4 ms·

Strangely even technically competent managers seem to favor presence and subservience over actual results, at least for lower-level engineers at bigger companie

Strangely even technically competent managers seem to favor presence and subservience over actual results, at least for lower-level engineers at bigger companies. Thankfully at least the senior engineers will be in your corner if you know what you're doing. It's also common to see brilliant engineers "broken" after going through job after job with the same ridiculous politics and the meaninglessness of exerting anything but the minimal effort.

themartorana 12y ago
I would argue that many managers may not trust that every employee would be more productive remotely. I can tell you from my personal experience that many people are less productive from home - whether there are more distractions, it's easier to be lazy, etc... I don't know. If I'm paying for a person's productive power, working from home even part time is ok only if that person is equally or more productive at home as they are at work (on average). If their remote productivity is weak, then I would most certainly value their physical presence. (Not everyone who fits this bill needs to be fired, either. It takes a certain amount of personal discipline to work remotely, and not everyone has that ability. That doesn't always mean the person isn't a valuable team member.)
- sombremesa 12y ago
  I think it is important to be physically present at least some of the time, as a team building exercise if nothing else. The kind of presence I am talking about is presence only of body and not of mind, the kind that is valued in Japanese culture where what you do at work is not nearly as important as how much time you spend there.
- venomsnake 12y ago
  And I will bill you for the commute time and upkeep time if presence is required.
- VLM 12y ago
  With the obvious correction factor that remote lifestyle is inherently far superior and financially rewarding, so you'll get better employees cheaper, on average. I took a $5K paycut (at a new job) to get flex time and limited work at home, but I ended up saving something ridiculous like $10K after tax, on child care and commute related costs by being able to swing shift start and end times and avoid rush hour whenever possible. My kids are grown-ish now and I've been thinking about going back to 9-5 M-F but it just sounds like a nightmare, a living hell, after having a superior lifestyle for so long.
VLM 12y ago
"seem to favor presence and subservience over actual results" Classic primate dominance ritual at work. The value of limiting employees to 6 minutes in the bathroom per day isn't in any rationalization of increased production or puritanical virtue or even inherent superiority of capital over labor, the dehumanization is in itself an inherent good or benefit for the managers to feel dominance over those employees. Note that a workplace that dehumanizes humans will continue to dehumanize humans if you force them to stop one particular implementation or another. I guarantee it'll be a living hell of a workplace if that is banned or made socially unacceptable, just a living hell in a currently unknown manner. So better the devil you know than the ... etc.

themartorana 12y ago

I would argue that many managers may not trust that every employee would be more productive remotely. I can tell you from my personal experience that many people are less productive from home - whether there are more distractions, it's easier to be lazy, etc... I don't know. If I'm paying for a person's productive power, working from home even part time is ok only if that person is equally or more productive at home as they are at work (on average). If their remote productivity is weak, then I would most certainly value their physical presence. (Not everyone who fits this bill needs to be fired, either. It takes a certain amount of personal discipline to work remotely, and not everyone has that ability. That doesn't always mean the person isn't a valuable team member.)

sombremesa 12y ago
I think it is important to be physically present at least some of the time, as a team building exercise if nothing else. The kind of presence I am talking about is presence only of body and not of mind, the kind that is valued in Japanese culture where what you do at work is not nearly as important as how much time you spend there.
venomsnake 12y ago
And I will bill you for the commute time and upkeep time if presence is required.
VLM 12y ago
With the obvious correction factor that remote lifestyle is inherently far superior and financially rewarding, so you'll get better employees cheaper, on average. I took a $5K paycut (at a new job) to get flex time and limited work at home, but I ended up saving something ridiculous like $10K after tax, on child care and commute related costs by being able to swing shift start and end times and avoid rush hour whenever possible. My kids are grown-ish now and I've been thinking about going back to 9-5 M-F but it just sounds like a nightmare, a living hell, after having a superior lifestyle for so long.

VLM 12y ago

"seem to favor presence and subservience over actual results" Classic primate dominance ritual at work. The value of limiting employees to 6 minutes in the bathroom per day isn't in any rationalization of increased production or puritanical virtue or even inherent superiority of capital over labor, the dehumanization is in itself an inherent good or benefit for the managers to feel dominance over those employees. Note that a workplace that dehumanizes humans will continue to dehumanize humans if you force them to stop one particular implementation or another. I guarantee it'll be a living hell of a workplace if that is banned or made socially unacceptable, just a living hell in a currently unknown manner. So better the devil you know than the ... etc.