3 ms·

dramatically improved their staff's working conditions, for example by experimenting with shorter working weeks, complete flexi-time, allowing off-site working

dramatically improved their staff's working conditions, for example by experimenting with shorter working weeks, complete flexi-time, allowing off-site working by default, etc. I believe it is a case of known cost, hidden benefit. Basically each of those items has a fairly easy to measure cost(shorter work weeks for salaried individuals basically means you are paying more for less.) Where as improvements in productivity are not so easily measured before implementing them.

Silhouette 16y ago
> I believe it is a case of known cost, hidden benefit. Sure, that much I understand. What I can't figure out is why such ignorant and short-sighted policies are still tolerated, given that they directly impact the effectiveness, the reputation, and ultimately the bottom line of each business that adopts them. It's not as if the empirical data is particularly hard to find, or as if there aren't small businesses (and probably the occasional larger one, but it's rare) benefitting from more enlightened relations between employer and employees. So what are we missing? What overriding factor drives larger companies, for all their more formalised policies and training investments, to such poor people management?
- anamax 16y ago
  > What I can't figure out is why such ignorant and short-sighted policies are still tolerated, given that they directly impact the effectiveness, the reputation, and ultimately the bottom line of each business that adopts them. Where are the numbers? > It's not as if the empirical data is particularly hard to find, google "programmer productivity working conditions" doesn't find anything quantitative on the first two pages.
  - Silhouette 16y ago
    Try looking for more general terms using Google Scholar. For example, here's a UK government report from the mid-2000s, featuring several relevant industrial case studies: http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file14239.pdf http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file14239.pdf
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
dorianj 16y ago
"shorter work weeks for salaried individuals basically means you are paying more for less" -- not necessarily. Ass in seat time is not equal to production, especially concerning developers.

Silhouette 16y ago

> I believe it is a case of known cost, hidden benefit. Sure, that much I understand. What I can't figure out is why such ignorant and short-sighted policies are still tolerated, given that they directly impact the effectiveness, the reputation, and ultimately the bottom line of each business that adopts them. It's not as if the empirical data is particularly hard to find, or as if there aren't small businesses (and probably the occasional larger one, but it's rare) benefitting from more enlightened relations between employer and employees. So what are we missing? What overriding factor drives larger companies, for all their more formalised policies and training investments, to such poor people management?

anamax 16y ago
> What I can't figure out is why such ignorant and short-sighted policies are still tolerated, given that they directly impact the effectiveness, the reputation, and ultimately the bottom line of each business that adopts them. Where are the numbers? > It's not as if the empirical data is particularly hard to find, google "programmer productivity working conditions" doesn't find anything quantitative on the first two pages.
- Silhouette 16y ago
  Try looking for more general terms using Google Scholar. For example, here's a UK government report from the mid-2000s, featuring several relevant industrial case studies: http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file14239.pdf http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file14239.pdf
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

dorianj 16y ago

"shorter work weeks for salaried individuals basically means you are paying more for less" -- not necessarily. Ass in seat time is not equal to production, especially concerning developers.