4 ms·

Good point, nonetheless the RTO is clearly not a silver bullet. Necessary but not sufficient at least, arguably not necessary

zamadatix 3y ago
In a world where software developers stopped writing any code at all you could make the same exact statement about how software developers writing code again isn't a silver bullet to productivity and therefore maybe not necessary while also still ignoring any actual consideration of the productivity impact of the change or actual necessity of it in achieving the overall amount of needed change. Sure, it gives no guarantee the developers are going to be productive as the business needs because of this one change... but that isn't actually say anything about how necessary it was or wasn't to get them to write code again as part of that path. To be clear, I'm firmly against RTO myself and I think there are plenty of data points when it comes to actual measured productivity that back that view. In accordance, it's the measures of productivity and notes like "Only one in three executives with an in-office mandate are convinced that their in-office policies have had a positive effect on productivity." which carry the meaning from this article. It's completely unrelated to the test of the straw man argument "the only thing a business needs to do is have workers in an office and it will have no other concerns to address" as the measure of either the success or necessity of RTO policies.
- seadan83 3y ago
  Please correct me if wrong, if I understand you correctly, you are essentially saying that managers/executives are effectively 'flailing' in the name of increasing productivity - they're trying anything/everything*. Because of this, it is expected for productivity to remain a top concern. * Though, that anything/everything is perhaps more largely classical productivity techniques, like RTO rather than some other novel strategy. (So, it's not really anything/everything, I'm more thinking techniques that one would learn in a MBA school how to increase productivity)*

zamadatix 3y ago

In a world where software developers stopped writing any code at all you could make the same exact statement about how software developers writing code again isn't a silver bullet to productivity and therefore maybe not necessary while also still ignoring any actual consideration of the productivity impact of the change or actual necessity of it in achieving the overall amount of needed change. Sure, it gives no guarantee the developers are going to be productive as the business needs because of this one change... but that isn't actually say anything about how necessary it was or wasn't to get them to write code again as part of that path. To be clear, I'm firmly against RTO myself and I think there are plenty of data points when it comes to actual measured productivity that back that view. In accordance, it's the measures of productivity and notes like "Only one in three executives with an in-office mandate are convinced that their in-office policies have had a positive effect on productivity." which carry the meaning from this article. It's completely unrelated to the test of the straw man argument "the only thing a business needs to do is have workers in an office and it will have no other concerns to address" as the measure of either the success or necessity of RTO policies.

seadan83 3y ago
Please correct me if wrong, if I understand you correctly, you are essentially saying that managers/executives are effectively 'flailing' in the name of increasing productivity - they're trying anything/everything*. Because of this, it is expected for productivity to remain a top concern. * Though, that anything/everything is perhaps more largely classical productivity techniques, like RTO rather than some other novel strategy. (So, it's not really anything/everything, I'm more thinking techniques that one would learn in a MBA school how to increase productivity)*