7 ms·

As much as I agree with that I'm still at a loss as to why butts in seats management is still so dominant today. It's almost as if everybody wakes up, reads Di

As much as I agree with that I'm still at a loss as to why butts in seats management is still so dominant today. It's almost as if everybody wakes up, reads Dilbert every morning thinking "Wow, that PHB guy certainly is a role model to aspire to." It's not as if these patterns can't be changed: The required technology has been available for more than a decade now. There are tried and tested approaches for organizing work in a more productive and healthy manner than 9-5. Still, it isn't happening at a larger scale. While the reasons might simply be risk-aversion or - on a more sinister note - a somewhat implicit understanding that our society is built around a 40 hr work week and we'd face serious upheaval if that was no longer a given, I find those reasons to be tenuous at best in the long run.

tonmoy 10y ago
Can you name a few companies where this is practiced? Maybe if we all start going to those places (I would happily take less pay for a healthier/happier work life) then maybe our managers would start following them
madaxe_again 10y ago
Because those of us who believe otherwise usually get beaten out and decide to not run businesses any more. My confounder doesn't like hiring, likes to have a huge pile of cash in the bank to no particular end, and sends people shitty emails if they're late in the morning. He's successfully killed off enthusiasm and passion for getting things done (mine included), and now people are either making time or leaving. We got crazy amounts done back when I wasn't cto and was still allowed to lead the tech team - because we'd work from 1pm until the early hours, myopically working on stuff because it was fun to create. That got slowly but surely strangled by timekeeping, requiring people to be in for 0900 (even if they were up half the night working support), and requiring that people only work from the office. It's impossible to push back against without continuous effort, and eventually one throws the towel in. Conservatism is easy as it requires you to just maintain the status quo, hence it is the norm in business - whereas change requires effort. It then turns into an endurance race, which can only go one way. Edit: I don't know why I bother commenting here any more.
- dclowd9901 10y ago
  "confounder", ha. In my experience, what does a manager do if there's no one around to manage? And how do employees get recognized for their contributions if there are no managers to track it? It's a catch-22. My thought is that if companies simply paid people as much as they could, all of this would go away. You wouldn't even _need_ managers anymore. One of managers' more important roles, liaising between departments, could become their full time job, which would be better for everyone too (less overhead with employee reviews and bullshit like that). How does this work? Rather than a company asking an employee what their salary range is, the employee asks the company what is the most they can afford to pay you, and they pay you that.
  - bostonpete 10y ago
    > How does this work? Rather than a company asking an employee what their salary range is, the employee asks the company what is the most they can afford to pay you, and they pay you that. I still don't see how that works. Your comment seems like it boils down to saying the company should pay the employee more than they're worth (i.e. worth to the business compared to others who could add the same value), but the company has all sorts of obligations to investors, other employees, etc. and spending money just because they can afford to do so today seems like an irresponsible way to run a business.
    - derefr 10y ago
      Sure, but it's just as irresponsible (economically irrational) as an individual to go the other way. Really, the "optimal" salary negotiation is for both the employer and the potential hire to first agree on a dollar-value of how much money the employee is expected to make the company—literally, what the hire is worth—and then, having come to agreement over that, to then negotiate what profit margin the company wants to keep of that created value. You might recognize this as the process a hiring agency goes through to negotiate with an employer. In this case, the employee is their own hiring agency, and the one who will end up with the majority "cut."
  - pc86 10y ago
ktRolster 10y ago
As much as I agree with that I'm still at a loss as to why butts in seats management is still so dominant today. Because managers up a level have no other way of knowing if you're being productive or not. So they look and see if people are ferociously typing. This is not a joke.
- goodcanadian 10y ago
  Yes, a place where I used to work once sent out a memo trying to encourage more regular work hours because management couldn't find people, and the office always looked half empty. The thing is, it was the operations staff for a astronomical observatory. The "missing" people were generally traveling and/or working at night!
  - quantumhobbit 10y ago
    I used to work in research physics and recall hearing a similar story, probably embellished with each retelling. The version I heard had the staff complying with the order and working 9-5, then management complains that no observations are being made at night.
    - goodcanadian 10y ago
      Well, in this case, I personally received the memo. Knowing my co-workers, however, I highly doubt anyone actually changed their behaviour due to it. Other, similar, management antics included scheduling meetings first thing in the morning and complaining that the telescope operators never showed up.
      - quantumhobbit 10y ago
        Haha. I have no problem believing that this has happened at several different observatories.
        mintplant 10y ago
0xdeadbeefbabe 10y ago
> As much as I agree with that I'm still at a loss as to why butts in seats management is still so dominant today. Don't be at a loss. Political games (or politics) are best played in person. It's the reason for campaign trails among other things.
jwatte 10y ago
The managers are also looking for the easiest way through the day. Hence, butts in seat managing. Actually reviewing long term contribution and giving constructive (or even bad) news is hard work. Looking for butts in seats leaves more time for fantasy sports, or whatever.
jwatte 10y ago
The managers are also looking for the easiest way through the day. Hence, butts in seat managing. Actually reviewing long term contribution and giving constructive (or even bad) news is hard work. Looking for butts in seats leaves more time for fantasy sports, or whatever.
vacri 10y ago
> I'm still at a loss as to why butts in seats management is still so dominant today. Most jobs aren't 'creative at any time of the day by oneself' jobs. Support staff can't just clock in at 1pm, because that's when they feel most supportive. Government clerks can't just start and stop when they like, because the counter has to be staffed during office hours. Most office jobs need to have considerable overlap with the times of other people in the office. Even for programmers, remote work and your own hours is not a clear win. Some people adore it and work well with it, but other people don't do so well in managing their own time. I've worked with people who work remote, make a pretense of busywork, and get little of substance done - but when they were in the office, they got more work done. Penny-pinching time ("be here at 0900 exactly!"^) is silly, but at the same time, this meme that bosses are automatically bad if they want in-office work and general office hours... it is way too simplistic. ^ funny how those penny-pinchers never demand that you leave on time as well...

tonmoy 10y ago

Can you name a few companies where this is practiced? Maybe if we all start going to those places (I would happily take less pay for a healthier/happier work life) then maybe our managers would start following them

madaxe_again 10y ago

Because those of us who believe otherwise usually get beaten out and decide to not run businesses any more. My confounder doesn't like hiring, likes to have a huge pile of cash in the bank to no particular end, and sends people shitty emails if they're late in the morning. He's successfully killed off enthusiasm and passion for getting things done (mine included), and now people are either making time or leaving. We got crazy amounts done back when I wasn't cto and was still allowed to lead the tech team - because we'd work from 1pm until the early hours, myopically working on stuff because it was fun to create. That got slowly but surely strangled by timekeeping, requiring people to be in for 0900 (even if they were up half the night working support), and requiring that people only work from the office. It's impossible to push back against without continuous effort, and eventually one throws the towel in. Conservatism is easy as it requires you to just maintain the status quo, hence it is the norm in business - whereas change requires effort. It then turns into an endurance race, which can only go one way. Edit: I don't know why I bother commenting here any more.

dclowd9901 10y ago
"confounder", ha. In my experience, what does a manager do if there's no one around to manage? And how do employees get recognized for their contributions if there are no managers to track it? It's a catch-22. My thought is that if companies simply paid people as much as they could, all of this would go away. You wouldn't even _need_ managers anymore. One of managers' more important roles, liaising between departments, could become their full time job, which would be better for everyone too (less overhead with employee reviews and bullshit like that). How does this work? Rather than a company asking an employee what their salary range is, the employee asks the company what is the most they can afford to pay you, and they pay you that.
- bostonpete 10y ago
  > How does this work? Rather than a company asking an employee what their salary range is, the employee asks the company what is the most they can afford to pay you, and they pay you that. I still don't see how that works. Your comment seems like it boils down to saying the company should pay the employee more than they're worth (i.e. worth to the business compared to others who could add the same value), but the company has all sorts of obligations to investors, other employees, etc. and spending money just because they can afford to do so today seems like an irresponsible way to run a business.
  - derefr 10y ago
    Sure, but it's just as irresponsible (economically irrational) as an individual to go the other way. Really, the "optimal" salary negotiation is for both the employer and the potential hire to first agree on a dollar-value of how much money the employee is expected to make the company—literally, what the hire is worth—and then, having come to agreement over that, to then negotiate what profit margin the company wants to keep of that created value. You might recognize this as the process a hiring agency goes through to negotiate with an employer. In this case, the employee is their own hiring agency, and the one who will end up with the majority "cut."
- pc86 10y ago

ktRolster 10y ago

As much as I agree with that I'm still at a loss as to why butts in seats management is still so dominant today. Because managers up a level have no other way of knowing if you're being productive or not. So they look and see if people are ferociously typing. This is not a joke.

goodcanadian 10y ago
Yes, a place where I used to work once sent out a memo trying to encourage more regular work hours because management couldn't find people, and the office always looked half empty. The thing is, it was the operations staff for a astronomical observatory. The "missing" people were generally traveling and/or working at night!
- quantumhobbit 10y ago
  I used to work in research physics and recall hearing a similar story, probably embellished with each retelling. The version I heard had the staff complying with the order and working 9-5, then management complains that no observations are being made at night.
  - goodcanadian 10y ago
    Well, in this case, I personally received the memo. Knowing my co-workers, however, I highly doubt anyone actually changed their behaviour due to it. Other, similar, management antics included scheduling meetings first thing in the morning and complaining that the telescope operators never showed up.
    - quantumhobbit 10y ago
      Haha. I have no problem believing that this has happened at several different observatories.
      - mintplant 10y ago

0xdeadbeefbabe 10y ago

> As much as I agree with that I'm still at a loss as to why butts in seats management is still so dominant today. Don't be at a loss. Political games (or politics) are best played in person. It's the reason for campaign trails among other things.

jwatte 10y ago

The managers are also looking for the easiest way through the day. Hence, butts in seat managing. Actually reviewing long term contribution and giving constructive (or even bad) news is hard work. Looking for butts in seats leaves more time for fantasy sports, or whatever.

jwatte 10y ago

vacri 10y ago

> I'm still at a loss as to why butts in seats management is still so dominant today. Most jobs aren't 'creative at any time of the day by oneself' jobs. Support staff can't just clock in at 1pm, because that's when they feel most supportive. Government clerks can't just start and stop when they like, because the counter has to be staffed during office hours. Most office jobs need to have considerable overlap with the times of other people in the office. Even for programmers, remote work and your own hours is not a clear win. Some people adore it and work well with it, but other people don't do so well in managing their own time. I've worked with people who work remote, make a pretense of busywork, and get little of substance done - but when they were in the office, they got more work done. Penny-pinching time ("be here at 0900 exactly!"^) is silly, but at the same time, this meme that bosses are automatically bad if they want in-office work and general office hours... it is way too simplistic. ^ funny how those penny-pinchers never demand that you leave on time as well...