4 ms·

The nuance you might not get from just the title: "Microsoft will now allow employees to work from home freely for less than 50 percent of their working week, o

The nuance you might not get from just the title: "Microsoft will now allow employees to work from home freely for less than 50 percent of their working week, or for managers to approve permanent remote work. " In order for true relocation to be an option, that 'manager approval' must be unequivocal, unrevocable and transferable, when, as happens very frequently at Microsoft, the worker gets a new manager.

mc32 6y ago
Remote work is possible, but it’s not for everyone. Some people are good at it; they adapt well and remain productive. But... as Marissa Meier found out, some people are utterly bad at it, or some take advantage of the privilege of self management and milk the system. So they will have to measure and gauge to see the balance of benefits and detriments of permanent change.
- make3 6y ago
  what's the Marissa Meier thing?
- dudul 6y ago
  Is there any evidence showing that Meier's drastic move actually improved Yahoo's results? Also, do you think someone dishonest enough to take advantage of a remote position to spend their time working on their own startup would be a great asset on-site? I'm not saying remote work is for everyone, far from it, but there is a difference between comparing someone that is not as productive when WFH, and someone who milks the practice illegally.
  - mc32 6y ago
    >” Is there any evidence showing that Meier's drastic move actually improved Yahoo's results?” I don’t think we have public insight into any internal results. We do know that there was evidence that a significant number of people logged in seldom or sporadically for years according to accounts of VPN and other logs. So the skating and slacking was inordinately sufficient for her to pull the plug on that option.
- cmiles74 6y ago
  The quality of management will be the same regardless of if the employee is working from the office or at home. The person who was allowed to "milk the system" in the office, surely, will be allowed to do the same when they are working from home. It seems unreasonable to me an employee's manager would change their behavior based on where the employee happened to be working. I don't believe Marissa Meier demonstrated that managers significantly improved when their employees were required to work full time in the office. I think that would be the interesting measure here: do managers really perform better when their direct reports are in the office?
  - mc32 6y ago
    Simply put. Some people need “structure” (that can be in the form of peer pressure, accountability, visibility, etc). Without it they flounder. At work if someone is not mainly on their job, people will eventually come to know them as slackers. Working from home allows quite a few slackers to fly under the radar. It has parallels in learning. Some people are self paced self learners and can learn remotely. Some need the pace and management by going to a physical classroom with an instructor.
    - cmiles74 6y ago
      My question is why would they perform better at the office? In your example their performance is the same and they become labeled as "slackers" by their co-worker and management. If we allow these people to perform poorly in the office, shouldn't we also allow them to perform poorly when they work remotely? If a manager is not providing adequate structure at the office, it seems unlikely that this would change regardless of where the employee is sitting. Those that need structure and do not get enough of it will flounder no matter their work location. I disagree that it is more difficult to detect those employees who are less productive when the employee is working from home. On the contrary, I suspect their lack of productivity would be even more glaring and obvious then in the office.
      - sumedh 6y ago
        > My question is why would they perform better at the office? If you spend the whole day watching Youtube in office, your boss/colleagues will notice that and ask questions, no one is going to do that when you are at home.
- shock 6y ago
  > or some take advantage of the privilege of self management and milk the system. People milk the system in the office too. It's human nature to expend as little energy as possible for maximum rewards.
  - mc32 6y ago
    Of course. That’s understood. We know at max, your best workers are productive doing things 40 to 50%. Slackers at the office much less. Slackers at home even worse.
- vsareto 6y ago
  Companies have been milking workers as well. It's not surprising it comes back to them.
  - mc32 6y ago
    ?? That’s a total non-sequitur and has no connection to the other. Slackers will slack against themselves (hire a responsible home contractor vs one who slacks off and one who shows up whenever and does things half arsed). So it’s not about revenge or getting something back (that might be a motivation for some malcontents, but most slackers aren’t malcontents.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - vsareto 6y ago
      I'm just saying: a demotivated or lied-to worker resembles slackers pretty closely. I think it's less about personal flaws than we think.
      - mc32 6y ago
        I don’t think so. Demotivated people are troubled by the situation. They do not seek the situation that put them there. They want to be productive, but the system undermines them. Slackers just don’t give a care either way. They just wanna slack. They make a million excuses. It’s really not the same in any way.
richardwhiuk 6y ago
Not sure about the US, but in the UK, if a manager agreed that you could remote work, and then at some point later, withn no justification (e.g. poor performance), and the company tried to back out of that, it would be construed as constructive dismissal, which can force a pay out.
- brianwawok 6y ago
  No such thing as pay out.
A_non_e-moose 6y ago
More nuance > even seek to move internationally if remote working is viable for their particular role This is not true, it is not related to the role but related to if you are in the USA or not. In written internal memo it is specified exceptions are possible, but reality is the manager telling you directly this is not happening for employee outside USA.

mc32 6y ago

Remote work is possible, but it’s not for everyone. Some people are good at it; they adapt well and remain productive. But... as Marissa Meier found out, some people are utterly bad at it, or some take advantage of the privilege of self management and milk the system. So they will have to measure and gauge to see the balance of benefits and detriments of permanent change.

make3 6y ago
what's the Marissa Meier thing?
dudul 6y ago
Is there any evidence showing that Meier's drastic move actually improved Yahoo's results? Also, do you think someone dishonest enough to take advantage of a remote position to spend their time working on their own startup would be a great asset on-site? I'm not saying remote work is for everyone, far from it, but there is a difference between comparing someone that is not as productive when WFH, and someone who milks the practice illegally.
- mc32 6y ago
  >” Is there any evidence showing that Meier's drastic move actually improved Yahoo's results?” I don’t think we have public insight into any internal results. We do know that there was evidence that a significant number of people logged in seldom or sporadically for years according to accounts of VPN and other logs. So the skating and slacking was inordinately sufficient for her to pull the plug on that option.
cmiles74 6y ago
The quality of management will be the same regardless of if the employee is working from the office or at home. The person who was allowed to "milk the system" in the office, surely, will be allowed to do the same when they are working from home. It seems unreasonable to me an employee's manager would change their behavior based on where the employee happened to be working. I don't believe Marissa Meier demonstrated that managers significantly improved when their employees were required to work full time in the office. I think that would be the interesting measure here: do managers really perform better when their direct reports are in the office?
- mc32 6y ago
  Simply put. Some people need “structure” (that can be in the form of peer pressure, accountability, visibility, etc). Without it they flounder. At work if someone is not mainly on their job, people will eventually come to know them as slackers. Working from home allows quite a few slackers to fly under the radar. It has parallels in learning. Some people are self paced self learners and can learn remotely. Some need the pace and management by going to a physical classroom with an instructor.
  - cmiles74 6y ago
    My question is why would they perform better at the office? In your example their performance is the same and they become labeled as "slackers" by their co-worker and management. If we allow these people to perform poorly in the office, shouldn't we also allow them to perform poorly when they work remotely? If a manager is not providing adequate structure at the office, it seems unlikely that this would change regardless of where the employee is sitting. Those that need structure and do not get enough of it will flounder no matter their work location. I disagree that it is more difficult to detect those employees who are less productive when the employee is working from home. On the contrary, I suspect their lack of productivity would be even more glaring and obvious then in the office.
    - sumedh 6y ago
      > My question is why would they perform better at the office? If you spend the whole day watching Youtube in office, your boss/colleagues will notice that and ask questions, no one is going to do that when you are at home.
shock 6y ago
> or some take advantage of the privilege of self management and milk the system. People milk the system in the office too. It's human nature to expend as little energy as possible for maximum rewards.
- mc32 6y ago
  Of course. That’s understood. We know at max, your best workers are productive doing things 40 to 50%. Slackers at the office much less. Slackers at home even worse.
vsareto 6y ago
Companies have been milking workers as well. It's not surprising it comes back to them.
- mc32 6y ago
  ?? That’s a total non-sequitur and has no connection to the other. Slackers will slack against themselves (hire a responsible home contractor vs one who slacks off and one who shows up whenever and does things half arsed). So it’s not about revenge or getting something back (that might be a motivation for some malcontents, but most slackers aren’t malcontents.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - vsareto 6y ago
    I'm just saying: a demotivated or lied-to worker resembles slackers pretty closely. I think it's less about personal flaws than we think.
    - mc32 6y ago
      I don’t think so. Demotivated people are troubled by the situation. They do not seek the situation that put them there. They want to be productive, but the system undermines them. Slackers just don’t give a care either way. They just wanna slack. They make a million excuses. It’s really not the same in any way.

richardwhiuk 6y ago

Not sure about the US, but in the UK, if a manager agreed that you could remote work, and then at some point later, withn no justification (e.g. poor performance), and the company tried to back out of that, it would be construed as constructive dismissal, which can force a pay out.

brianwawok 6y ago
No such thing as pay out.

A_non_e-moose 6y ago

More nuance > even seek to move internationally if remote working is viable for their particular role This is not true, it is not related to the role but related to if you are in the USA or not. In written internal memo it is specified exceptions are possible, but reality is the manager telling you directly this is not happening for employee outside USA.