I feel like the article is really reaching to find hypocrisy or irony. Whether or not remote work is good has a myriad of opinions, but regardless, the opinion described by Zoom's CEO is not...
I feel like the article is really reaching to find hypocrisy or irony. Whether or not remote work is good has a myriad of opinions, but regardless, the opinion described by Zoom's CEO is not mutually exclusive with Zoom's existence as a product, as the article is really trying to imply.
Zoom was initially started as an augmentation of work and collaboration, not a replacement for it. Zoom existed far before the pandemic, when it was rare for white collar workforces to be fully remote. It is possible for zoom to exist and be useful as a product, and for the challenges the CEO describes to still exist when you do everything on Zoom.
Is he a hypocrite? Probably not. Is the situation ironic? Definitely! Despite the orginal intent, Zoom is now known as the software that makes wfh possible. I don't think it's necessarily makes...
Is he a hypocrite? Probably not. Is the situation ironic? Definitely!
Despite the orginal intent, Zoom is now known as the software that makes wfh possible. I don't think it's necessarily makes them a hypocrite, but it sure looks like the CEO doesn't believe in the company's main product.
Like if the CEO of McDonald's suddenly got on a health kick and insisted employees pack a healthy lunch instead of eating fast food. He's not wrong, and you can't eat burgers every meal, but it's still a weird look for the company.
Ironically (ha,) McDonald's did exactly that a decade ago. Yes, it is a weird look. But it seems like the outrage has more to do with how McDonalds is cartoonishly evil and generally deserves...
Ironically (ha,) McDonald's did exactly that a decade ago. Yes, it is a weird look. But it seems like the outrage has more to do with how McDonalds is cartoonishly evil and generally deserves criticism. The McDonald's situation is mostly laughable/awful because they don't pay their employees enough to afford decent food or healthy lifestyles, and have been negatively impacting the health of the US and the world for decades, not just because they're a company that sells burgers.
What I mean to say is, is it really that unreasonable for an "unhealthy" company to provide health tips to employees? Would it be ironic/hypocritical if an ice cream shop provided gym memberships to employees, encouraging them to enjoy ice cream as a treat in addition to regular exercise? As a more realistic example, many office jobs actually do provide such health benefits, but at the same time require their employees to sit for 8+ hours a day. Or they provide health portals with tips on how to lower blood pressure, while piling stressful workloads and expectations on employees.
I guess at the end of the day it's all a bit ironic, I just don't think the Zoom CEO has necessarily done or said anything wrong or unexpected here. But they should've leaned into it and announced publicly that they're trying some creative solutions to curb the challenges of fully remote work, instead of letting this leak as an internal communication. That's really the awkward part here, for me.
I feel like we should be holding companies more responsible for advising stress management while enforcing mandatory overtime, etc., because it's bullshit. It should be mocked at every...
I feel like we should be holding companies more responsible for advising stress management while enforcing mandatory overtime, etc., because it's bullshit. It should be mocked at every opportunity, and here's why:
Well, these companies in their infinite wisdom – Zoom included – have invested in real estate portfolios, for one.
Just like when people project, and lie, and act hypocritically, there is ulterior motive to these corporate decisions, in this case an attempt to protect their wallets. Just like the mandatory overtime. The bottom line is all that matters, and that attitude is currently destroying, among other things, the planet.
(I'm not trying to breathe fire at you, I just passionately hate corporate bullshittery. I enjoyed reading your comment and appreciate the chance to vent, i hope i don't sound angry at you)
You don't sound aggressive or rude at all. You're probably angry, but it doesn't seem like you're angry at me. Rather, you seem angry at many of the same things that upset me, and these are things...
You don't sound aggressive or rude at all. You're probably angry, but it doesn't seem like you're angry at me. Rather, you seem angry at many of the same things that upset me, and these are things that are reasonable for anyone to be angry at. In short - You're good, no worries.
Most of my comments about the tech industry (or capitalism in general) tend to be tinged with a level of slightly insufferable realism, pessimism, and/or nihilism. It's just how I am. And I don't take offense when people offer genuine counterpoints to my opinions.
Ultimately, Zoom, McDonald's, and ice cream shops can equally get fucked, as far as I'm concerned. I was just using them all in metaphors to explain how corporations can have many conflicting interests/missions/messages, without necessarily being inherently hypocritical, at least when applied to how we currently view and judge corporations.
I enjoyed reading and responding to your comment as well. Out of curiosity, are you new here? (You remind me of how cautious I was when I first visited here a few months ago, which is why I ask.)
I do really appreciate your clarification of good intent. But in general, you shouldn't need to worry too much about commenting here, as long as you're not being exceedingly rude, obtuse, or hateful. Which, as far as I can tell, you aren't. Go forth and comment/post respectfully!
Sure, we can all see it, but I don’t see irony as a reason to choose to do anything differently. Most of the time you can acknowledge it, people laugh, and you move on. It’s like noticing a pun....
Sure, we can all see it, but I don’t see irony as a reason to choose to do anything differently. Most of the time you can acknowledge it, people laugh, and you move on. It’s like noticing a pun. Life is funny sometimes.
The Register has so many of us tech nerds on there that are all collectively asking 'Why?' to the big push on Return to the Office. I've said this elsewhere. I'm Senior Leadership and we've heard...
I feel like the article is really reaching to find hypocrisy or irony. Whether or not remote work is good has a myriad of opinions, but regardless, the opinion described by Zoom's CEO is not mutually exclusive with Zoom's existence as a product, as the article is really trying to imply.
The Register has so many of us tech nerds on there that are all collectively asking 'Why?' to the big push on Return to the Office.
I've said this elsewhere. I'm Senior Leadership and we've heard rumblings for my place, but they can't mandate it without having an exodus of staff that manage some very interdependent systems. So you encourage flexibility.
Executive leadership attests the value of in-person interactions, and intangibles of face to face. You could swap their arguments for business casual attire. The fact is, they want control.
Executive leadership attests the value of in-person interactions, and intangibles of face to face.
You could swap their arguments for business casual attire. The fact is, they want control.
We've all read articles that describe how psychopathy and narcissism are vastly over-represented among corporate leadership. Yet often we fail to make the connection to how those dark triad...
Exemplary
The fact is, they want control.
We've all read articles that describe how psychopathy and narcissism are vastly over-represented among corporate leadership. Yet often we fail to make the connection to how those dark triad personality traits are manifested in actual corporate policies and actions. I think there is always a strong bias to think the best of people and to not seek explanations that would cast anyone in a negative light.
But let's be real. Most sane, well-adjusted people not only don't reach the levels of wealth found in major corporate leadership, but they actually don't want that level of wealth. Most sane people, if they manage to build a nest egg of a few million, will just retire early. They have hobbies, family, and friends, and they have an endless list of things they would rather do than work.
So what does that say of someone that has millions, earns millions a year, but still insists on working? Why are they still working? Now, there may be some that actually do it out of some misguided sense of saving or bettering the world. But really, if you are working at a for-profit company legally required to maximize shareholder value, you are in the wrong place if you want to save the world.
I think the simple truth is that people get in and stay in corporate leadership, especially at big companies, because they truly, in their heart of hearts, love nothing more than manipulating and controlling other human beings. They don't work for salary; the salary is just a bonus. Their real reason for coming into work everyday is that they love the feeling of having power over other human beings. It's the same kind of personality that makes a serial killer abduct people and chain them in their basement. Above all else, they desire power.
And that's why upper leadership fights harder than anyone else against work from home. Middle management is mixed; there are plenty of middle managers who have no problem productively managing a remote team. But the higher you climb the ladder, the greater the share of psychopaths and narcissists. The greater the salary, the more likely the people working for that salary are doing it primarily out of a sick desire to control other human beings.
Now, I'm sure none of these leaders actually think this explicitly. They judge things based on their gut feelings, and they'll spat platitudes about collaboration, corporate culture, etc. But ultimately what it all boils down to is control. The workplace simply feels off to these people if they can't walk around a company and see with their own eyes the hundreds of people who have to obey their every word and whim. They get deep narcissistic pleasure out of completely controlling large numbers of people.
We've all read about studies that document the high rates of psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism among corporate leaders. But we're always hesitant to really follow that line of thinking and ask what real effects it has. But with the irrational fight against work from home, I think it's appropriate to ask if we're just seeing an inevitable consequence of the high level of psychopaths among corporate leaders. To me, it seems the explanation is pretty fair in this case. People who live to have power over others don't want to lose that power. A large portion of CEOs are literal psychopaths. They crave power over people, and that is why they oppose work from home. You can show them facts and figures showing wfh increases the bottom line, but it doesn't matter. They are psychopaths, in the literal, clinical sense of the word. They don't care about money; they care about power. Money is just a way of getting more power. If increasing profits means less narcissistic supply for leadership, they will willingly take a hit to profits. Power, praise, and subjugation of others comes first; profits come second.
Also, we shouldn't be hesitant to consider the motivation of sexual harassment and assault. If the Me Too movement showed us anything, it's that board rooms are filled with men who want to use their positions to coerce sex out of their subordinates. Really, for some of them, that sexual power is probably the main reason they bother to go into work at all. If your primary motivation for not retiring is that you want to be able to coerce sex out of people, then you will understandably be opposed to work from home.
I have mixed feelings on your argument. I think it's absolutely true that many top executives have dark triad traits in abundance that advantage them in the workplace. On the other hand, I've met...
I have mixed feelings on your argument. I think it's absolutely true that many top executives have dark triad traits in abundance that advantage them in the workplace.
On the other hand, I've met some legitimately kind C-suite types that are simply workaholics. They got promoted because they love 60 hour work weeks and are extremely good at their jobs. Their biggest issue is not understanding why the average person doesn't love working as much as them.
I don't want to speak for the parent poster, but I would say that while you are technically correct, the spirit of what @isleepinahammock said absolutely is a reflection of reality. There is no...
I don't want to speak for the parent poster, but I would say that while you are technically correct, the spirit of what @isleepinahammock said absolutely is a reflection of reality.
There is no law requiring companies to maximize shareholder value. But when shareholders can (and do) sue the management of the company for failing to maximize shareholder value, then the legal landscape the company operates in very much does require them to do so.
I don't remember the exact details, but this argument usually points to a case where the board of a company was sued by the shareholders for taking actions that benefited the workers and customers...
I don't remember the exact details, but this argument usually points to a case where the board of a company was sued by the shareholders for taking actions that benefited the workers and customers but made them less money.
I don't doubt that many corporate executives are more or less exactly the kind of people you describe, and I certainly have no desire to defend late-stage capitalism in general here, but I have to...
I don't doubt that many corporate executives are more or less exactly the kind of people you describe, and I certainly have no desire to defend late-stage capitalism in general here, but I have to say I share @Minori's misgivings about your argument. Respectfully, from where I'm standing, it seems like an awful lot of conjecture with very little to back it up, and I find it concerning that it's been "exemplary" labeled.
This is certainly the case for many people, but there are plenty of individual contributors in technical roles with retirement money that genuinely love getting to solve problems at work each day....
they truly, in their heart of hearts, love nothing more than manipulating and controlling other human beings
This is certainly the case for many people, but there are plenty of individual contributors in technical roles with retirement money that genuinely love getting to solve problems at work each day. I think they are evidence that many others in leadership roles work because they enjoy leading, and that is not so much a matter of control and manipulation.
Another perspective is why would adults have children that are expensive and full of risk? Certainly one explanation is that parents want to manipulate and control their children in an attempt to play gods. This is definitely true for some parents, but I don’t think most and certainly lot all.
I think it's probably a bit more nuanced than that. But there's definitely a control element to a lot of behaviours. Many people do not function in environments where a heirarchy does not give...
I think it's probably a bit more nuanced than that. But there's definitely a control element to a lot of behaviours.
Many people do not function in environments where a heirarchy does not give them purpose / orders, it's ridiculous.
No, I don't. I think we have intrinsic and extrinsic motivators. It's the antiwork meme of "If you got paid £250K to flip burgers, would you?" and the subsequent responses that this relates to....
What would be the point of sentience if we all agreed on the same thing and moved in the same direction. That's the joy of human consciousness, we all have our own opinions and direction. Why the fuck would anyone want to work on someone else's house, or to produce someone else's food or to build necessary widget#3720 for the day? Do you think anyone just wakes up with that motivation?
No, I don't. I think we have intrinsic and extrinsic motivators. It's the antiwork meme of "If you got paid £250K to flip burgers, would you?" and the subsequent responses that this relates to.
Work for people needs to make sense to their intrinsic values / needs. If you're good at problem solving, you'll probably end up in tech. If you're a people person... HR / Medical etc.
Proper leadership is the skill that aligns our disarray towards a singular goal. It convinces those of us that aren't naturally inclined to do whatever, to be inclined to do that whatever with however many other people are necessary to get that whatever done. Yes, we need hierarchy and orders/direction for that, that's not unusual. Shit we might even need a little control exerted to make it happen.
I agree entirely. Leadership is just that, leading. That means demystifying and generally pointing folks in the right direction and supporting when needed.
And that's just regular people with an inclination to do something, before I start dog whistling about those that don't appear to be motivated to do anything at all. At that point, yes, a little control can be necessary.
No dogwhistle here bud. I'm staunchly a fan of the quiet quitting movement (Literally just resigned from awful leadership this morning!)
What I was intimating in my rather glib comment, was how people aren't training to think about what THEY want to achieve / do.
Look at it this way. In school, you're taught to sit down, shut up and listen to the person in front of you and do what they tell you. In work, it's VERY similar (Hell, we also do it at night with the TV).
So few of us actually go "I really don't want to live like that, I want to do x, y or z" and then go and do it. I know so many people who are living to someone elses lifescript and they're bitter, resentful and depressed beyond measure. All because they just do not know what they want out of life, because they've not been given instruction. So they listen to others about how they should live to be happy / productive / what have you.
I am a person who wakes up every morning wishing it weren't massively financially irresponsible to build a house, cook food, or build necessary widget#3720 so as to see my friends, family, and...
I am a person who wakes up every morning wishing it weren't massively financially irresponsible to build a house, cook food, or build necessary widget#3720 so as to see my friends, family, and local community prosper. Presumably people who volunteer on the regular have similar motivations, but I can't read minds. I also have no desire to be compelled to work by the threat of destitution, or by having a leader align me towards their personal goals.
Dunno how many other people are like that, though.
(edit) Genuinely not trying to be a jerk with this response, btw; I'm actually trying to provide a counterexample. I don't know how common it is to just want to see other people succeed (and not suffer personally greatly to do so).
They have lots of money in corporate real estate, because pre-pandemic it was an incredibly reliable investment. They are tap dancing around saying they made a bad bet, and they need us to...
They have lots of money in corporate real estate, because pre-pandemic it was an incredibly reliable investment.
They are tap dancing around saying they made a bad bet, and they need us to subsidize it.
Yes, unfortunately the original article is paywalled and the only article I see has a similar lazy take. One thing I wonder about is if there are any companies that are trying to reimagine...
Yes, unfortunately the original article is paywalled and the only article I see has a similar lazy take.
One thing I wonder about is if there are any companies that are trying to reimagine in-person work to make it better than before? Because the way companies were doing it was often pretty bad.
The best in-person experience I had was before Google when I worked for a startup that was all-in on extreme programming. Here’s an blog post about the team room we had.
The startup didn’t last long since it never got customers, so it’s not all great. In a sense it was all fake; a real company with real customers would have different issues. But we did enjoy writing code together and I learned a lot. I think the lessons I’d draw from it are:
You want people actually working on the same project together in the same room.
You don’t want anyone who doesn’t need to be there in the room.
This is of course what we do for meetings. It’s also common for people to repurpose a meeting room as a “war room” when they want to get stuff done together.
I think maybe a modern office space should just have meeting rooms of various sizes, including single-person booths for making calls? Some of these rooms might get reserved for long periods because a team is doing a longer-term project together. And maybe there’s a nice cafe for hanging out between meetings, so you’re not cooped up in the same room all the time.
This assumes the whole team is structured with collaboration in mind. Many teams I was on would effectively divide the work into a lot of one-person projects, in which case you don’t need to be in the same room together.
On that XP team, we were all there because we wanted to give this new XP thing a try. I haven’t seen it work well when you take an existing team and try to change its culture. You want volunteers, not draftees.
It seems like so far these top-down initiatives haven’t been working all that well. Maybe new companies will do better?
That card board is a thing of beauty. Although I a generally a proponent of remote work (the first rule of introverts club is there is no introvert's club), physical boards like this are one of...
That card board is a thing of beauty. Although I a generally a proponent of remote work (the first rule of introverts club is there is no introvert's club), physical boards like this are one of the things that I think just work way better than something like JIRA. With JIRA, you just can't see everything at once, and the physicality of manipulating the cards is very mentally stimulating.
Although I generally regard JIRA as the least bad of a universe of bad tools, it does have some very powerful planning tools that I have seen do some very nice looking large scale plans when the tool is harnessed by an expert user. I think that capability is a trap though. I think it makes people think they're in control of this massive development effort, when the reality in that you've let the thing get too big and lost your focus.
Honestly, I think replicating the big board for remote workers off their work screens would be a great improvement. Everybody gets a projector to throw the board up on the wall, and you dress up the UI to show recent movements. Seeing the realtime changes made by others would probably be enough to stimulate conversations in slack (or impromptu zoom discussions).
If we ever get a version of the hololens that is high res enough to replace your monitors, this would be a natural extension of that tech as well.
Zoom/video calls are like the fast food of collaboration. If the McDonald’s CEO told me that the Big Mac was not a complete diet, that wouldn’t diminish the value of it at all to me. Video calls...
Zoom/video calls are like the fast food of collaboration. If the McDonald’s CEO told me that the Big Mac was not a complete diet, that wouldn’t diminish the value of it at all to me.
Video calls will always be required for cross city communication, sales calls, etc.
But I agree with the CEO that video calls are not at all a replacement for face to face interactions. If they were, we would shut down all schools and do it all online, we would close all pubs, close all public spaces, the flights industry would be crippled. We would all just sit inside at home and video call everyone.
Maybe one day VR will become realistic enough that you really do feel like you are in the room with people, but it’s not anywhere near there yet.
Horseshit. If the case is video calls are ineffective and don't foster the right productivity. Then all off shore teams should be eliminated. This is the gilded class protecting real estate...
Horseshit. If the case is video calls are ineffective and don't foster the right productivity. Then all off shore teams should be eliminated. This is the gilded class protecting real estate investments.
If the offshore teams cost 1/5th of the local teams, it outweighs the performance penalty of being remote. And in my experience, the offshore teams tend to all be in the same office together and...
If the offshore teams cost 1/5th of the local teams, it outweighs the performance penalty of being remote. And in my experience, the offshore teams tend to all be in the same office together and collaborate in person.
This sounds like the mythical man-hour. If you reduce costs by 80% but get a crappy product, then you have a crappy product and an effective 5x budget increase won't fix that.
If the offshore teams cost 1/5th of the local teams, it outweighs the performance penalty of being remote.
This sounds like the mythical man-hour. If you reduce costs by 80% but get a crappy product, then you have a crappy product and an effective 5x budget increase won't fix that.
Thank you! I've been ranting all over this thread. They need to prop up the commute & office culture. I'm sure prepackaged & fast foods, big luxury cars and gas stations desperately want us back,...
This is the gilded class protecting real estate investments.
Thank you! I've been ranting all over this thread. They need to prop up the commute & office culture. I'm sure prepackaged & fast foods, big luxury cars and gas stations desperately want us back, too.
"In our early days, we all knew each other," Yuan said. "Over the past several years, we've hired so many new 'Zoomies' that it's really hard to build trust."
"Quite often, you come up with great ideas, but when we are all on Zoom, it's really hard," he explained. "We cannot have a great conversation. We cannot debate each other well because everyone tends to be very friendly when you join a Zoom call."
Google CEO Sundar Pichai recently lamented that the company's cloud unit offices were like a "ghost town" so he enforced a desk-sharing scheme to make the team feel the warm and fuzzies.
There's also what Microsoft described as "productivity paranoia" – the panic that must set in when every movement of employees cannot be micromanaged into oblivion.
But there's also the power trip. Remarkably, a recent survey of company execs revealed that most mandated returns to the office were based on something as ironclad as "gut feeling," and that 80 percent actually regret ever making the decision.
The irony of the situation still seems distant to the CEO. According to the leaked meeting on August 3, Yuan told employees that Zoom the product does not allow Zoom the company to "build as much trust or be as innovative as in the office."
He raises some good points. Transitioning from in-office to remote was easy after working with the same team for an extended period. There was a lot of existing rapport, we were acquainted with...
He raises some good points. Transitioning from in-office to remote was easy after working with the same team for an extended period. There was a lot of existing rapport, we were acquainted with each others skills, communications styles, and preferences, and for better or worse, I think there is a greater degree of trust apportioned to people that you have an existing relationship in meatspace.
Since then, I went to a company that declared itself remote-first in the initial stages of the pandemic. It was a nicely-oiled machine, initially, as these were mainly folks who worked together in person, and were just transitioning to remote. But over the last two years, we've seen most of this veteran presence leave the company. In their place, we've struggled as an organization to build the same sense of camaraderie with the new folks. Onboarding in particular is much harder.
In a perfect world, I'd love to be able to work in person for one, maybe two days a week. But teams are now geographically distributed, so unless these companies pull a Grindr (which imo is actually more of a backdoor layoff + union-busting) and force workers into specific geos, it's not a particularly scalable solution.
My experience has been exactly the same as yours. We had a tightly knit team, then COVID happened, we had some churn and our team felt less close than before. Our company has no mandates (and has...
My experience has been exactly the same as yours. We had a tightly knit team, then COVID happened, we had some churn and our team felt less close than before. Our company has no mandates (and has declared many times that hybrid work is there to stay, since we also had hybrid options before COVID), but our team has decided to come in 2 days a week. Not mandatory - some come in once, some only come in every couple of weeks. But most of our team is there 2 days a week.
Tomorrow, we've all blocked our calendars to go out to lunch. The company will pay for it (we have a budget for team activities and such). Sometimes, we'll do happy hours or swing clubs at TopGolf or whatever. These are all things that cost the company relatively little, and go a long way towards reminding everyone that at the other end of a chat terminal or conference call is a real person with a life and feelings.
Does your company do any in person events or try to hold paid social time during work hours? I agree that it's difficult to replicate the trust and rapport building of working together in person...
Does your company do any in person events or try to hold paid social time during work hours? I agree that it's difficult to replicate the trust and rapport building of working together in person and I'm wondering if there has been anything that you have seen that has worked.
They used to, but it's too expensive to provide transportation & lodging, especially given that they've shifted a lot of engineering overseas to contract positions based out of Eastern Europe....
They used to, but it's too expensive to provide transportation & lodging, especially given that they've shifted a lot of engineering overseas to contract positions based out of Eastern Europe. Which I suppose is another major negative with remote work; companies tend not to have any particular loyalties to domestic workers.
I do have a handful of coworkers here in Portland, and we try to get together for drinks every couple weeks which helps me feel connected.
I feel like the article is really reaching to find hypocrisy or irony. Whether or not remote work is good has a myriad of opinions, but regardless, the opinion described by Zoom's CEO is not mutually exclusive with Zoom's existence as a product, as the article is really trying to imply.
Zoom was initially started as an augmentation of work and collaboration, not a replacement for it. Zoom existed far before the pandemic, when it was rare for white collar workforces to be fully remote. It is possible for zoom to exist and be useful as a product, and for the challenges the CEO describes to still exist when you do everything on Zoom.
Is he a hypocrite? Probably not. Is the situation ironic? Definitely!
Despite the orginal intent, Zoom is now known as the software that makes wfh possible. I don't think it's necessarily makes them a hypocrite, but it sure looks like the CEO doesn't believe in the company's main product.
Like if the CEO of McDonald's suddenly got on a health kick and insisted employees pack a healthy lunch instead of eating fast food. He's not wrong, and you can't eat burgers every meal, but it's still a weird look for the company.
Ironically (ha,) McDonald's did exactly that a decade ago. Yes, it is a weird look. But it seems like the outrage has more to do with how McDonalds is cartoonishly evil and generally deserves criticism. The McDonald's situation is mostly laughable/awful because they don't pay their employees enough to afford decent food or healthy lifestyles, and have been negatively impacting the health of the US and the world for decades, not just because they're a company that sells burgers.
What I mean to say is, is it really that unreasonable for an "unhealthy" company to provide health tips to employees? Would it be ironic/hypocritical if an ice cream shop provided gym memberships to employees, encouraging them to enjoy ice cream as a treat in addition to regular exercise? As a more realistic example, many office jobs actually do provide such health benefits, but at the same time require their employees to sit for 8+ hours a day. Or they provide health portals with tips on how to lower blood pressure, while piling stressful workloads and expectations on employees.
I guess at the end of the day it's all a bit ironic, I just don't think the Zoom CEO has necessarily done or said anything wrong or unexpected here. But they should've leaned into it and announced publicly that they're trying some creative solutions to curb the challenges of fully remote work, instead of letting this leak as an internal communication. That's really the awkward part here, for me.
I feel like we should be holding companies more responsible for advising stress management while enforcing mandatory overtime, etc., because it's bullshit. It should be mocked at every opportunity, and here's why:
Just like when people project, and lie, and act hypocritically, there is ulterior motive to these corporate decisions, in this case an attempt to protect their wallets. Just like the mandatory overtime. The bottom line is all that matters, and that attitude is currently destroying, among other things, the planet.
(I'm not trying to breathe fire at you, I just passionately hate corporate bullshittery. I enjoyed reading your comment and appreciate the chance to vent, i hope i don't sound angry at you)
You don't sound aggressive or rude at all. You're probably angry, but it doesn't seem like you're angry at me. Rather, you seem angry at many of the same things that upset me, and these are things that are reasonable for anyone to be angry at. In short - You're good, no worries.
Most of my comments about the tech industry (or capitalism in general) tend to be tinged with a level of slightly insufferable realism, pessimism, and/or nihilism. It's just how I am. And I don't take offense when people offer genuine counterpoints to my opinions.
Ultimately, Zoom, McDonald's, and ice cream shops can equally get fucked, as far as I'm concerned. I was just using them all in metaphors to explain how corporations can have many conflicting interests/missions/messages, without necessarily being inherently hypocritical, at least when applied to how we currently view and judge corporations.
I enjoyed reading and responding to your comment as well. Out of curiosity, are you new here? (You remind me of how cautious I was when I first visited here a few months ago, which is why I ask.)
I do really appreciate your clarification of good intent. But in general, you shouldn't need to worry too much about commenting here, as long as you're not being exceedingly rude, obtuse, or hateful. Which, as far as I can tell, you aren't. Go forth and comment/post respectfully!
Sure, we can all see it, but I don’t see irony as a reason to choose to do anything differently. Most of the time you can acknowledge it, people laugh, and you move on. It’s like noticing a pun. Life is funny sometimes.
The Register has so many of us tech nerds on there that are all collectively asking 'Why?' to the big push on Return to the Office.
I've said this elsewhere. I'm Senior Leadership and we've heard rumblings for my place, but they can't mandate it without having an exodus of staff that manage some very interdependent systems. So you encourage flexibility.
Not that many listen.
Executive leadership attests the value of in-person interactions, and intangibles of face to face.
You could swap their arguments for business casual attire. The fact is, they want control.
We've all read articles that describe how psychopathy and narcissism are vastly over-represented among corporate leadership. Yet often we fail to make the connection to how those dark triad personality traits are manifested in actual corporate policies and actions. I think there is always a strong bias to think the best of people and to not seek explanations that would cast anyone in a negative light.
But let's be real. Most sane, well-adjusted people not only don't reach the levels of wealth found in major corporate leadership, but they actually don't want that level of wealth. Most sane people, if they manage to build a nest egg of a few million, will just retire early. They have hobbies, family, and friends, and they have an endless list of things they would rather do than work.
So what does that say of someone that has millions, earns millions a year, but still insists on working? Why are they still working? Now, there may be some that actually do it out of some misguided sense of saving or bettering the world. But really, if you are working at a for-profit company legally required to maximize shareholder value, you are in the wrong place if you want to save the world.
I think the simple truth is that people get in and stay in corporate leadership, especially at big companies, because they truly, in their heart of hearts, love nothing more than manipulating and controlling other human beings. They don't work for salary; the salary is just a bonus. Their real reason for coming into work everyday is that they love the feeling of having power over other human beings. It's the same kind of personality that makes a serial killer abduct people and chain them in their basement. Above all else, they desire power.
And that's why upper leadership fights harder than anyone else against work from home. Middle management is mixed; there are plenty of middle managers who have no problem productively managing a remote team. But the higher you climb the ladder, the greater the share of psychopaths and narcissists. The greater the salary, the more likely the people working for that salary are doing it primarily out of a sick desire to control other human beings.
Now, I'm sure none of these leaders actually think this explicitly. They judge things based on their gut feelings, and they'll spat platitudes about collaboration, corporate culture, etc. But ultimately what it all boils down to is control. The workplace simply feels off to these people if they can't walk around a company and see with their own eyes the hundreds of people who have to obey their every word and whim. They get deep narcissistic pleasure out of completely controlling large numbers of people.
We've all read about studies that document the high rates of psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism among corporate leaders. But we're always hesitant to really follow that line of thinking and ask what real effects it has. But with the irrational fight against work from home, I think it's appropriate to ask if we're just seeing an inevitable consequence of the high level of psychopaths among corporate leaders. To me, it seems the explanation is pretty fair in this case. People who live to have power over others don't want to lose that power. A large portion of CEOs are literal psychopaths. They crave power over people, and that is why they oppose work from home. You can show them facts and figures showing wfh increases the bottom line, but it doesn't matter. They are psychopaths, in the literal, clinical sense of the word. They don't care about money; they care about power. Money is just a way of getting more power. If increasing profits means less narcissistic supply for leadership, they will willingly take a hit to profits. Power, praise, and subjugation of others comes first; profits come second.
Also, we shouldn't be hesitant to consider the motivation of sexual harassment and assault. If the Me Too movement showed us anything, it's that board rooms are filled with men who want to use their positions to coerce sex out of their subordinates. Really, for some of them, that sexual power is probably the main reason they bother to go into work at all. If your primary motivation for not retiring is that you want to be able to coerce sex out of people, then you will understandably be opposed to work from home.
I have mixed feelings on your argument. I think it's absolutely true that many top executives have dark triad traits in abundance that advantage them in the workplace.
On the other hand, I've met some legitimately kind C-suite types that are simply workaholics. They got promoted because they love 60 hour work weeks and are extremely good at their jobs. Their biggest issue is not understanding why the average person doesn't love working as much as them.
The existence of a legal requirement to maximize shareholder value is a myth.
I don't want to speak for the parent poster, but I would say that while you are technically correct, the spirit of what @isleepinahammock said absolutely is a reflection of reality.
There is no law requiring companies to maximize shareholder value. But when shareholders can (and do) sue the management of the company for failing to maximize shareholder value, then the legal landscape the company operates in very much does require them to do so.
I don't remember the exact details, but this argument usually points to a case where the board of a company was sued by the shareholders for taking actions that benefited the workers and customers but made them less money.
Dodge v. Ford Motor Co.
I don't doubt that many corporate executives are more or less exactly the kind of people you describe, and I certainly have no desire to defend late-stage capitalism in general here, but I have to say I share @Minori's misgivings about your argument. Respectfully, from where I'm standing, it seems like an awful lot of conjecture with very little to back it up, and I find it concerning that it's been "exemplary" labeled.
This is certainly the case for many people, but there are plenty of individual contributors in technical roles with retirement money that genuinely love getting to solve problems at work each day. I think they are evidence that many others in leadership roles work because they enjoy leading, and that is not so much a matter of control and manipulation.
Another perspective is why would adults have children that are expensive and full of risk? Certainly one explanation is that parents want to manipulate and control their children in an attempt to play gods. This is definitely true for some parents, but I don’t think most and certainly lot all.
I think it's probably a bit more nuanced than that. But there's definitely a control element to a lot of behaviours.
Many people do not function in environments where a heirarchy does not give them purpose / orders, it's ridiculous.
No, I don't. I think we have intrinsic and extrinsic motivators. It's the antiwork meme of "If you got paid £250K to flip burgers, would you?" and the subsequent responses that this relates to.
Work for people needs to make sense to their intrinsic values / needs. If you're good at problem solving, you'll probably end up in tech. If you're a people person... HR / Medical etc.
I agree entirely. Leadership is just that, leading. That means demystifying and generally pointing folks in the right direction and supporting when needed.
No dogwhistle here bud. I'm staunchly a fan of the quiet quitting movement (Literally just resigned from awful leadership this morning!)
What I was intimating in my rather glib comment, was how people aren't training to think about what THEY want to achieve / do.
Look at it this way. In school, you're taught to sit down, shut up and listen to the person in front of you and do what they tell you. In work, it's VERY similar (Hell, we also do it at night with the TV).
So few of us actually go "I really don't want to live like that, I want to do x, y or z" and then go and do it. I know so many people who are living to someone elses lifescript and they're bitter, resentful and depressed beyond measure. All because they just do not know what they want out of life, because they've not been given instruction. So they listen to others about how they should live to be happy / productive / what have you.
I am a person who wakes up every morning wishing it weren't massively financially irresponsible to build a house, cook food, or build necessary widget#3720 so as to see my friends, family, and local community prosper. Presumably people who volunteer on the regular have similar motivations, but I can't read minds. I also have no desire to be compelled to work by the threat of destitution, or by having a leader align me towards their personal goals.
Dunno how many other people are like that, though.
(edit) Genuinely not trying to be a jerk with this response, btw; I'm actually trying to provide a counterexample. I don't know how common it is to just want to see other people succeed (and not suffer personally greatly to do so).
They have lots of money in corporate real estate, because pre-pandemic it was an incredibly reliable investment.
They are tap dancing around saying they made a bad bet, and they need us to subsidize it.
Yes, unfortunately the original article is paywalled and the only article I see has a similar lazy take.
One thing I wonder about is if there are any companies that are trying to reimagine in-person work to make it better than before? Because the way companies were doing it was often pretty bad.
The best in-person experience I had was before Google when I worked for a startup that was all-in on extreme programming. Here’s an blog post about the team room we had.
The startup didn’t last long since it never got customers, so it’s not all great. In a sense it was all fake; a real company with real customers would have different issues. But we did enjoy writing code together and I learned a lot. I think the lessons I’d draw from it are:
This is of course what we do for meetings. It’s also common for people to repurpose a meeting room as a “war room” when they want to get stuff done together.
I think maybe a modern office space should just have meeting rooms of various sizes, including single-person booths for making calls? Some of these rooms might get reserved for long periods because a team is doing a longer-term project together. And maybe there’s a nice cafe for hanging out between meetings, so you’re not cooped up in the same room all the time.
This assumes the whole team is structured with collaboration in mind. Many teams I was on would effectively divide the work into a lot of one-person projects, in which case you don’t need to be in the same room together.
On that XP team, we were all there because we wanted to give this new XP thing a try. I haven’t seen it work well when you take an existing team and try to change its culture. You want volunteers, not draftees.
It seems like so far these top-down initiatives haven’t been working all that well. Maybe new companies will do better?
That card board is a thing of beauty. Although I a generally a proponent of remote work (the first rule of introverts club is there is no introvert's club), physical boards like this are one of the things that I think just work way better than something like JIRA. With JIRA, you just can't see everything at once, and the physicality of manipulating the cards is very mentally stimulating.
Although I generally regard JIRA as the least bad of a universe of bad tools, it does have some very powerful planning tools that I have seen do some very nice looking large scale plans when the tool is harnessed by an expert user. I think that capability is a trap though. I think it makes people think they're in control of this massive development effort, when the reality in that you've let the thing get too big and lost your focus.
Honestly, I think replicating the big board for remote workers off their work screens would be a great improvement. Everybody gets a projector to throw the board up on the wall, and you dress up the UI to show recent movements. Seeing the realtime changes made by others would probably be enough to stimulate conversations in slack (or impromptu zoom discussions).
If we ever get a version of the hololens that is high res enough to replace your monitors, this would be a natural extension of that tech as well.
Zoom/video calls are like the fast food of collaboration. If the McDonald’s CEO told me that the Big Mac was not a complete diet, that wouldn’t diminish the value of it at all to me.
Video calls will always be required for cross city communication, sales calls, etc.
But I agree with the CEO that video calls are not at all a replacement for face to face interactions. If they were, we would shut down all schools and do it all online, we would close all pubs, close all public spaces, the flights industry would be crippled. We would all just sit inside at home and video call everyone.
Maybe one day VR will become realistic enough that you really do feel like you are in the room with people, but it’s not anywhere near there yet.
What’s the opposite of a Self-aware Wolf? I feel like we need a new meme for this…
Oblivious fish?
I think it's both ironic and hypocritical, more so the former than the latter.
Horseshit. If the case is video calls are ineffective and don't foster the right productivity. Then all off shore teams should be eliminated. This is the gilded class protecting real estate investments.
If the offshore teams cost 1/5th of the local teams, it outweighs the performance penalty of being remote. And in my experience, the offshore teams tend to all be in the same office together and collaborate in person.
This sounds like the mythical man-hour. If you reduce costs by 80% but get a crappy product, then you have a crappy product and an effective 5x budget increase won't fix that.
Thank you! I've been ranting all over this thread. They need to prop up the commute & office culture. I'm sure prepackaged & fast foods, big luxury cars and gas stations desperately want us back, too.
fuck em
He raises some good points. Transitioning from in-office to remote was easy after working with the same team for an extended period. There was a lot of existing rapport, we were acquainted with each others skills, communications styles, and preferences, and for better or worse, I think there is a greater degree of trust apportioned to people that you have an existing relationship in meatspace.
Since then, I went to a company that declared itself remote-first in the initial stages of the pandemic. It was a nicely-oiled machine, initially, as these were mainly folks who worked together in person, and were just transitioning to remote. But over the last two years, we've seen most of this veteran presence leave the company. In their place, we've struggled as an organization to build the same sense of camaraderie with the new folks. Onboarding in particular is much harder.
In a perfect world, I'd love to be able to work in person for one, maybe two days a week. But teams are now geographically distributed, so unless these companies pull a Grindr (which imo is actually more of a backdoor layoff + union-busting) and force workers into specific geos, it's not a particularly scalable solution.
My experience has been exactly the same as yours. We had a tightly knit team, then COVID happened, we had some churn and our team felt less close than before. Our company has no mandates (and has declared many times that hybrid work is there to stay, since we also had hybrid options before COVID), but our team has decided to come in 2 days a week. Not mandatory - some come in once, some only come in every couple of weeks. But most of our team is there 2 days a week.
Tomorrow, we've all blocked our calendars to go out to lunch. The company will pay for it (we have a budget for team activities and such). Sometimes, we'll do happy hours or swing clubs at TopGolf or whatever. These are all things that cost the company relatively little, and go a long way towards reminding everyone that at the other end of a chat terminal or conference call is a real person with a life and feelings.
Does your company do any in person events or try to hold paid social time during work hours? I agree that it's difficult to replicate the trust and rapport building of working together in person and I'm wondering if there has been anything that you have seen that has worked.
They used to, but it's too expensive to provide transportation & lodging, especially given that they've shifted a lot of engineering overseas to contract positions based out of Eastern Europe. Which I suppose is another major negative with remote work; companies tend not to have any particular loyalties to domestic workers.
I do have a handful of coworkers here in Portland, and we try to get together for drinks every couple weeks which helps me feel connected.
"Eat you own dogfood" not a buzzword for techbros anymore, I guess?