7 ms·

It’s a bad look when a technology company isn’t confident enough in their own technology, tools and processes to allow and encourage their employees to have mor

by atty 5y ago

It’s a bad look when a technology company isn’t confident enough in their own technology, tools and processes to allow and encourage their employees to have more flexibility in their lives, and restrict the majority of them to live in one of the highest cost of living areas in the country. Especially for reasons that have very little actual (read: non-anecdotal and scientifically valid) evidence of being an actual benefit. It’s a real shame. I’ve been a big fan of Apple’s products for awhile now. I did my PhD work on a 2014 MacBook Pro, and I switched from Android to iPhone around the same time, and I’ve been very happy with both. That laptop in particular has lasted me longer than any other computer I’ve used. I’d love to apply for a job there, to spend some time seeing how the sausage is made, so to speak. But I have family obligations that make it very hard for me to move. Obviously it’s the executives’ choice, but I definitely feel like they’re really cutting down on their potential candidate pool for very little potential upside. Especially considering they tend to pay less than the other big players.

MuffinFlavored 5y ago
> Obviously it’s the executives’ choice In an unbiased fashion, does anybody have any evidence that proves executives are "right" to say being managed in an office is more productive delivery wise than working from home?
- borski 5y ago
  Anecdotal, but managing through the pandemic has been significantly more challenging than in-office. Granted, we were working through a pandemic, so not really WFH, but it did leave a bad taste in a lot of managers’ mouths because people keep advocating for WFH, without making that distinction. So when a manager hears WFH, and this is that, there’s no way. But distinguishing WFH from “work through pandemic” would likely be a lot more effective.
  - MuffinFlavored 5y ago
    > has been significantly more challenging Can you elaborate? when you say managing, do you mean like... it's harder to get ahold of people to be around to get stuff done?
    - borski 5y ago
      One of the main issues is that there is no longer the opportunity to 'overhear' things. You can make arguments all day for things to be written down more, develop a culture of it, etc., but there is still a lot of value from people who are working on different things shooting the shit at lunch, because they help each other learn, it improves team morale, etc. Also, specifically because of the pandemic, "WFH" has left a bad taste in a lot of managers' mouths, because EVERYONE HAS GOT PROBLEMS right now. That has nothing to do with WFH, but everyone is calling it WFH, so that is now what WFH means - stuck at home, no ability to go out, miserable because your kids are at home and/or your SO and/or your family, no social interaction (or minimal) with your team or anyone else, etc. That isn't what WFH means, but that is what a lot of people now think it means.
  - stackbutterflow 5y ago
    Every complaint about remote work at scale should be taken with some caution. It's possible that managing remote employees is not more difficult in itself but is more challenging right now because we evolved from a WFO (work form office) world. So you as a manager have been exposed to fewer real life examples/books/online discussions/blog articles/talks with friends and family/ about managing remote teams. Virtually every executive, manager, leader in our current world has been selected by their ability to lead people who are in office. My opinion is that we are in a transient state. We need to come up with new processes, ala Agile but for remote teams. We need invent new forms of managements, of organizations that scale with a remote first policy.
    - borski 5y ago
      I agree with you completely. I also think that isn't going to happen, at least any time soon.
aerosmile 5y ago
Did you ever consider why they decided to move forward with their decision? Clearly they are not complete idiots, since they did end up building the most valuable company in the world. There's gotta be something to it, don't you think? Sometimes it's helpful to give others the benefit of the doubt and at least ask yourself what kind of analyses they might have done to come to a conclusion. As you correctly state, WFH would have been actually cheaper in the short term, so what do you think could have made them go the other way?
- atty 5y ago
  It’s a good question - and my guess would be that the executives (rightly) think Apple has been extremely successful at executing their product roadmaps over the last 15 years or so, based on a company culture where one of the core tenants was a lot of face-to-face collaboration, and they don’t want to disrupt that machine more than Covid already has. But I’ve been working for awhile now for a faaaar older and much larger company than Apple (in terms of employee count and revenue), that not only handled the abrupt work-from-home change last year well, but by many metrics, is actually outperforming pre-pandemic metrics in many areas. And our supply chains and manufacturing processes are significantly more complicated than Apple’s. So I’d argue that if a dinosaur of a company can manage to suddenly create a ton of remote jobs and make it work, the only reason I can think of for Apple to not make it work is that they didn’t seriously try.
  - borski 5y ago
    Your last sentence jumps to a conclusion without a logical path to getting there. Apple likely did analysis and has reasons. Perhaps they were less effective during the pandemic due to remote. Perhaps they did surveys and a majority of the company (silent nonetheless) wants back into the offices; remember, so many folks who have kids, SOs at home, or just not enough space for an office - these folks miss offices like crazy. There are a lot of possible reasons this choice was made. Being ignorant of the business’ needs is likely not among them.
    - atty 5y ago
fnordsensei 5y ago
It probably feels bad to have built such an astounding building only to realize that few need or want it for its intended purpose. Along with that; less control (over leaks, for example), less reality to the feeling of being One Happy Family, or being a king, surveying their loyal subjects.
- andrei_says_ 5y ago
  A lot of the space is an open floor which means a hellscape of interruptions and complete impossibility for focus and deep work. Leaks? Did we experience an extraordinary amount of leaks during the last 12 months? Have you read any testimonials from Apple employees? It’s a horrible environment. There are no happy families there.
  - fnordsensei 5y ago
    Sorry, I thought the sarcasm was apparent. I mean that it’s a feeling the a leader might wish upon their subjects, but which can’t actually be fabricated merely using a building or a location.
Bud 5y ago
This sounds like you haven't really investigated the issue. Apple's plan, for instance, does allow a lot of flexibility; they are making Wednesdays and Fridays work-from-home days.
- atty 5y ago
  That’s not the same thing as remote. I’m fully aware of their proposed hybrid work setup. But the main reasons people want remote is to 1. Freedom to choose where to live 2. Reduce/eliminate commute time 3. Avoid in person interactions due to being extremely introverted, or certain medical conditions, or just because. The hybrid in the office 3 days a week does not fix any of those three things. You’re still forced to live near your office, you’re still forced to commute, and you’re still forced to interact in person.
  - borski 5y ago
    1. This is not going to happen, outside of a proper full-remote position, and those are still going to be much harder to come by (though there will be more of them than now, to be sure). Most companies are still going to require you to live within the vicinity of an office, for lots of reasons; not having to manage multiple states in which they employ people, the ability to have someone come in for a meeting, etc. 2. Your commute time is reduced by not having to commute twice a week. 3. This is a question for HR, and they will likely make accommodations for whatever your needs are. The point is that those things haven't changed; companies are likely to offer more flexibility about WFH days, but it is going to be rare, at least for the short-term, for companies to go full remote. Expecting anything else is just a setup for disappointment, imho.
- chadlavi 5y ago
  That still requires you to live in the Bay Area and commute 3/5 days. Token crumbs.
  - borski 5y ago
    Not crumbs; intentional flexibility, likely while still maintaining the in-office requirement 3 days / week and keeping people near the office because their data says it's better that way. Also, this isn't a 'plan for the decade'; this is a 'return to work plan.' The social contract pre-pandemic was that you were in office; I don't know why anyone expected large companies, who generally change direction as quickly as an ocean liner, to suddenly embrace remote work and give up on decades of hard-learned management techniques for in-office workers. That was never going to happen instantly. People are welcome to (and should) advocate for themselves and their needs, but to expect suddenly for the world to go full remote immediately is, frankly, misguided.

by atty 5y ago

MuffinFlavored 5y ago

> Obviously it’s the executives’ choice In an unbiased fashion, does anybody have any evidence that proves executives are "right" to say being managed in an office is more productive delivery wise than working from home?

borski 5y ago
Anecdotal, but managing through the pandemic has been significantly more challenging than in-office. Granted, we were working through a pandemic, so not really WFH, but it did leave a bad taste in a lot of managers’ mouths because people keep advocating for WFH, without making that distinction. So when a manager hears WFH, and this is that, there’s no way. But distinguishing WFH from “work through pandemic” would likely be a lot more effective.
- MuffinFlavored 5y ago
  > has been significantly more challenging Can you elaborate? when you say managing, do you mean like... it's harder to get ahold of people to be around to get stuff done?
  - borski 5y ago
    One of the main issues is that there is no longer the opportunity to 'overhear' things. You can make arguments all day for things to be written down more, develop a culture of it, etc., but there is still a lot of value from people who are working on different things shooting the shit at lunch, because they help each other learn, it improves team morale, etc. Also, specifically because of the pandemic, "WFH" has left a bad taste in a lot of managers' mouths, because EVERYONE HAS GOT PROBLEMS right now. That has nothing to do with WFH, but everyone is calling it WFH, so that is now what WFH means - stuck at home, no ability to go out, miserable because your kids are at home and/or your SO and/or your family, no social interaction (or minimal) with your team or anyone else, etc. That isn't what WFH means, but that is what a lot of people now think it means.
- stackbutterflow 5y ago
  Every complaint about remote work at scale should be taken with some caution. It's possible that managing remote employees is not more difficult in itself but is more challenging right now because we evolved from a WFO (work form office) world. So you as a manager have been exposed to fewer real life examples/books/online discussions/blog articles/talks with friends and family/ about managing remote teams. Virtually every executive, manager, leader in our current world has been selected by their ability to lead people who are in office. My opinion is that we are in a transient state. We need to come up with new processes, ala Agile but for remote teams. We need invent new forms of managements, of organizations that scale with a remote first policy.
  - borski 5y ago
    I agree with you completely. I also think that isn't going to happen, at least any time soon.

aerosmile 5y ago

Did you ever consider why they decided to move forward with their decision? Clearly they are not complete idiots, since they did end up building the most valuable company in the world. There's gotta be something to it, don't you think? Sometimes it's helpful to give others the benefit of the doubt and at least ask yourself what kind of analyses they might have done to come to a conclusion. As you correctly state, WFH would have been actually cheaper in the short term, so what do you think could have made them go the other way?

atty 5y ago
It’s a good question - and my guess would be that the executives (rightly) think Apple has been extremely successful at executing their product roadmaps over the last 15 years or so, based on a company culture where one of the core tenants was a lot of face-to-face collaboration, and they don’t want to disrupt that machine more than Covid already has. But I’ve been working for awhile now for a faaaar older and much larger company than Apple (in terms of employee count and revenue), that not only handled the abrupt work-from-home change last year well, but by many metrics, is actually outperforming pre-pandemic metrics in many areas. And our supply chains and manufacturing processes are significantly more complicated than Apple’s. So I’d argue that if a dinosaur of a company can manage to suddenly create a ton of remote jobs and make it work, the only reason I can think of for Apple to not make it work is that they didn’t seriously try.
- borski 5y ago
  Your last sentence jumps to a conclusion without a logical path to getting there. Apple likely did analysis and has reasons. Perhaps they were less effective during the pandemic due to remote. Perhaps they did surveys and a majority of the company (silent nonetheless) wants back into the offices; remember, so many folks who have kids, SOs at home, or just not enough space for an office - these folks miss offices like crazy. There are a lot of possible reasons this choice was made. Being ignorant of the business’ needs is likely not among them.
  - atty 5y ago

fnordsensei 5y ago

It probably feels bad to have built such an astounding building only to realize that few need or want it for its intended purpose. Along with that; less control (over leaks, for example), less reality to the feeling of being One Happy Family, or being a king, surveying their loyal subjects.

andrei_says_ 5y ago
A lot of the space is an open floor which means a hellscape of interruptions and complete impossibility for focus and deep work. Leaks? Did we experience an extraordinary amount of leaks during the last 12 months? Have you read any testimonials from Apple employees? It’s a horrible environment. There are no happy families there.
- fnordsensei 5y ago
  Sorry, I thought the sarcasm was apparent. I mean that it’s a feeling the a leader might wish upon their subjects, but which can’t actually be fabricated merely using a building or a location.

Bud 5y ago

This sounds like you haven't really investigated the issue. Apple's plan, for instance, does allow a lot of flexibility; they are making Wednesdays and Fridays work-from-home days.

atty 5y ago
That’s not the same thing as remote. I’m fully aware of their proposed hybrid work setup. But the main reasons people want remote is to 1. Freedom to choose where to live 2. Reduce/eliminate commute time 3. Avoid in person interactions due to being extremely introverted, or certain medical conditions, or just because. The hybrid in the office 3 days a week does not fix any of those three things. You’re still forced to live near your office, you’re still forced to commute, and you’re still forced to interact in person.
- borski 5y ago
  1. This is not going to happen, outside of a proper full-remote position, and those are still going to be much harder to come by (though there will be more of them than now, to be sure). Most companies are still going to require you to live within the vicinity of an office, for lots of reasons; not having to manage multiple states in which they employ people, the ability to have someone come in for a meeting, etc. 2. Your commute time is reduced by not having to commute twice a week. 3. This is a question for HR, and they will likely make accommodations for whatever your needs are. The point is that those things haven't changed; companies are likely to offer more flexibility about WFH days, but it is going to be rare, at least for the short-term, for companies to go full remote. Expecting anything else is just a setup for disappointment, imho.
chadlavi 5y ago
That still requires you to live in the Bay Area and commute 3/5 days. Token crumbs.
- borski 5y ago
  Not crumbs; intentional flexibility, likely while still maintaining the in-office requirement 3 days / week and keeping people near the office because their data says it's better that way. Also, this isn't a 'plan for the decade'; this is a 'return to work plan.' The social contract pre-pandemic was that you were in office; I don't know why anyone expected large companies, who generally change direction as quickly as an ocean liner, to suddenly embrace remote work and give up on decades of hard-learned management techniques for in-office workers. That was never going to happen instantly. People are welcome to (and should) advocate for themselves and their needs, but to expect suddenly for the world to go full remote immediately is, frankly, misguided.