5 ms·

Some years ago at a big tech company a CAD software development group was folded into the department I was managing. I took a walk around. We had hard wall offi

Some years ago at a big tech company a CAD software development group was folded into the department I was managing. I took a walk around. We had hard wall offices with 2 or 3 desks in each. In one office one of the SW devs had set up a small camp under a table with a sleeping bag, cooler, and night light. I don't think she was homeless. In another office one of the devs had a small cactus farm with grow lights on a timer. Nobody in the group could understand why they shouldn't be allowed to keep this stuff.

lovich 8y ago
Why shouldn't they be allowed to keep that stuff? I'm not trying to be flippant. I have noticed that many managers say no to anything they didn't think of first. Its made me usually default to thinking the manager is wrong unless the employee is adversely affecting another employee. If no one in the group could understand why they shouldn't keep those things, then it sounds like they weren't adversely affecting anyone Edit: I should add that when I say management I mean management that is more than one level above the person who's behavior they are trying to change. People do t have as strong connections once it starts being a chain of relationships and you start losing the benefit of the doubt
- roenxi 8y ago
  Well, the company might do something negligent and damage the employees stuff. Then the company might incur some liability. Or potentially someone could get injured through corporate negligence (eg, if there is a fire and the software engineer sleeping under the desk gets burned; power goes out for 12 hours and someone with a fridge gets food poisoning). Focusing on GP's comment specifically, if the government (local or higher) discovers that a premise is being used for habitation I imagine there are a whole bunch of rules that kick in that the company does not want to be involved with. It is much cheaper, easier and more internally consistent to mandate that all employees have a standardised work space. Then not only do you cut your risk profile, you also might find opportunities for efficiencies elsewhere. Compare personal risk profiles to a company. If I am a bit risk-prone maybe I tolerate a lifestyle where there is a 1 in 200 chance of a near-fatal accident each year each year (so I'm expecting to make it to old age with a near misses or two in life - I've met people who I judge to live to this level of risk). If you try that sort of approach with a company of 150 employees, in a given year you now expect: 1) More likely than not to have a near fatal accident in the workspace 2) To be imprisoned or have your business ended by the government for being a menace to your employees Corporations can't tolerate risk at anywhere near the level individuals do; because they have to scale everything up to their entire workforce.
  - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    This sounds largely like strawman examples to justify being paternalistic. The fridge in the break room has exactly the same risk as the one in your office; injury to the employee is a far, far greater risk than busting somebody's stapler; standardized workspace is one of those pointless conformity things that deliberately ignore differences in job function, personal preference and on and on.
    - roenxi 8y ago
      No, I've been tangentially involved in this sort of decision from the management side in Serious Industry. The break room fridge is "known to the corporation" in some sense and can be assigned an inspection or even maintenance schedule if you have the expertise. Has more eyes on it for trouble in any case. We had problems with people bringing knives in to de-core their apples. Every year there'd a nasty hand injury or two, and we were under pressure from upper management to keep our injury statistics low. Since hand injuries were one of our major problems; knife ban! :D It was as effective as it was unpopular.
      - linza 8y ago
        So because of management's lack of imagination (or caring) a solution was chosen unilaterally for the convenience of the party in power and for the inconvenience if the masses to protect them sheeps from themselves.
- Terretta 8y ago
  > made me usually default to thinking the manager is wrong unless the employee is adversely affecting another employee The Wiccan Creed is surprisingly rich: "An' it harm none, do what thou wilt."
- geomark 8y ago
  If I had thought of it first, as you say, I would have immediately realized a couple things wrong with it. Like taking space for my personal projects where a desk for another engineer is supposed to go. And having grow lights on a timer that run after everyone goes home is a pretty obvious unnecessary fire hazard. I was the manager, not someone a level above. I was responsible for space planning for my department. The offices weren't luxurious but they were decent hard wall offices where 4 of the 6 offices in each office bay had windows. Insisting that one should be allowed to take a seat in a window office for a cactus farm seemed very immature. I was also resonsible for assuring a reasonable attempt to adhere to health and safety rules. The unthinking objections to removing a fire hazard showed no appreciation for who would have hell to pay if something happened, even if only a mildly smokey electrical short.
  - lovich 8y ago
    Taking up a seat when someone needs it, sure you're getting in people's way. Taking your example of the grow light as a fire hazard here is an example of what I mean by management just trying to get rid of everything. How is it anymore of a fire hazard than anything else plugged into the electricity? I doubt you were rationing the electricity or unplugging everything at night, and if people had laptops they we're likely plugging things into and out of the sockets every day. People can see the obvious hypocrisy it poor reasoning and it makes them ignore or detest even reasonable requests from management because the requests are so frequently unreasonable. If management had their way everyone would be completely standard, with no individuality or humanity because it would be cheaper and easier to deal with. The unthinking objections to every bit of personality or decoration of a space people are in for half their waking lives shows no appreciation for the mental toll it takes on employees
    - geomark 8y ago
      This is a lot like the conversation I had with that group. Assume it's just management being oppressive for their convenience. But oh, didn't think about maybe those seats are needed. Hey, why can't they sit in a windowless office; my plants need some daylight. What's the big deal about plugging in more stuff, everything's a fire hazard anyway. Sure, computers and office equipment are required to do our jobs while lighting for my hobby isn't. But so what if it causes a problem, disrupts work or someone gets hurt. No big deal, the company can cover it.

lovich 8y ago

Why shouldn't they be allowed to keep that stuff? I'm not trying to be flippant. I have noticed that many managers say no to anything they didn't think of first. Its made me usually default to thinking the manager is wrong unless the employee is adversely affecting another employee. If no one in the group could understand why they shouldn't keep those things, then it sounds like they weren't adversely affecting anyone Edit: I should add that when I say management I mean management that is more than one level above the person who's behavior they are trying to change. People do t have as strong connections once it starts being a chain of relationships and you start losing the benefit of the doubt

roenxi 8y ago
Well, the company might do something negligent and damage the employees stuff. Then the company might incur some liability. Or potentially someone could get injured through corporate negligence (eg, if there is a fire and the software engineer sleeping under the desk gets burned; power goes out for 12 hours and someone with a fridge gets food poisoning). Focusing on GP's comment specifically, if the government (local or higher) discovers that a premise is being used for habitation I imagine there are a whole bunch of rules that kick in that the company does not want to be involved with. It is much cheaper, easier and more internally consistent to mandate that all employees have a standardised work space. Then not only do you cut your risk profile, you also might find opportunities for efficiencies elsewhere. Compare personal risk profiles to a company. If I am a bit risk-prone maybe I tolerate a lifestyle where there is a 1 in 200 chance of a near-fatal accident each year each year (so I'm expecting to make it to old age with a near misses or two in life - I've met people who I judge to live to this level of risk). If you try that sort of approach with a company of 150 employees, in a given year you now expect: 1) More likely than not to have a near fatal accident in the workspace 2) To be imprisoned or have your business ended by the government for being a menace to your employees Corporations can't tolerate risk at anywhere near the level individuals do; because they have to scale everything up to their entire workforce.
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  This sounds largely like strawman examples to justify being paternalistic. The fridge in the break room has exactly the same risk as the one in your office; injury to the employee is a far, far greater risk than busting somebody's stapler; standardized workspace is one of those pointless conformity things that deliberately ignore differences in job function, personal preference and on and on.
  - roenxi 8y ago
    No, I've been tangentially involved in this sort of decision from the management side in Serious Industry. The break room fridge is "known to the corporation" in some sense and can be assigned an inspection or even maintenance schedule if you have the expertise. Has more eyes on it for trouble in any case. We had problems with people bringing knives in to de-core their apples. Every year there'd a nasty hand injury or two, and we were under pressure from upper management to keep our injury statistics low. Since hand injuries were one of our major problems; knife ban! :D It was as effective as it was unpopular.
    - linza 8y ago
      So because of management's lack of imagination (or caring) a solution was chosen unilaterally for the convenience of the party in power and for the inconvenience if the masses to protect them sheeps from themselves.
Terretta 8y ago
> made me usually default to thinking the manager is wrong unless the employee is adversely affecting another employee The Wiccan Creed is surprisingly rich: "An' it harm none, do what thou wilt."
geomark 8y ago
If I had thought of it first, as you say, I would have immediately realized a couple things wrong with it. Like taking space for my personal projects where a desk for another engineer is supposed to go. And having grow lights on a timer that run after everyone goes home is a pretty obvious unnecessary fire hazard. I was the manager, not someone a level above. I was responsible for space planning for my department. The offices weren't luxurious but they were decent hard wall offices where 4 of the 6 offices in each office bay had windows. Insisting that one should be allowed to take a seat in a window office for a cactus farm seemed very immature. I was also resonsible for assuring a reasonable attempt to adhere to health and safety rules. The unthinking objections to removing a fire hazard showed no appreciation for who would have hell to pay if something happened, even if only a mildly smokey electrical short.
- lovich 8y ago
  Taking up a seat when someone needs it, sure you're getting in people's way. Taking your example of the grow light as a fire hazard here is an example of what I mean by management just trying to get rid of everything. How is it anymore of a fire hazard than anything else plugged into the electricity? I doubt you were rationing the electricity or unplugging everything at night, and if people had laptops they we're likely plugging things into and out of the sockets every day. People can see the obvious hypocrisy it poor reasoning and it makes them ignore or detest even reasonable requests from management because the requests are so frequently unreasonable. If management had their way everyone would be completely standard, with no individuality or humanity because it would be cheaper and easier to deal with. The unthinking objections to every bit of personality or decoration of a space people are in for half their waking lives shows no appreciation for the mental toll it takes on employees
  - geomark 8y ago
    This is a lot like the conversation I had with that group. Assume it's just management being oppressive for their convenience. But oh, didn't think about maybe those seats are needed. Hey, why can't they sit in a windowless office; my plants need some daylight. What's the big deal about plugging in more stuff, everything's a fire hazard anyway. Sure, computers and office equipment are required to do our jobs while lighting for my hobby isn't. But so what if it causes a problem, disrupts work or someone gets hurt. No big deal, the company can cover it.