18 ms·
Well this assumes the management cost (or inefficiency) does not go up for remote, which is unclear.
by tomarr 6y ago
Well this assumes the management cost (or inefficiency) does not go up for remote, which is unclear.
- jnwatson 6y agoFrom personal experience, top-tier individual contributors are cheaper to manage.
- kevinventullo 6y agoThat's part of what makes them top-tier!
- corobo 6y agoConsidering all the middle managers I know of are desperately trying to get the workforce back into offices because they seemingly have bugger-all to do now, I'd say you can cut out a fair few of them if you need to balance out a new cost. Without being overworked, can a remote manager manage more people than an on-site manager? I don't know any remote managers
- thedufer 6y ago> Considering all the middle managers I know of are desperately trying to get the workforce back into offices because they seemingly have bugger-all to do now, I'd say you can cut out a fair few of them if you need to balance out a new cost. Are you sure you've diagnosed this correctly? The managers I know are ready to get back to the office for the exact opposite reason - managing remotely is much harder and more time-consuming.
- corobo 6y agoI'm talking about the types that value ass in seat over output. Of course good managers are still needed :)