2 ms·
Yea I can’t help but realize after my career in offices then seeing mass wfh, the sociopath layer depended deeply on a perceived panopticon of working in the of
by tsunamifury 3y ago
Yea I can’t help but realize after my career in offices then seeing mass wfh, the sociopath layer depended deeply on a perceived panopticon of working in the office. The panopticon was a negative motivator for workers, but also a common experience that standardized the culture and expectations.
WFH was like setting rats in a maze to free range and noticing they can be more productive but at the expense of common purpose. This brings a new dimension to the notion of “productive” that the sociopath layer is uncomfortable with. I think because it implies workforce instability.
Even Google, a company that purported to be about worker freedom to harvest productivity if top workers, has retreated to this position.
It’s a bit shocking to me still nearly 4 years later.
- _huayra_ 3y ago> Even Google, a company that purported to be about worker freedom to harvest productivity if top workers, has retreated to this position. If you take the approach of "watch what they do, not what they say", Google is one of the clearest examples of pro-RTO: they invest in so many perks because they want to make the panopticon feel comfy. There are other companies that don't give you a darn thing and just dangle the loss of one's job as a threat (Amazon), but I think top performers are more swayed by the "free food" approach than the "let's have a big public dashboard with the entire team's attendance" approach (again, Amazon).
- tsunamifury 3y agoAmazon has always been the “by idiots for idiots” of tech companies. Sorry this is patently elitist but I think it’s true.