They might get it back if they can consistently produce results over the next three months.

Anne produces great work, but she has to meet suspenses, so I would have a discussion with her on deadlines being non-negotiable. If the trend continues, the next time I would likely revoke her WFH privileges. I’d keep an eye on Jim to make sure the current balance with his output is maintained, and Oscar is self-regulating and I’d be pushing upper management to consider giving him more responsibility.

Or I can just pass the buck, whine to the corporate overlords that WFH is destroying productivity and then wait for them to push blanket policy that punishes slackers and producers alike. I’m sure Oscar will show up to the office with the same drive and initiative he had before and won’t have an ounce of resentment! I’m sure Jim will likewise be glad that he also got screwed after being told he could do WFH.

Middle management exists to tailor decisions based on circumstances. When you have individual problems, you create individual solutions. Those team members who aren’t pulling their weight? Absolutely take their WFH privileges away from them. But you do not fuck over your good workers when they’re doing what they’re supposed to.

If blanket policy needs to be pushed out to resolve productivity issues, it sounds to me like some middle managers are incapable of doing their job and might need to be let go.

And blanket policies are done so all people are treated equal. Its like IT giving everyone the same LCD monitor. If one guy wants a 4k pro gaming monitor and IT says yes, then everyone will want one. Even the people that dont need it.

Can some good workers who do lone wolf tasks work from home? Sure. But then what do you say to people who do a crappier job or have tasks that require people, but they demand they want to work form home too because Bob in the corner is allowed. Then what?

A blanket approach puts everyone on the same level and page with no favouritism. It's like dress code. If everyone can show up in a collared button shirt and no short and sandals then everyone looks fine and not sloppy. But lets face it, some people actually do look pretty good in more casual clothes. If I go sockless trying to be trendy I look like an idiot. If one of those younger good looking guys does it he looks pretty cool. Lets face it, trendy styles always look better on good looking and thin people. So should only the young people be allowed to do it but the middle aged people have to stick to business casual? Nope. everyone is on the same page of dress code.

 

[StereoVsn]

Sadly game studious have embraced open-offices without exceptions everywhere. And I agree - they hurt productivity more often than not.

I am not in gaming, but damn are Open Floor plans terrible. They are super distracting and if everyone is sitting in noise cancelling headphones (which they are), that defeats the purpose of "better collaboration" in the first place.

Whole thing was BS anyways to start with and it's super annoying when people push it.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I am not in gaming, but damn are Open Floor plans terrible. They are super distracting and if everyone is sitting in noise cancelling headphones (which they are), that defeats the purpose of "better collaboration" in the first place.

Whole thing was BS anyways to start with and it's super annoying when people push it.

Open offices are ok. Depends on the layout and gear. The key benefit I see is the layout can always cram in more people compared to traditional cubicles where people get decent sized space and those 4 ft high mini walls. Traditional cubes are a good balance of space + privacy, but open enough to chat with people.

Open offices with no designated seats are even worse as each person has to take everything with them as they dont know if they can get that seat again.

Offices are great. But it's tougher to mingle with the masses. More fun sitting with other people too. The best thing about an office is I can always close my door and not hear everyone else. With so many office people doing WFH, all the online conference calls must be a mess for the people in open offices.

 

[BbMajor7th]

I also said somewhere that manager/worker and parent/child are similar.... the better you can prove you're good the more flexibility you get. My parents let me play games, go to bed after midnight, stay out late and watch soft core sex comedy movies on good old CityTV (for those in Toronto you know what I mean. lol). They didnt give a shit because me and my siblings never got in trouble, never smoked or did drugs and got good grades. My bosses in probably all jobs I've had are chill because I get my work done. If I want to leave at 3 pm nobody has ever said no and get back to your seat until 5 pm.

Bosses act micromanagey when their workers are numbnuts. Are all bosses great? Nope. But you also cant say all workers are great either. Goes both ways.

I mean the fact that you see this as a relationship of authority where one party is rewarded for good behavior (as dictated by the other) and not a mutual contract between consenting adults is odd to me. Your manager has as much (if not more) responsibility to you as you have to them. If they fail to uphold their side of the contract, you can leave, get a better job that better suits your needs, or, in some cases, you might choose to pursue disciplinary action against them (I did this once and HR threw the book at him - he was relieved of his management role altogether shortly thereafter).

To me, a relationship based on mutual respect is the basis of good management - the only people who rage at this concept in my experience are bad managers whose only method for driving performance is through authority and intimidation.

 

[StereoVsn]

Thats because a lot of people (especially younger people or techie people) are anti-social nowadays. They prefer texting and online communication. Sit on the couch or PC desk being lone wolves. You can already see it during the internet age where kids are barely around outside riding bikes or playing football or street hockey. Instead they are at home on the couch. If they can get through life communicating through bits and bytes than actually talking to someone face to face, it's like a major victory. It's one part growing up with it and one part personality.

It's just like at work, our office has almost all job function depts. Even IT has their office space with their secret server room. Anytime IT talks to you it's by email. Fuck dude, you can also just come by my office and speak to me like a human. On the other hand, the dept I find the most chatty and will come by to chat or ask for stuff is sales. Makes sense, they are a chatty bunch by nature.

Having everyone WFH just closes off communication. Most people dont even go on cam. And many dont even upload a pic. Jennifer Smith is online in a meeting and all you see is JS. She's on mute as you can see the mute icon on her initials. You dont even know if she's listening or not. She might be watching TV,

I agree with most of the above and I think folks who need to be in the office the most are the newer employees as it's been shown by quite a few recent studies that while overall folks can be more productive or at least as productive, the devil is in details.

Creative collaborative functionality can be hurt. Personally I have seen architecture discussions that used to take 2-3 days in all day meetings to hammer out have stretched into weeks online. On the other hand a lot of tasks needing concentration just work better when WFH.

But junior employees are affected the most negatively by WFH. They will lack mentorship, should taps, etc... as they pick up experience and generally be less productive.

Btw, juniors will be also the easiest to replace with AI, IMO. At least in Dev and most of IT.

Finally the reason why IT responds mainly by email/ticketing system is that there are too many should taps otherwise. They are working multiple issues and it's mainly not as efficient to go in person unless it's absolutely needed (re-image your workstation, fix network jack, etc).

Well, unless you are in upper management, then you get white glove treatment. .

 

[StereoVsn]

Open offices are ok. Depends on the layout and gear. The key benefit I see is the layout can always cram in more people compared to traditional cubicles where people get decent sized space and those 4 ft high mini walls. Traditional cubes are a good balance of space + privacy, but open enough to chat with people.

Open offices with no designated seats are even worse as each person has to take everything with them as they dont know if they can get that seat again.

Offices are great. But it's tougher to mingle with the masses. More fun sitting with other people too. The best thing about an office is I can always close my door and not hear everyone else. With so many office people doing WFH, all the online conference calls must be a mess for the people in open offices.

I mean yes, they can save Corps on floor space... but they are absolutely terrible at everything else, from employee productivity to mental health.

And yeah, having an actual office is nice as it allows you to concentrate better by simply shutting the door, but you can't deploy that to every employee.

So the old school cubicle with decent sound isolation and walls is still the best bet. That also allows for better positioning of hardware.

Hotel Open Office layout is the devil. Unless people are in randomly one day a week (say sales), it's impossible to get proper work done, IMO.

 

[DrFigs]

People make housing decisions, car decisions, schooling for kids, based on their ability to work from home. plus it's just inconvenient. I can definitely see why people are mad about this.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I mean the fact that you see this as a relationship of authority where one party is rewarded for good behavior (as dictated by the other) and not a mutual contract between consenting adults is odd to me. Your manager has as much (if not more) responsibility to you as you have to them. If they fail to uphold their side of the contract, you can leave, get a better job that better suits your needs, or, in some cases, you might choose to pursue disciplinary action against them (I did this once and HR threw the book at him - he was relieved of his management role altogether shortly thereafter).

To me, a relationship based on mutual respect is the basis of good management - the only people who rage at this concept in my experience are bad managers whose only method for driving performance is through authority and intimidation.

Thats life. Authority.

Unless someone is the ultimate top boss, there's always someone with a higher rank. And the higher the rank the higher the responsibilities. It's called respect and do the job. What you are looking for are companies or organizations that have the super flat/matrix style structure where the CEO leads and like the other 100 people all act the same rank where a new grad marketing assistant can outgun a director. Hard to find.

Just because someone (parents or boss) has a higher rank doesnt mean you cant work together.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

So the old school cubicle with decent sound isolation and walls is still the best bet. That also allows for better positioning of hardware.

My old work was like 95% cubicile stations. The only people who got an office were the CEO and senior marketing managers. The VPs didn't even get one. However their cubes were bigger than everyone elses. Only reason why some marketing people got one is so they have a place for all their products, samples and prototypes. They often locked their door when they left too.

I found this kind of layout the best in terms of the balance of work, fun and chatting. Some people hate cubes. I was always okay with them at every job I sat in one. I have never sat with the masses in open offices or hoteling. That would drive me nuts.

 

[Meicyn]

And blanket policies are done so all people are treated equal. Its like IT giving everyone the same LCD monitor. If one guy wants a 4k pro gaming monitor and IT says yes, then everyone will want one. Even the people that dont need it.

Can some good workers who do lone wolf tasks work from home? Sure. But then what do you say to people who do a crappier job or have tasks that require people, but they demand they want to work form home too because Bob in the corner is allowed. Then what?

A blanket approach puts everyone on the same level and page with no favouritism. It's like dress code. If everyone can show up in a collared button shirt and no short and sandals then everyone looks fine and not sloppy. But lets face it, some people actually do look pretty good in more casual clothes. If I go sockless trying to be trendy I look like an idiot. If one of those younger good looking guys does it he looks pretty cool. Lets face it, trendy styles always look better on good looking and thin people. So should only the young people be allowed to do it but the middle aged people have to stick to business casual? Nope. everyone is on the same page of dress code.

Equipment issue and dress code is not even in the ballpark. Of course those tend to be blanket policy. This is bizarre to bring up at all.

Revoking work-sanctioned privileges from slackers and letting hard-workers keep theirs is not playing favorites. It’s baffling to me that you are attempting to argue as such. There is the possibility that the slackers could view it as playing favorites from their perspective, but that would reflect a lack of maturity and self-awareness and I am more than happy to explain in detail what they need to do and how they compare to their peers. They can either meet expectations and get those privileges back, or they can find a new place of employment. Their perception of favoritism is not my concern, their lack of productivity is. And I am not about to disrupt the productivity of my hard workers by fucking them over via collective punishment.

On the issue of the workers demanding what Bob has, the answer is no because those weren’t in the terms of employment in the first place. I dunno, this is pretty easy stuff man.

You seem pretty onboard with collective punishment, in the spirit of “fairness”. You are the bureaucracy.

 

[BbMajor7th]

Thats life. Authority.

Unless someone is the ultimate top boss, there's always someone with a higher rank. And the higher the rank the higher the responsibilities. It's called respect and do the job. What you are looking for are companies or organizations that have the super flat/matrix style structure where the CEO leads and like the other 100 people all act the same rank where a new grad marketing assistant can outgun a director. Hard to find.

Just because someone (parents or boss) has a higher rank doesnt mean you cant work together.

a) Not what I'm saying: the partnership is a contractual arrangement for the mutual benefit of both parties, both are equally responsible to one another. The more skill you have on offer, the greater your leverage in negotiating that contract. This is the same as hiring a contractor to do work on your home - do you have a 'parent/child' relationship with your plumber? No, you have a mutual contract arrangement - the people that want to turn that into an 'I'm your daddy, now do what I tell you' arrangement, have completely the wrong personality for management.

b) Not true: some of the most functional parts in modern civilization have absolutely no structural authority at all: science and technology are completely meritocratic, free-markets are completely without authoritarian structure, and both are much more robust in challenging and changing environments. Authoritarian structures, on the other hand: businesses, governments and organisations are moth-balled, liquidated and collapse so often that it's almost to be expected.

 

[yurinka]

Remote work is better for some teams, but worse for other ones.

I agree that both presential and remote have some pros and cons, but I agree that presential meetings plus casual chats at work -not just for work, but also at lunch or having beers- should be mandatory from time to time (maybe don't even be to be every week, but at least twice per month) because they highly improve certain things over remote meetings and mails.

I think maybe the best combination would be to work remotely with a presential meetings day or two weekly or biweekly.

 

[semiconscious]

It always amazed me how people not just accept but even viciously defend corporate demands left and right.

Do you guys also glady give head when your bosses wife can't?

I'm not even considering jobs without WFH anymore and why should I.

that's the right of any worker. as it is the right of any employer to insist that their employees cannot wfh. & it's not defending 'corporate demands' to point this out. it's simply their right...

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Equipment issue and dress code is not even in the ballpark. Of course those tend to be blanket policy. This is bizarre to bring up at all.

Revoking work-sanctioned privileges from slackers and letting hard-workers keep theirs is not playing favorites. It’s baffling to me that you are attempting to argue as such. There is the possibility that the slackers could view it as playing favorites from their perspective, but that would reflect a lack of maturity and self-awareness and I am more than happy to explain in detail what they need to do and how they compare to their peers. They can either meet expectations and get those privileges back, or they can find a new place of employment. Their perception of favoritism is not my concern, their lack of productivity is. And I am not about to disrupt the productivity of my hard workers by fucking them over via collective punishment.

On the issue of the workers demanding what Bob has, the answer is no because those weren’t in the terms of employment in the first place. I dunno, this is pretty easy stuff man.

You seem pretty onboard with collective punishment, in the spirit of “fairness”. You are the bureaucracy.

And what happens when babies get their toys taken away? Or a parent gives one child a new toy and the other one doesn't get one? It's like workers. They whine. Look how may tech articles and twitter babies there are over the years because a company wants to stop give free food or bottles of water.

where did I say Bob the tax guy had it in his terms and job description it's a WFH job? I never did. Mass waves of WFH only came when covid popped up and lots of offices abruptly asked people to go home. There were no permanent job description changes. But if the office asks everyone to come back, but Bob gets to stay home you'll get issues with people comparing office/WFH.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

a) Not what I'm saying: the partnership is a contractual arrangement for the mutual benefit of both parties, both are equally responsible to one another. The more skill you have on offer, the greater your leverage in negotiating that contract. This is the same as hiring a contractor to do work on your home - do you have a 'parent/child' relationship with your plumber? No, you have a mutual contract arrangement - the people that want to turn that into an 'I'm your daddy, now do what I tell you' arrangement, have completely the wrong personality for management.

b) Not true: some of the most functional parts in modern civilization have absolutely no structural authority at all: science and technology are completely meritocratic, free-markets are completely without authoritarian structure, and both are much more robust in challenging and changing environments. Authoritarian structures, on the other hand: businesses, governments and organisations are moth-balled, liquidated and collapse so often that it's almost to be expected.

You must work in a rare place because structure, job ranks and some kind of corporate/government ladder is everywhere. At the bottom are low level minimum wagerd or new grad assistants, at the top is the owner or CEO. In the middle are all kinds of different roles, ranks, managers and non-managers. Even a McDonalds joint has a set of ranks.

Science and tech are merit based with no structure? So you're telling me all the giant companies like Apple, MS, Google, FB, NF etc.... are all super flat organizations where there's a set of CEOs/VPs and everyone else are the same rank and authority power? lol

You said "some". Ok fine. I say "some" need authority to be super functional too. We are aligned.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Remote work is better for some teams, but worse for other ones.

I agree that both presential and remote have some pros and cons, but I agree that presential meetings plus casual chats at work -not just for work, but also at lunch or having beers- should be mandatory from time to time (maybe don't even be to be every week, but at least twice per month) because they highly improve certain things over remote meetings and mails.

I think maybe the best combination would be to work remotely with a presential meetings day or two weekly or biweekly.

I agree.

Just to show how self serving people are, our company wants everyone in 1-2 times per week. Thats it I go in about 3 times a week because I like to see people, have a nice drive and I like the faster office gear. Id go in more, but there's no point since there's nobody in the office Mondays and Fridays except for a handful of supply chain people I never speak to and the IT crew who seem there a lot.

But you know what the way best ways is to get people back? Free food. Everyone is so against coming in. But announce a free food BBQ day or a catered lunch party to celebrate Cinco De Mayo days with shit loads of tacos and burritos and suddenly like 90% of the office shows up. So it turns out offering people like $10 worth of Mexican food with a free can of Pepsi is the best way to get people in the office. No joke it is. Another day you get everyone showing up is when my company announces free product day when people come load up their car with ding and dented shit meant for the trash. You wouldnt believe how eager people are on free product day to jam in cases of dented bottles of floor cleaner. All in all, the average guy probably gets $50 worth of free crap and it's like hitting the lottery. Somehow it's no problem coming in for a free lunch or box of half broken products returned from a retailer, but ask them to come in on a normal work day and it's too difficult.

More people will show up at the office if it's mandated more. Not just because it's mandated, but because they will realize it's worth it because other people are there. As I said above, no point going in certain days when nobody is even there. But when you got wiashy washy policies like show up a few days a week, nobody really knows or cares because they arent totally sure if that day will have people there or their team there unless it's said in stone everyone has to show up on a Tuesday. And even that is hard to pull off because people make excuses and say I'll come in Weds or Thurs instead which just dilutes daily presence. And when daily office presence is diluted then everyone just says "it's not worth coming in because nobody else is here".

So any of you at a company wanting people back but having trouble, just do what we did. Get one of the exec assistants to do monthly pizza or taco day. Pick whatever you want. People will show up at like 93% attendance. it sounds weird, but people are creatures of habit. No different than every 8 year old amped up it's pizza day at school. No different than for 38 year olds. Tell them pizza day is in two weeks and suddenly they'll have no problem reworking their so called super busy home life schedule with morning gridlock to come in eating a few slices of pepperoni pizza and pop. If your company has the budget, it's worth the $1000 to get people back. You can tell they do enjoy it because everyone those days seem so happy getting along with each other and eating together. So it's not so much about people hating people. They worked with them fine before. It's just about giving them an elementary school incentive to get off their ass because covid allowed a lot of people to wake up late.

 

[Rendered Tangent]

It's waaay deeper than that. No need to make fun.

Please, explain.

 

[Reaseru]

Wrong topic...sorry

Edit: I wanted to say with the above is what I wrote here something that had nothing to do with this thread before editing, therefore "(I posted in the) wrong topic(thread)...sorry."

 

[DragonNCM]

 

[Rambotito]

What made you ressurect this from a year ago?

 

[Dr. Wilkinson]

This is from a year ago, man. Super lame

 

[Shadowstar39]

Yeah I agree, I don’t think it should be an issue. But if 100% is what they said to their staff that’s on the employer.


Really depends on how it’s handled. If you hire people who live far away or your staff starts moving far away because you promised them they’d be able to you shouldn’t expect them to just head on back to the offices when you suddenly feel like they should.

This, I work 100% remote, as I got divorced, moved 2x and remarried during and after the pandemic. I live over 175 miles from the office. Going in would require 3plus hours commute, gas, car maintenance and time away. I would look for another job as it's a major paycut having to do all that. Working from home givrs extra time before and after work, also my car isn't racking up miles.

Luckily I work in IT, and am on and off the phone doing remote assistance. I turned down a big promotion as it required relocation and being on site 100%. Sorry but I enjoy my non commute and home office. I'll take lesser pay if it means keeping my gig.

People get mad that work jobs that don't offer this. Thing is some jobs aren't work at home compatible. Some are. If this was just done to appease management who have to go in, I could totally see the anger. If they didn't make an exception for people who moved (which apparently they did) then I could see that anger too.

 

[Sintoid]

On September 11, most of the over 4,000 employees at Ubisoft Montreal returned to office in Montreal’s Mile End for the first time in three years. But hardly anyone seems happy about it, and many are furious at what they’re calling broken promises from Ubisoft leadership.

This number is insane