4 ms·
I think the issue is that managers want to "see" their employees "working". And by "working" I mean being seen at their desk, in meetings, or at the whiteboard.
by mruniverse 4y ago
I think the issue is that managers want to "see" their employees "working". And by "working" I mean being seen at their desk, in meetings, or at the whiteboard. It's harder for them to judge by the quality of work because they don't have that expertise.
- solardev 4y agoIt's funny because I often wonder the same of CEOs. What exactly are we paying them for? How can we judge the quality of their work?
- denkmoon 4y agoWell that's actually much easier. CEOs are paid, by shareholders, for the return on investment they generate for said shareholders. The quality of their work is judged by the return on investment generated every 3 months.
- solardev 4y agoAnd why does the CEO get the credit for that?
- denkmoon 4y ago1. because that's how we've decided businesses work. 2. because the buck stops with the CEO. They are (ostensibly) responsible for the output/productivity of the entire organisation. How they achieve that is mostly irrelevant, in the same way that our managers don't really understand what we do, so it goes for shareholders.
- solardev 4y agoSo maybe we can get rid of them and deliver even more value to shareholders?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- 1ark 4y agoIndeed. Might have been an alright a decade ago, but now we have all these services that you fill in every few weeks/months about performance, goals etc. so that managers can have an overview. There is nothing to hide behind anymore, managers have all the data, they need to learn what to do with. Butt-in-seat is not a satisfactory KPI.