7 ms·

The idea that McKesson does this, along with their completely tone deaf idea of adding open offices to increase retention, points to a bigger issue: a complete

• ziddoap 7y ago
  This is what I really am having trouble understanding. How disconnected from reality do you need to be to think surveillance and converting to an open office is going to somehow increase retention of employees?
  • JustSomeNobody 7y ago
    You get a bunch of "yes men" together and group think takes over and you end up with this. Rationality goes out the window. It has to because you have to say, "yes".
    • thablackbull 7y ago
      In my experience working, my theory is the over emphasis of goal setting. Everyone has to be doing something, even if it is counterproductive. No one ever says, maybe take some time to sit back to take some time to think about the best way to approach something, it's always just do do do.
  • tareqak 7y ago
    I totally agree. I wonder to myself sometimes, "where did this person's empathy go?".
  • dhruvmittal 7y ago
    A surprising number of people in management seem to think "Oh, that'll make us very silicon valley and signal how cool & hip we are!" And a surprising number of people who haven't had to work in open offices before think "Oh, that'll be cool: social, innovative, and collaborative!"
    • trilila 7y ago
      In the UK almost all offices are open offices. I am not sure of the benefits of a cubicle as i never worked in one.
      • WrtCdEvrydy 7y ago
        Mostly sound suppressing, but does guarantee privacy (I've had to tell someone to fuck off as I'm doing managerial work)
        • trilila 7y ago
          Thats a good point re managerial stuff. So did i and i always had to sit in a corner or somewhere secluded.
      • jdavis703 7y ago
        I worked in a cubicle when I did U.S. government IT. I can't tell any difference from the open plan offices I work in now that I'm in the private sector.
    • brokenmachine 7y ago
      I've never worked in an open office precisely because I am certain that I'd hate it.
  • TeMPOraL 7y ago
    I'm guessing some salesmen sold them on this idea. Sometimes, Hanlon's razor works in reverse: don't attribute to stupidity what can be adequately explained by m̵a̵l̵i̵c̵e̵ marketing.
    • gervase 7y ago
      In this case, I think that's especially true, but maybe not from the perspective you intended: they were sold on the idea of reduced costs, and they're marketing the changes to their employees (and the public) as retention-improving changes, despite the bald-faced absurdity of such a statement.
• Moru 7y ago
  The only reason a company switches to open offices is to save money, just like the removing of free sodas. The will claim any other reason officially though.
  • noarchy 7y ago
    "Imagine the extra collaboration we'll be able to have!" Indeed, and that's precisely what most probably didn't need or want.
  • president 7y ago
    Another valid reason is so management can monitor more people at one time and make sure they're working (busily typing away at their keyboard).
    • wlesieutre 7y ago
      If you need a break, use http://hackertyper.net/ http://hackertyper.net/ to appear super productive! Because butts in chairs and fingers smushing keys is what's important.
  • maccard 7y ago
    There's also the "It's what all the cool companies are doing" factor.
• goatinaboat 7y ago
  > a complete lack of understanding of people People? Human resources. You know, things you use up and discard, like any resource.
  • ben509 7y ago
    It used to be just "personnel," not sure when the change happened but I'd spitball around the '50s in the US. The name change was more significant than simply a fancy new title, the idea went back to WWI and the labor movement. Oddly enough, though it sounds more pejorative than "personnel" to me, "human resources" was thought to be positive as a resource is valuable. And, in fairness, while your manager typically makes the call to fire you, HR are the ones who swing the axe, so no name changes can make them warm and cuddly.
    • pmiller2 7y ago
      I’m pretty sure the personnel office was around at least until the late 70s or early 80s.
  • ziddoap 7y ago
    "Human People Department" doesn't sound quite as pithy.
    • goatinaboat 7y ago
      HR workers refer to themselves as “HR professionals” and it’s not just because “Human Resources Resources” sounds silly
    • PenguinCoder 7y ago
      Used to be called Personnel Management.
    • driverdan 7y ago
      You joke but a lot of companies are renaming HR to make it sound more friendly.
• batmaniam 7y ago
  Management isn't dumb. They understand the worker-employer balance at play. They're not going to come out directly and say they're doing this because they want ass-in-seats, they always have an official cover story. In this case, it's to "increase office retention". There is no tone-deafness going on; they know exactly what it means and what they want, and how to sell it down the chain. Think of it this way, every time management tells you that there's no raise because of budget reasons, are you really going to take that at face value? Business is business, and we are workers. If we want serious change, it's no use complaining about this... they'll do whatever anyways. We should engaging in politics, out on the streets kind of stuff.
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  • nine_k 7y ago
    Also, in a situation where interests are not very aligned, there is a benefit for the stronger side to seem "dumb" and "clueless" to the other side. It both eases the tension a bit (being the smarter guy is flattering), and allows to use the veil of "acting stupid" to conceal calculated adversarial actions.
  • noonespecial 7y ago
    Think of it this way, every time management tells you that there's no raise because of budget reasons, are you really going to take that at face value? I've believed this exactly once. When upper management also received no bonuses that year.
• ben509 7y ago
  > Such that they think implementing one of the most universally hated office schemes I'not sure open offices are so unpopular in practice. I suspect a handful of people with misophonia are passionately against them. A sizable minority think they makes work more fun, and the remainder are indifferent. As someone who loathes them myself, I read all kinds of articles about how awful they are. But that's how news works: I'm a likely click for any article that vindicates my hatred of my stupid boss. So while I've seen plenty of surveys showing people complaining about it, I'm doubtful I'm seeing the same data management is. I've simply never seen anyone really protest it. It's a small sample, but if I've worked with a hundred people, that predicts the real value is small. I even had a team that actively wanted management to remove the dividers when we had half-cubes, and I was the lone holdout!
  • sologoub 7y ago
    There now studies that show it causes less collaboration, especially deep collaboration that requires ability to contemplate and speak freely. Some of the studies: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-open-office-study-20180719-story.html%3foutputType=amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.chicagotribune.com/business... https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/when-the-walls-come-down https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/when-the-walls-come-down Now, imagine you are measuring the collaboration by the amount of meetings and chats/email. Of course these increase if we can no longer chat in your office! Now I have to book time or send you a slack/chat/whatever because having a conversation now requires finding that private space. So previously unmeasured collaboration is replaced with lower fidelity, but measurable collaboration.
  • jrootabega 7y ago
    The freeloaders love it because it helps them goof off together and they have no need to concentrate because other people carry them
  • TheOperator 7y ago
    Open offices have the benefit mostly of cutting costs as less floorspace is needed but they're on average a less productive and more stressful environment for the employee. The 90s cube farm was already pretty short on privacy and the open office is even more extreme. From what I've seen people who work in open offices try to find ways to work somewhere quieter when possible. If open offices are worth it entirely depends on if saving on rent or having more productive employees is more worth it. Generally I see a trend towards open office + shared semiprivate spaces. Like meeting rooms or phone booth like cubicles with doors.
• swalsh 7y ago
  "a complete lack of understanding of people." As a former McKesson employee, i'd say you found the issue.
• state_less 7y ago
  Next thing you know, business owners will think it's a good idea to have everyone put on an eeg skull cap to monitor thoughts, emotions and attention while employees work! Vote with your feet if the surveillance starts feeling creepy. I think people sign up to do a job, not be a guinea pig in some sort dystopian Skinner box. There should be limits on what personal information is collected.
• rhizome 7y ago
  points to a bigger issue: a complete lack of understanding of people. What makes you think they even want this kind of understanding? Not to mention the handwavey vagueness of "understanding people."
  • kleer001 7y ago
    Psychology is the science of understanding people. There's also the burgeoning field of evolutionary psychology. There's nothing handwavey about any of it, at least when it's done well.
    • rhizome 7y ago
      At a company like McKesson, the only psychology you're likely to encounter is organizational (I/O), and, like psychology in general, many many many people do not believe in it, do not see the value in it, and heed cultural barriers to changing these attitudes. To the degree that I/O psych is a factor in corporate life these days, the vast majority will be a form of Taylorism, which is 100+ years old.
• dlphn___xyz 7y ago
  i wonder if the higher ups are subjected to open work spaces
  • itronitron 7y ago
    yes, very open, and they drive around them in little golf carts