3 ms·

What do you mean by "work in all groups..."? I mean, if someone could do their job remote but you are afraid of them goofing off so you need them to come to the

What do you mean by "work in all groups..."? I mean, if someone could do their job remote but you are afraid of them goofing off so you need them to come to the office, well that's 100% a case of not hiring the right people. I don't know how it could be any other way. And in that case remote/not remote isn't the issue, it's that your company is incorrectly hiring the wrong people and that's the actual dysfunction - not the remote work environment. The remote/hybrid/on-prem stuff is just an expression of poor hiring practices. They're saying "we don't trust people to work unless we're watching them so they need to be in the office". To that I say "don't hire people you don't trust to work unless you are watching them and it's always exactly the company's fault when this occurs". I apply this universally to 100% of companies in this space without exception. Obviously, well let's take Intel - I mean you're building semiconductors so you probably need to be near machines/equipment/etc. so I'm not suggesting everybody in the world should or even wants to work remote.

oblio 5y ago
I have bad news for you: despite all the HR and recruiting hype, there aren't enough "good people" out there to fill millions of tech jobs, even for top paying companies. Most companies have to settle for structure, flawed individuals and efficient and flexible processes to guide them (which could include peer pressure in actual offices). Of course everyone here pretends to be the 10x, hyper motivated individual contributor, because the world's a stage and HN is part of it.
- ericmay 5y ago
  > Of course everyone here pretends to be the 10x, hyper motivated individual contributor, because the world's a stage and HN is part of it. Ha. I know what you're saying. Not me though. I'm just a 1x. Motivated and interested for sure, at least for my part. I think this might be an agree to disagree thing. I think most people genuinely want to just do something interesting and enjoyable, and make money so they can live fulfilling lives. There are a lot of disconnects though, ranging from flat out opportunity, to lack of available training - i.e. something like a bootcamp - full-time pipeline, bad corporate incentives and structure, and lack of investment in best practices and communication tools. I mean take Microsoft Teams. Absolute dog shit product (sorry guys) - stop using it and use something better. It'll make your employees lives easier and better, and you won't need people to be in the office in the same way because you're using better tools. Ultimately if a company has to "settle" for an employee who they have to monitor and watch from behind their chair, in my view it's still the hiring company's failure. It says nothing about remote/hybrid/on-prem. If they have to "settle" then that's still their fault, and bringing people to the office doesn't change that fundamental fact.
  - oblio 5y ago
    > Ultimately if a company has to "settle" for an employee who they have to monitor and watch from behind their chair, in my view it's still the hiring company's failure. My entire point about "flawed individuals" was that this is not binary. It's not wonder employee vs do absolutely nothing unsupervised employee. Office environments for sure push up productivity for some folks from, say, 40% to 60%. Mediocre folks being boosted a bit by having structure in their lives. And mediocre folks are most folks, by definition. So that boost adds up over large numbers.
- gwbas1c 5y ago
  > Most companies have to settle for structure, flawed individuals and efficient and flexible processes to guide them (which could include peer pressure in actual offices). I couldn't have said it better myself. (The fact that some managers get off on having a room full of people at their beck and call is also a factor too.)

oblio 5y ago

I have bad news for you: despite all the HR and recruiting hype, there aren't enough "good people" out there to fill millions of tech jobs, even for top paying companies. Most companies have to settle for structure, flawed individuals and efficient and flexible processes to guide them (which could include peer pressure in actual offices). Of course everyone here pretends to be the 10x, hyper motivated individual contributor, because the world's a stage and HN is part of it.

ericmay 5y ago
> Of course everyone here pretends to be the 10x, hyper motivated individual contributor, because the world's a stage and HN is part of it. Ha. I know what you're saying. Not me though. I'm just a 1x. Motivated and interested for sure, at least for my part. I think this might be an agree to disagree thing. I think most people genuinely want to just do something interesting and enjoyable, and make money so they can live fulfilling lives. There are a lot of disconnects though, ranging from flat out opportunity, to lack of available training - i.e. something like a bootcamp - full-time pipeline, bad corporate incentives and structure, and lack of investment in best practices and communication tools. I mean take Microsoft Teams. Absolute dog shit product (sorry guys) - stop using it and use something better. It'll make your employees lives easier and better, and you won't need people to be in the office in the same way because you're using better tools. Ultimately if a company has to "settle" for an employee who they have to monitor and watch from behind their chair, in my view it's still the hiring company's failure. It says nothing about remote/hybrid/on-prem. If they have to "settle" then that's still their fault, and bringing people to the office doesn't change that fundamental fact.
- oblio 5y ago
  > Ultimately if a company has to "settle" for an employee who they have to monitor and watch from behind their chair, in my view it's still the hiring company's failure. My entire point about "flawed individuals" was that this is not binary. It's not wonder employee vs do absolutely nothing unsupervised employee. Office environments for sure push up productivity for some folks from, say, 40% to 60%. Mediocre folks being boosted a bit by having structure in their lives. And mediocre folks are most folks, by definition. So that boost adds up over large numbers.
gwbas1c 5y ago
> Most companies have to settle for structure, flawed individuals and efficient and flexible processes to guide them (which could include peer pressure in actual offices). I couldn't have said it better myself. (The fact that some managers get off on having a room full of people at their beck and call is also a factor too.)