5 ms·
They can’t tell by the massive productivity difference between the in-office and remote workers? If not, then why bother tracking location?
by ungreased0675 2y ago
They can’t tell by the massive productivity difference between the in-office and remote workers? If not, then why bother tracking location?
- MrScruff 2y agoI realise you're being sarcastic but the main argument for in-office work is increased levels of collaboration which only works if most people are coming in.
- opless 2y agoIt's never about collaboration, it's always about control. Please don't confuse the two.
- MrScruff 2y agoI work in a creative industry that's entirely driven by close collaboration. It's really just much harder to do this kind of work remotely. I get that people have other priorities but it's really not as absolute as you say it is.
- opless 2y agoIt always was about control. If you're not needed in person ... To move something or specifically to physically interact with your surroundings you're not needed onsite ever. Exceptions for national security obviously. Sorry if that impacts your delicate sensitivities or preferences. But facts are facts. One think I never enjoyed was endless meetings talking about what was to be done and how to do them. Hours of time wasted for usually one or two people to dominate that time enjoying the fact that others we forced to listen to them. That's not work nor is it value for money, not for the businesses, the shareholders/stakeholders nor the employees. It's always been about control. It will always be about control.
- ath3nd 2y ago> It's always been about control And a bit about trust, as managers are often clueless about the true performance of their team. To them, as long as there are easily observable people in chairs, things are working well.
- opless 2y agoTrust is an excuse. If people aren't performing, then adjustments need to be made. If they're not doing the job they're paid to do then they're in breach of their employment contract. Trust is about belief that someone is going to (not) do something. Facts are demonstrable. You're either doing your job or you're not. Feelings are subjective and irrelevant. If a manager has no clue about the performance of their team, then it's the manager that needs replacing. It's a common trope by C-suite execs who have zero clue what their business does, sure they need to guide the business, maybe inspire their subordinates. But falling back on logical fallacies such as call to authority: "Elmo said this and he's the CEO of ChadCorp who are worth trillions", is lazy and pathetic. I'll buy you one box of Kleenex to dry your tears, because I'm not a monster. But facts is facts. Just because covid pushed these facts out there and now everyone knows that they can work from home if they're in an appropriate job. Y'all not getting that genie back in the bottle.
- ath3nd 2y ago> Y'all not getting that genie back in the bottle. Not even wanting to! I totally agree with you.
- aguaviva 2y agoIf you're not needed in person ... Could it be that there are some roles for which regular in-person interaction is highly beneficial?
- opless 2y agoSure nurses/doctors of all disciplines are almost always needed in person. Though there has been a lot of progress in telepresence in the last few years. But what were you thinking about?
- smashah 2y agoHow does proximity or collaboration between people help consultants use ChatGPT more effectively?
- ungreased0675 2y agoI’ve heard that argument before, but I’m not convinced. I think it’s uncontroversial to say that teams who collaborate more should easily surpass teams that don’t. Therefore, if in-person proximity is important for collaboration, in-person teams should have clearly superior performance to remote teams. We know that’s not true though, so the argument for in-person presence needs some refinement. Why is it better, and better how?