3 ms·

All I'm saying is I think you are making it a little more personal/deep than it might be. The seating arrangement in many/most instances may in fact just be a l

by j2bax 9y ago

All I'm saying is I think you are making it a little more personal/deep than it might be. The seating arrangement in many/most instances may in fact just be a logistics issue of fitting a large number of people into a economical amount of space. Standard corporate structure/org charts determine who gets the offices. If one person serves as the buffer between management above them and the 10-20 developers below them, why shouldn't they? It would seem they would need a private space more often for meetings and such. Hopefully a lot of them sat out on the floor and did their time as well. As I see it, with great risk comes great reward. Managers are held responsible for the the great successes or great failures of their team(s). I wouldn't work for a manager that I don't respect and feel deserves a position of management above me. If you do, thats your bad. If you are concerned (or care) that your perceived status isn't living up to your expectations for the work you do and the value you provide, you could always try doing something else that people perceive as more respectable and worthy of awe and special treatment.

aosfbasoufboas 9y ago
Well, the reason that is seen as an economical amount of space is because they can hire people that accept that tradeoff. If people didn't accept it, then businesses would provide office space. Business will offer the least that people will accept, it's up to you to decide if you will accept it. Working with someone is a voluntary negotiation - that's a two way street. Business decisions about floor space are not sacrosanct, and enough discontent from employees would change norms as it would for anything not vital to company survival. While I give startups some leeway, for large established companies like Apple or Facebook, already rich shareholders are loling all the way to the bank at workers' expense. I'll cry a river if additional accommodations result in falling a place or two on the most profitable companies in the world chart. According to YCharts, FB's quarterly profit margin was an astounding 38% (down slightly from the previous quarter): https://ycharts.com/companies/FB/profit_margin https://ycharts.com/companies/FB/profit_margin To reap riches that insane, I consider it an obligation for the leadership of that company to accommodate their workers quite generously. You might argue it's already generous, but compare that to their executive class. The level of inequality is astounding, and this is amongst rich people.

by j2bax 9y ago

aosfbasoufboas 9y ago

Well, the reason that is seen as an economical amount of space is because they can hire people that accept that tradeoff. If people didn't accept it, then businesses would provide office space. Business will offer the least that people will accept, it's up to you to decide if you will accept it. Working with someone is a voluntary negotiation - that's a two way street. Business decisions about floor space are not sacrosanct, and enough discontent from employees would change norms as it would for anything not vital to company survival. While I give startups some leeway, for large established companies like Apple or Facebook, already rich shareholders are loling all the way to the bank at workers' expense. I'll cry a river if additional accommodations result in falling a place or two on the most profitable companies in the world chart. According to YCharts, FB's quarterly profit margin was an astounding 38% (down slightly from the previous quarter): https://ycharts.com/companies/FB/profit_margin https://ycharts.com/companies/FB/profit_margin To reap riches that insane, I consider it an obligation for the leadership of that company to accommodate their workers quite generously. You might argue it's already generous, but compare that to their executive class. The level of inequality is astounding, and this is amongst rich people.