[HN Gopher] The work-from-home future is destroying bosses' brains ___________________________________________________________________ The work-from-home future is destroying bosses' brains Author : zikduruqe Score : 168 points Date : 2021-06-10 15:38 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (ez.substack.com) (TXT) w3m dump (ez.substack.com) | whiddershins wrote: | This article presents such a dark take on the employer employee | relationship that I can't tell if I am truly blessed for the jobs | I've had, or this person has a distorted view of incentives and | motivations. | | I really can't tell. | haskellandchill wrote: | You're truly blessed! | endymi0n wrote: | So yes, as a "boss", the work-from-home future is definitely and | absolutely destroying my brain, but I think the whole discussion | around control in the article completely misses my point. I | couldn't care less about control and never cared about seat-in- | the-ass time before. | | But as an engineer become manager, I can absolutely feel both | sides here: | | While everything development is massively more chill remote (no | interruptions and hey, just go fill your dishwasher while stuff | compiles), everything about managing remotely completely sucks | for me. | | Videocalls. Whiteboarding. Interviewing. Strategic work. Reading | emotions and connecting to people. What was a matter of just | getting six people in a war room for a week and getting that hard | problem done now takes eternities and every meeting is an energy | hog. | | Honestly, I really enjoyed being a leader for a technology | organization, but right now, I absolutely hate it. There seem to | be others who cope better, but it's certainly not for me. | | I'm pretty curious on how all of this will turn out. | zippergz wrote: | This is a great point. For the most part, I love working from | home, and will never go back to an office if I can help it. But | I completely agree that these aspects of the job are much | harder, and the perspective of someone who has never had to do | them is going to miss some important things. | CoastalCoder wrote: | I'm curious if/how this could be addressed with better | collaboration systems. | | E.g., suppose everyone's WFH office had a Google Jamboard and | high-quality videoconferencing system. | | If it addressed your concerns and per-employee cost was $10k | initial + $5k/year, I would think it's still a win given the | typical total-comp cost of a U.S.-based software developer. | auiya wrote: | > What was a matter of just getting six people in a war room | for a week and getting that hard problem done | | As a person who at a previous job was often pulled into said | "war rooms", we almost never "got that hard problem done", but | we did always make management feel good about not being able to | fully solve hard problems. Mostly these "huddle-work" scenarios | created more problems (long term) than they solved, because | people weren't motivated to solve the problem, they were | motivated to leave the war room. I do my best work when I'm not | constantly distracted by others, but many managers simply can't | understand this and instead hamstring their employees by having | "war rooms" and white-boarding sessions and stand-ups and deep- | dives and all the other nonsensical ways of preventing people | from actually focusing and accomplishing a task. Good riddance | to the on-location office and all the hot garbo that comes with | it; the rest of us will be quietly humming away, getting tasks | done and solving major problems without such managerial | hindrances. | janee wrote: | I agree with "war rooms" not being as effective...but | whiteboards, standups and deep dives personally can be | helpful. | | I think the key thing for me is that I never force people to | sit in on these. | | When an employee starts a large piece of work they don't | understand that I feel have some knowledge on. I ask if they | would like to whiteboard a solution with me...or deep dive | something in the code, or do daily standups just to talk | about w/e is on their mind | | Doing these remotely is totally fine, but I do feel these | activities...or atleast whiteboarding and deep diving is | nicer in person for me | fastasucan wrote: | I'm at least 50% convinced that there is a natural selection | where managers are the people who like that stuff but people | who stay developers hate it. I totally agree with you, from | the moment I step into one of these rooms with my laptop in | hand I just want to get out of there and back to my chair, my | monitors and time to think things through. | mschuster91 wrote: | "war rooms" are excellent in three cases: | | 1) creative brainstorming (ux, ui, branding, early | architectural decisions) to ensure everyone can present and | validate their ideas, and people are more on board with | decisions as they saw democratic backing (or, at the very | least, feel that objections they raise were heard!) | | 2) bringing staff that would normally be spread across | multiple buildings and units together - the bigger the org | and the more stakeholders involved, the more important a | common space for (at least) the leadership team is, | _especially_ to cut through red tape and organizational | barriers. | | 3) when you have an immediate problem (outages, GDPR | incidents) to solve and secrecy is involved - no need to | take care about people not in the loop, seeing stuff they | are not supposed to etc. | | What "war rooms" often enough end at, unfortunately, is | cramped chicken coops. Not enough space, sales/PM people | directly sitting and blathering in their phones next to | developers, ... for _months_. That 's a farce. | Aeolun wrote: | Oh, never think that you can get away just because you are | remote. Now we just have multi-hour 'this is a war room' | meetings, where the entire team is trying to get work done | while connected to a permanent zoom session. | throwaway_25434 wrote: | There are entire classes of problems where a group of n | persons working effectively together will produce a much | better solution than 1 single person on an island (where n > | 1). | | In those situations, white boarding and deep dive are useful | activities. | | Business owners would absolutely love it if you could just | run a complex (high value-add, high margin) business by only | getting a bunch of commodity developers just pulling JIRA | tickets from a heap, quietly humming away. | | Reality is that, collaboration is important and is required | in order to create non trivial products, and thus the margin | to pay for the "people doing real work". | thrower123 wrote: | This claim is commonly made anecdotally by extroverts, but | I've never seen real evidence that it is true. | matwood wrote: | I agree collaboration is very important. What's interesting | to me though is that very early in my career (pre | ubiquitous video conferencing), I worked for a large multi- | site corp. Me and another developer were the only | developers in the local office, yet somehow we were able to | collaborate using phone calls and email to build some | pretty cool software with other team members in various | offices around the US. | | I'm not saying that digital tools are always perfect | replacements, but there is a large gradient between a | single person on an island and sitting shoulder to shoulder | at a fold out table (which I have also done). | fastasucan wrote: | I think some of the reason that so many workers welcome this | change is that they have had bad managers (which it sounds like | you are not). For my self I had a on-site manager managing a | team of 6-7 people out at a customer, however he failed to pick | up on my detoriating mental health which lead to a severe case | of burnout and me leaving the company. The signs was there, and | I am still baffled what on earth he spent 8 hours on each day | since the didn't do anything to stop that (at least for the | sake of the company - I was not productive to say the least). | Given that experience there is nothing gained in having a | manager that I physically meet. Interesting to know if the | different feelings people have regarding this is due to their | experience with different managers. | | I hope that you find some way to adjust for the new way of | working, if it is having regular workshops, having workers come | in regularly, or if it all blows over and thing go back to | normal. | the_gipsy wrote: | > What was a matter of just getting six people in a war room | for a week and getting that hard problem done | | What would you say exactly, you "do" here? | mediaman wrote: | As a manager, how would you feel about a hybrid setup with | people in the office say two days a week? | | Would it recapture a substantial portion of the benefits, or do | you think you find that the manager utility of each extra day | in the office doesn't diminish much? | dtjohnnyb wrote: | Sorry to hear that. | | This was a real jolt to read though. I've been really bullish | about WFH or hybrid work for the future, since as an IC I've | seen nothing but the benefits as you mention. I never thought | of the stress of remote work in a management role though, so | thanks for sharing! | solids wrote: | When the pandemic started, I was working as a manager. It was | my 6th year in that company. I thought, working remote is the | best that ever happened to me. | | Now I changed my job three months ago and remote work is | killing me. | | I realized that managing remotely it's easy if you already have | build strong relationships while in the office. You know how to | approach each team member, who you can trust. It also takes | much more time for people to trust you. | dmitrygr wrote: | > is an energy hog. | | Now you know how introverts feel about in-person meetings | matwood wrote: | > Videocalls. Whiteboarding. Interviewing. Strategic work. | Reading emotions and connecting to people. What was a matter of | just getting six people in a war room for a week and getting | that hard problem done now takes eternities and every meeting | is an energy hog. | | Being in any meeting or war room is also an energy hog. I do | understand what you're saying though. What worked before, | doesn't work anymore. Remote means management has to change. IC | work for the most part was easy to move remote. Work that | involved coordinating people and communication is going to take | longer to figure out. It can be done, as many pre-COVID remote | companies showed. But, it takes work to adapt. | rodgerd wrote: | > Reading emotions and connecting to people. | | Literally every day of my life with autism. | extr wrote: | Agreed. I think people don't realize how much WFH sucks for | people who are not ICs (or don't care). Pre-pandemic, I was | pointing my career in a management direction. I enjoyed both | development work and managing and they both took advantage of | different skill sets. However, in my mind, management had more | upside in the long run, and if I was going to be going into an | office every day anyway, might as well keep at it. So at the | start of the pandemic I was doing remote management of a | technical team. And all those negatives you mention started to | add up. In the last few months I got a different job as a | senior developer to take advantage of the unbelievable W/L | balance of permanent WFH. I decided "being a developer | remotely" >> "being a manager in the office" >> "being a | developer in the office" >> "being a manager remotely". | | On the other hand for my partner who is non-technical and | squarely in management, WFH is an endless nightmare of virtual | meetings with no breaks. Hard to read people, hard to get | people engaged, nonstop pings preventing what little focus time | she has left. She wants to get back to an office ASAP, and I | don't blame her. | cyberlurker wrote: | Why would those pings stop in office? | silicon2401 wrote: | Hopefully leaders can learn some empathy from this pandemic. | | > everything about managing remotely completely sucks for me. | | As an engineer, everything about working in-person completely | sucks for me. I hate being around people, I hate hearing | people, I hate interacting with coworkers face to face, I hate | sitting in office chairs and desks, and I hate commuting. | | > Videocalls. Whiteboarding. Interviewing. Strategic work. | Reading emotions and connecting to people. | | Again, these all completely suck for me in-person. I'm an | introvert and I hate having to put on a happy face for the | manager (my resting face looks anywhere from tired to | murderous), I hate "sitting in a war room" pretending to focus | while my time is just wasted by people talking, I hate | traveling and waiting in a lobby for interviews when I'm | already nervous, and I hate having to mime the emotions and | interactions that leaders think are meaningful but that I just | do because it's part of office politics. | | Maybe you're an exception, and it would be great if you are. | But I've had deep and meaningful relationships with people, | fully remotely and text-based, since I used IRC as a teenager. | I think in 2021 it's fair to raise the bar and expect | managers/leaders to learn basic online communication to the | level that teenagers were doing like 10-20 years ago, rather | than shackle everyone to the office and commutes because | leaders can't learn how to use slack/zoom | [deleted] | auiya wrote: | I don't feel the WFH pros/cons align perfectly with | engineer/managers either. I know many managers who are very | comfortable with managing a geo-distributed remote team. Mine | in particular is quite good at it. | walshemj wrote: | You really think your peers are going to appreciate your | attitude? | | Don't take this the wrong way but I think you need to think | about Therapy. | cyberlurker wrote: | He plays the game in office. But it's exhausting and | pointless. The only benefit I see of being in office is not | having to compete with others around the world for jobs. | arlompcritiq wrote: | It's not clear what exactly you're referring to by | "attitude" or how you think "Therapy" will affect it. | | On the other hand, I can easily see how the sort of non- | constructive verbal lashing-out demonstrated in your | comment could be a problem in the workplace, and a behavior | that one can learn to avoid through Therapy. | silksowed wrote: | this comment thread makes it apparent that WFH, hybrid, in person | will become part of recruitment. allow people of all types to | self sort | leros wrote: | One of the interesting things that happened at my company is that | productivity instantly doubled when we started working remotely. | The reality at my company is that people are only getting 20 | hours or so of work done in the office - the rest is | socialization, pointless meetings, lunches, or trying to look | busy. When we went home for lockdown and kept working 40 hour | weeks, not only did productive output double, but everyone burned | out in a few weeks. | | In my opinion, the reality of working from home is that 20-30 | hour work weeks need to be acceptable and we should use the rest | of our time on non-working things, just like we did in the | office, but now that time can be more meaningful to us. | passivate wrote: | How does your company measure productivity? | perfunctory wrote: | > 20-30 hour work weeks need to be acceptable | | Yes, yes, yes. I am totally convinced that we can all start | working 20 hours per week starting next Monday and the world | will just keep going as normal. Only we will be healthier, | happier and richer. | mullingitover wrote: | This is probably true - the problem with modern post- | industrial economies is weak demand, not supply. We've juiced | supply to the absolute hilt, but people are too busy spending | their time at jobs and not consuming. We could easily scale | down to 20 hour workweeks and the economy would keep on | growing. | | It's a prisoner's dilemma situation though, as others point | out. Some people are going to insist on wasting their new | extra free time at another job. The solution would be to put | a hard cap on labor hours per person, mandating an overtime | pay requirement that follows the worker from job to job. | phkahler wrote: | >> Yes, yes, yes. I am totally convinced that we can all | start working 20 hours per week starting next Monday and the | world will just keep going as normal. Only we will be | healthier, happier and richer. | | Well no. Because some people will use that to work 2 jobs and | make twice as much money. Then inflation will take that into | account, prices will rise, and everyone will end up working 2 | 20-hour jobs. If you ever want to work significantly less | hours I suspect it will require laws forbidding people to | work more than X, and even then people will take that second | job under the table. | api wrote: | This is called the hedonic treadmill, and is why we don't | have a more leisurely lifestyle in general. | | John Maynard Keynes famously predicted something like a | 10-20 hour work week by the year 2000. You can actually | have that today... _if you are willing to live at the | standard of living of someone in the 1930s_. | | That would mean a much smaller house, much less technology, | a very cheap car or public transit, vanilla food, only a | few suits of clothes, and bare bones health care. | | Instead we tend to use our gains to get more space (houses | today outside dense cities are _huge_ ), more tech, more | education, better health care, designer hipster food, more | entertainment, and so on. | ectopod wrote: | I have stepped off the hedonic treadmill. I prepare | nearly all of my own food and I eat extremely well. | Ingredients are cheap. I don't live in the USA so my | healthcare is unaffected. The internet is a thing so I | can (and do) continue to educate myself for free. | | But yes, I don't have an extensive wardrobe or a large | house. So what? | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | You could also do that if corporate profits were lower. | Worker productivity has far outpaced compensation for 50 | years: | https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-6/understanding-the- | labo... | SketchySeaBeast wrote: | Living in a 1930's home with a 2010 Toyota Corolla in the | garage I somehow doubt that. We're talking (where I live) | $600-1200 before tax income. In the dead of winter the | utilities alone can be close to $500. | gowld wrote: | Hedonic treadmill is different. This is about labor | flooding the market and driving its price down, and | auction-priced (supply-constrained) goods being bid up in | price (like housing). | heterodoxxed wrote: | | _a much smaller house, much less technology, a very | cheap car or public transit, vanilla food, only a few | suits of clothes, and bare bones health care._ | | You would have to be highly skilled to do that, the | average worker couldn't get anywhere close to that | lifestyle on 10-20 hours a week. | the_only_law wrote: | At least I don't think so on the jobs that would actually | allow you to work 10-20 hours a week. | the_only_law wrote: | > if you are willing to live at the standard of living of | someone in the 1930s. | | So you'd have to live like it was the worst period of | global economic collapse and hardship in modern history? | deadmutex wrote: | Problem is that if one company works 20 hours a week, and | another works 40 hours a week. | | The 40 hour/week company will get more done. | | Also, imagine if your doctor only worked 20 hours a week. | [deleted] | totorovirus wrote: | But isn't 20 hours/week or 40 hours/week a negotiated | agreement when you got hired? If you want 20 hours/week, | get paid less and stop whining about companies should pay | more for less amount of mandatory work hours. The | discussion should have been more like employees should have | more options on choosing how many mandatory work hours they | are willing to offer a week when signing agreement with a | company. I am utterly surprised, though not all people here | are from the capitalism driven world but majorities are | talking like they are living in socialist world. | Aeolun wrote: | > Also, imagine if your doctor only worked 20 hours a week. | | I rather imagine I'd have two doctors. | setr wrote: | By that logic, you should be enforcing a 60 hour/week, to | achieve even better goals. | | The problem is that job != job, because different jobs have | different requirements. | | A doctor needs to be _available_ continuously, but he | doesn't necessarily need to be _working_ continuously. An | on-call doctor needs to be available 24 /7. A general | practitioner may only need to show up for scheduled | appointments in strict timeslots. | | A programmer on a long term project needs to eventually put | in hours, but precisely when he puts in those hours matters | less. A senior developer is productive anytime he's | available for advice (and there are others working to be | advised -- with off-shore resources, this can mean extended | availability) | | A warehouse worker is productive only when he's explicitly | doing labor. Being available for labor, but not doing any, | is worthless. | | A programmer on a short term or last-mile phase of a | project needs to put in the hours, but on a strict timeline | -- there's no room to skip a day and make up for it | tomorrow. | | Companies already acknowledge this, albeit implicitly. The | higher you are in the hierarchy, the more valuable your | availability and the less your labor. CEOs don't get to | have strict no-work vacations, but they also don't have | strict 9-5 work/life split, because they need to be | available all the time. At the same time, they can go | normal days without any real work to do, because they | aren't needed for anything. | watwut wrote: | Yes. But then, people who work 40hours produce more then | those who work 60, but it is not stopping teams overworking | people. | | Meaning, productivity is not only factor. | silicon2401 wrote: | Why would I care about my doctor only working 20h a week? | He could work 1h a week as long as he delivers what I need. | barry-cotter wrote: | This is the same problem as people working 40 hours a | week have competing with people working 80 hours a week | have; they mostly can't. Even if the last 20 hours are so | marginal that really, you might as well not have bothered | the person who worked 80 hours a week got 1.5 times as | much done, and in any job that isn't totally routinised | the knowledge and skills gained from working compound. | They compound faster for those who work more hours. | fastasucan wrote: | I think the point of the original post in this thread is | that 40 hour weeks are in reality 20 hour productive weeks. | So a company working 40 hour weeks where 20 hours are | productive have the same output as a company working 20 | hour weeks where 20 hours are productive. | walshemj wrote: | your assuming that these 20 hour will be 100% work which | is unlikely | endlessvoid94 wrote: | I used to think this. But, I've learned that it assumes a | bunch of things that aren't really true at many, many | companies: | | - Clear goals that the team is bought into | | - Productive people who can sustain emotional enthusiasm | for extended time periods | | - An environment where intrinsically motivated people can | thrive, and/or incentives for extrinsically motivated | people | | - A healthy feedback loop so people know when they're | improving and are rewarded for it | | - etc | | Looked at this way, a team of 5 people working 20 hours per | week in this type of company can vastly outperform a team | of people working 40 hours per week at a company that lacks | the above items. (And I'm probably missing some) | PraetorianGourd wrote: | That isn't how comparisons work though. You can't compare | a 20-hour/week company with good culture to a | 40-hour/week company with toxic culture. You have two | variables uncontrolled in that comparison. | | Compare both companies at 40 or both at 20. The good- | culture-40-hour would outperform the both the good- | culture-20-hour and bad-culture-40-hour so why wouldn't | all companies aim for 40/hours with a good culture? | | It could be argued that it is impossible to have a good | culture and 40 hours, but that needs a lot of analysis. | maxerickson wrote: | You can compare apples and oranges just fine. | | (You are working to argue that the comparison being made | isn't useful and haven't gotten there. For instance, if I | was going to build a company, I'd certainly want to know | what parts of a culture were important to a company that | compared so well against the longer working company) | upgrejd wrote: | I think he was being sarcastic. | rodgerd wrote: | > Also, imagine if your doctor only worked 20 hours a week. | | That would be fabulous. Much better than doctors working to | a regime designed by a cocaine addict that sees them punch- | drunk from a lack of sleep by the end of their rosters. | darepublic wrote: | I've come to believe that big software projects are like a | marathon. Burning up your maximum energy every step of the | way simply isn't going to yield better results. You need to | create a pace and keep to it. Sometimes you speed up, | sometimes you slow down, but saying 60 hours/week from | start to finish is gonna be counterproductive. | eat_veggies wrote: | You're kind of begging the question when you take "The 40 | hour/week company will get more done" as a given, because | that is exactly what's at stake here, isn't it? People | upthread are theorizing that those extra 20 hours a week | really _don 't_ make us get more done, because (to quote | one of the comments above), "the rest is socialization, | pointless meetings, lunches, or trying to look busy" | gnicholas wrote: | I can't remember the last time I saw the phrase "begging | the question" used in its traditional/philosophical form | -- how refreshing! | onetimeusename wrote: | I can't convince myself that would work. What if it isn't | that people hit a peak of productivity at 20 hours of work | per week, it's the minimum they try to do and still be | acceptable to their boss. This could happen if bosses just | assume that people work close to 90-100% of the time during | working hours. I am sure no one is honest about it. | | If 20 hours were the new weekly target instead of 40 it could | negatively impact people if productivity declines on crucial | things. That could happen if the new minimum acceptable | amount of work to management were, say, 10 hours. So people | would similarly spend 50% of their 20 hour working week | avoiding work. So there could be a temporary shock throughout | the economy as supply of things decreased until things | adjusted. | wizzwizz4 wrote: | Your hypotheticals seem stretched; I see no reason they | should apply. Let's try it and see? | deadmutex wrote: | What percentage of your company had parents of infants/toddlers | at your company? Is it very diverse? | | Childcare was practically nonexistent during early phase of the | pandemic. | gtaylor wrote: | And it's crushingly expensive even in better times. | fastasucan wrote: | This is a refreshing perspective that takes into the reality of | what humans are able to do, over time. Quite a good idea as | well, why not spend some time taking walks, doing housework, | and being in nature rather than standing and chatting by the | watercooler/coffe machine, having meetings with no benefit or | trying to surf the web without anyone noticing. | api wrote: | Don't forget commute times, which can be bad especially in high | cost of living cities where you have to live really far from | things to afford a decent place. | | For us it saved everyone an average of 1-2 hours per day. | | Also consider the energy savings. Commuting by car every day | uses tons of energy. Of course this is somewhat offset by more | HVAC being consumed by houses, but I highly doubt that totally | erases the savings from not driving so much. Cars are very | energy intensive. | thenewwazoo wrote: | Did it really double, or did boundaries erode? My company has | been very clear in that they are measuring our productivity and | _also_ our working hours. Managers are being instructed to be | _very_ clear about establishing work /life boundaries (with the | specifics being based on individual need). We similarly saw an | increase in productivity, but the increase was far smaller once | normalized for hours worked. | TimTheTinker wrote: | Productivity at my workplace went significantly up (and | stayed up), but management has been _clear_ that personal | time is sacred, and I hardly ever see anyone on slack after | work hours. | | Honestly, the biggest impediments to productivity at my | workplace have nothing to do with _where_ we work and | everything to do with management style (heavy-handed Agile | /Scrum, micromanagement, the works). | idrios wrote: | I'm surprised this perspective is not made more often. It's | now much easier to work past 5 or 6pm or whenever you would | normally end. Needing to return home to your family is no | longer an excuse to stop working because you can be with your | family while at work. All it takes is one developer on your | team working evenings or weekends for the other developers to | feel like they need to be working late too. There's also the | fact that managers right now are more concerned about whether | their team is working enough, rather than being concerned | about their team working too much. | lamontcg wrote: | As someone who has done full time WFH for more than 5 years | one skill you need to pick up is the ability to shut down | around 5-6pm and avoid work on the weekends, which actually | takes some self-discipline. | CalRobert wrote: | "Needing to return home to your family is no longer an | excuse to stop working because you can be with your family | while at work." | | If you have young children or infants you can spend your | time caring for them and worrying that those with older | kids (or no kids!) will judge you. | ricardobeat wrote: | I find myself doing the opposite. It's much easier for me | to step away at 6pm sharp knowing that if anything happens | I can jump back in an instant, vs the worry of being the | first to leave the office, and being stuck in a train for a | half hour. | jlarocco wrote: | Funny how different people are on this. | | When I worked in an office I never worried about being | the first to leave, and didn't even realize other people | do. | | For me, the biggest downside of working from home is how | easy it is to get distracted by non-work. I go grab a | coffee and end up putting dishes away, cleaning up, etc. | and next thing I know an hour's passed by so I'm working | late or feeling guilty. | | I've been working on my time management, in general, and | that's helping. | MarkSweep wrote: | At my previous company this was only true for a week or two. | Then some VP discovered how to use MS Teams and the daily two | hour meeting started. | jedberg wrote: | The whole idea of a salary is relatively new, since the | industrial revolution. There were examples from earlier, but for | the most part, everyone was what would now be a contractor. You'd | negotiate to do a project for a set fee, or you'd negotiate to do | whatever the boss needs at an hourly or daily wage for however | long the boss needed you. | | The tradeoff was stability for flexibility. People at the low end | of the wage spectrum accepted lower daily wages for the stability | of employment, and then the trend moved upwards. | | It looks like the trend is now reversing at the highest salary | levels. Most people now realize that having a salaried job isn't | all that much more stable than being a contractor (in the US) | with at-will employment in 49 states. | | I can definitely see a future where more software engineers are | paid per project instead of a salary. And maybe some companies | will continually hire certain people that they like over and over | again. | akiselev wrote: | That's an incredibly broad generalization to draw over several | thousand years of human history. I'd argue since at least | ancient Rome the predominant model for societies has been the | clientela patronage model [1] and its feudal derivatives. The | employment model is a formalization of that relationship that | sets up basic "serf rights" that were otherwise open to | horrendous abuse before. The contractors of yore were | mercenaries - they were usually paid more than the soldiers in | standing armies (sound familiar?). | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronage_in_ancient_Rome | jedberg wrote: | Like I said, there are examples that predate the Industrial | Revolution, but the idea of an average worker having pay | stability is pretty new: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salary | barry-cotter wrote: | This doesn't really aid your argument. The client patron | relationship is a lot more like a master servant relationship | than an employer employee one. You are not equals in any | sense in a client patron relationship. And it's a personal | relationship, not a contractual one. | passivate wrote: | If you're a consultant you have to be comfortable with | "selling" yourself, building your brand / networking to bid and | win new projects. All this stuff is a hassle if you're not a | social person. Its not a scientific result, but most of the | engineers I know just want to work long-term on something cool | and stick with a known company. | jedberg wrote: | Yeah, that's the downside, but there are lots of headhunters | even today that will find and negotiate contracts and then | take a piece of it. | | As more people move towards that model, I can see a race to | the bottom in fees that those companies take. It'll be | similar to the way actors get hired -- you get into a | relationship with an agency but they're just negotiating | contracts for you. | someguydave wrote: | the marketing for contractors becomes easier when companies | are forced to buy labor on the market | macintux wrote: | I think that hinges so heavily on healthcare that it's hard to | predict whether gig employment will suffice for more people. | jedberg wrote: | Yes, agreed. A public option would help. | | But for example, I pay for my own insurance. There are | programs now where you can pay for your own insurance with | pretax dollars, so my contracting rate just accounts for | this. Since it's likely that high pay software engineers will | be the first to go, they are also the most likely to be able | to absorb that cost and risk, even without a public option. | betterunix2 wrote: | "The whole idea of a salary is relatively new, since the | industrial revolution" | | Actually salaries are much more ancient than that: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_legion#Pay | | Basic pay for a member of a Roman legion was 225 denarii per | year, later increased to 300, and then again increased to 500 | to adjust for inflation. Higher ranked officers received higher | salaries. | jedberg wrote: | Like I said, there are examples that predate the industrial | revolution, but they were mostly limited to government and | public service jobs. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salary | jacksnipe wrote: | I don't want to discount this kind of reason for wanting to | "return to the office", and I think it's definitely part of the | cause. | | However, speaking as an Individual Contributor, I want to be back | in the office so badly. I miss feeling really, humanly connected | to my teammates. There's just no positive sense of camaraderie. | Sure, we can bitch together about things, but I just find myself | unable to connect with my coworkers as fellow human beings in my | monkey sphere. | | Before we went WFH I legitimately loved my job. Now I hate it. | ghaff wrote: | Of course, you're depending on your coworkers feeling likewise. | silicon2401 wrote: | As an IC, I fully support extroverts going back to the office. | I just want introverts like myself to have the option to never | go back to the office. I don't understand why people think it's | either one or the other | CoastalCoder wrote: | As an introvert myself, I think I totally get your take on | this. | | But I've also been the only remote member of an otherwise in- | person team. It was a truly terrible experience (as many | others have written). I fear that the policy you're | suggesting would make everything better for those in the | office (the extroverts) and worse for those working remotely | (the introverts). | stank345 wrote: | FWIW I'm definitely an introvert and I can't wait to get back | in the office. I don't want to have to talk to people all day | but I _really_ want some actual meatspace interaction. Being | locked up for a year with two small children and only my wife | as the other adult to talk to has not been good for my mental | health. | thrower123 wrote: | Because it is one or the other. If office-first people are | allowed to regain preeminence in a company, then that company | will be back to abusing engineers by sitting them in hot-desk | open office situations next to shouting salespeople in short | order. | TameAntelope wrote: | You're advocating for a position as "a guy in a room" [0], | and we've all been taught how dangerous and harmful that | person ends up being for an organization that's trying to | ship good software on time. | | What you're asking for is, frankly, not reasonable. You want | to be left alone to code, and that is simply not how software | development works anymore (and arguably it never worked that | way). [0] - | https://blog.codinghorror.com/dont-go-dark/ | twobitshifter wrote: | Imagine a non-pandemic environment where you could go to a | buddy's house and work. Or for many people, their closest | relationships are with their spouse and family. You no longer | have to be separate from them for most of your waking hours. | Work picks your "friends" for you and in many cases you won't | get along. It seems like you were lucky to be in a good | situation. | loopz wrote: | I wouldn't want to mix friendships and work. I'd also be wary | about alliances forming outside of the workplace. | jimmyspice wrote: | I think they meant working at a non-colleagues house. At | least, that's what I plan to do when it's possible, every | now and then. I think the change of pace would be nice, | back at university I'd do the same with people not on my | course. Being genuinely fond of each other makes time go | faster. | | Of course, I'd also want to work outside of the office, | with my colleagues too. A change of environment every now | and then can't hurt. | rodgerd wrote: | > Imagine a non-pandemic environment where you could go to a | buddy's house and work. | | I'm imagining it and it sounds like the literal worst thing. | h4waii wrote: | You _could_ , not have to. You would have the _option_ to, | while for most people they simply do not. | matz1 wrote: | Instead of 100% return to the office how about having | (optional) get together offline meetup every once in a while, | it can be about work or simple lunch. | ebiester wrote: | How do you do that when everyone lives x,000 miles away now? | | Why would I stay in <big city close enough to commute> and | pay <outrageous> rent/mortgage if I'm remote? | | (Honest truth: that's what remoter weeks are for.) | CoastalCoder wrote: | Could flying the remote staff to an in-person meeting every | 1-2 months be a good balance? As long as the flights are | reasonably short (e.g., within the continental U.S. or | within the E.U.), it's probably still cheaper than | maintaining office space for the remote workers. | ghaff wrote: | Quarterly is more doable. That's basically what my | extended team did pre-pandemic. | throwaway_25434 wrote: | And now you are discriminating against senior people with | family/kids who just can't fly out of town for a week | every couple months. | enobrev wrote: | Just chiming in to say some of us live in the big expensive | cities precisely because of the life we lead outside of | work. Otherwise, agreed. | a-dub wrote: | I've always thought it would be interesting to experiment with a | 3 day work week where all work is done onsite, no remote access | is possible and no after hours access is possible. | | I bet productivity would double. | [deleted] | itqwertz wrote: | I could care less about what happens to my bosses. | | I'm never going back to an office unless they pay for my gas, | mileage, time spent in traffic, office wardrobe, etc. | | It's unfortunate for these companies that they were so reluctant | previously to allow anyone but a reverse-schedule off-short | worker have the privilege of not having to be in the office. The | cat is out of the bag. | SunlightEdge wrote: | At the moment one big reason remote work looks very attractive | because 9-5 is still seen as the norm. | | I'm all for remote work and think its superior in pretty much | every dimension you measure workers on. | | Having said that in a world where remote working is seen as the | norm I do wonder how I will feel. I can see more and more | technology being introduced to monitor staff at home for example. | And the competition for jobs might spike. | | Personally I think I'll be ok. Here's hoping I can never go back | to an office. But yeah I wonder if I'll still feel the same in a | few years... | EMM_386 wrote: | > And the competition for jobs might spike. | | And salaries may drop precipitously if you are in one of the | higher paid countries, because you are now competing with | people who may be equally as qualified as you but can make WAY | less and afford a very comfortable standard of living anywhere | in the world. | | Even within countries. Why may San Fran salaries when you just | found someone in Fargo, SD that can do the same job and would | prefer to stay there. | | I realize companies are discussing keeping Silicon Valley | salaries wherever their employees choose to live, but that | can't last. You could pack up and move to another country and | live like an absolute king. | WesolyKubeczek wrote: | Haven't we had basically this with outsourcing ("same" work | for way less money)? Was it not, all things considered, | nightmare fuel on average? | bsder wrote: | > I realize companies are discussing keeping Silicon Valley | salaries wherever their employees choose to live, but that | can't last. | | 1) Now that managers have realized that the programmers don't | need to be in Silly Valley, the next realization is that they | can hire outside Silly Valley and pay less. There are a whole | lot of people in cities like Pittsburgh who will be happy to | get 10% less than Silly Valley to get a remote job. And then | 10% less than that to get a remote job. Lather, rinse, repeat | until salraies are at the cost of living for the area. | | 2) Once they do that, they will realize that they can lay off | almost everybody with a high salary for no net loss. | | If you're just a programmer, life is about to get bad. Hope | you banked money while you had it. | matwood wrote: | Honest question. How many people who can get jobs at SV | companies are still sitting in crappy towns in the US? I'm | sure there are some, but I'm not sure there as many as | people think. | | The world wide developer pool is certainly a bigger issue, | but that's been around a long time. Remote is only part | (and I would argue a small part) of the reason that | outsourcing isn't used more often. | | I think what we'll see is the super low salary areas rise | and the super high areas come down a bit. I don't think | it's about to 'get bad' for anyone with the skillset to | work at a SV company though. In fact, it's more likely | about to get much better for everyone else. I've already | seen salaries in my locale go up since local companies are | now competing with nearby big cities companies who are now | comfortable with remote workers. | bsder wrote: | > How many people who can get jobs at SV companies are | still sitting in crappy towns in the US? | | The entire ModCloth Pittsburgh team, for example? | | If you see some of the talks by the former ModCloth CTO, | he points out that the Pittsburgh team was _better and | cheaper_ than the Silicon Valley team by a good margin. | Part of that was the fact that the Pittsburgh team had | more _experience_ that the Silly Valley team because they | didn 't jump ship every three years. Part of that was the | fact that the Silicon Valley FAANGs absorbed the | _actually_ good programmers so what you were hiring in | Silicon Valley was the mediocre second tier who _thought_ | they were first tier and you had to pay them first tier | salaries. | | And don't underestimate the number of people who don't | want to move. At least 1/3 of my college graduating class | didn't want to leave Pittsburgh. | Animats wrote: | How to manage work-from-home will probably be figured out, but | you won't like it.[1] | | [1] https://www.teramind.co/ | handrous wrote: | I'm quite confident this is what any kind of WFH arrangement is | going to look like for most people, in the near future. Some | segment of the Tech Elect will not have to suffer it, but most | people will, including programmers (most of whom aren't in | FAANG or fancy start-ups or finance, and hell, some of those | might resort to this kind of thing, too). | reidjs wrote: | I think it's inevitable. If the software naively measures | keystrokes or idle time, there are obvious ways to trick it. | Unfortunately less technologically adept employees might not | be able to circumvent it | Bendy wrote: | I agree with the article but I am nonetheless pessimistic. I do | think remote work will stay, the relentless force of capital is | now on its side, but I'm afraid that's only because even in a | remote work paradigm the "managers" will still discover new ways | to control, abuse and enjoy their employees. | aeternum wrote: | It's easy to deride middle management especially when they try to | micromanage by requiring people to be in-office or via other | forms of surveillance. | | However measuring productivity / output is an really tough | problem. If you're a manager, how do you tell if your team is | spending 50% of the time slacking vs. working on a problem that | is twice as difficult as everyone thought? Especially with | software, estimation is notoriously inaccurate. | | I think one of the only methods is competition. Was another | company or team able to deliver the same feature with less | resource expenditure? | blackbear_ wrote: | > If you're a manager, how do you tell if your team is spending | 50% of the time slacking vs. working on a problem that is twice | as difficult as everyone thought? | | Why not... Ask them directly? If you understand the type of | work your team is doing it should be easy to figure that out. | If you manage software engineers and have no idea how software | is created no metric is going to save you. | | > Was another company or team able to deliver the same feature | with less resource expenditure? | | How many corners did they cut do deliver faster? And how long | will it take before they get crushed by technical debt? There | is always a trade-off between quality and velocity. High | velocity is immediate to see, but good quality takes time to be | appreciated. | aeternum wrote: | >There is always a trade-off between quality and velocity. | | This is a common trope but is rarely the case in my | experience. Components designed to be flexible and 'future- | proof' are the ones that quickly become overengineered, | resulting in late deliveries and costly maintenance. | | Writing the minimum code required to solve the problem is | often a winning strategy. | ev1 wrote: | https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/26/teleperform... | the_gipsy wrote: | So you are saying is that the solution is to just cram people | into an office. They are forced to work or something, some part | of the time, right? It's not like there's much to do after | gossipping and smalltalk. No need for you to do anything, | really. Easy work, smart! | dmitrygr wrote: | > how do you tell if your team is spending 50% of the time | slacking | | You don't! As long as they deliver what you ask of them, and do | it well, it is none of your business if they used 40 hours a | week or 1 hour a week doing it, if they played with their kid | while doing it, loaded their dishwasher, or called their mother | while doing it. | balfirevic wrote: | Who is doing the estimates of how long thing will take to | deliver? | dmitrygr wrote: | Any GOOD manager. Probably in collaboration with the team | and possibly a PM | ebiester wrote: | That's already a problem in the office culture. I may be able | to tell if you are diligent, but I can't tell if you are | productive. And as a manager, I would rather have three hours | of effective work than 8 hours of ineffective work. | | That means you have 5 more hours for meetings. | 13415 wrote: | Is that a joke or meant seriously? I really can't tell. | CarelessExpert wrote: | > If you're a manager, how do you tell if your team is spending | 50% of the time slacking vs. working on a problem that is twice | as difficult as everyone thought? | | I... talk to them? Ask them questions? Probe to see if they're | running into issues? Offer help, support, possible solutions, | or just be their rubber duck? | | If I sense there might be issues, I probe into the team, | solicit anonymous feedback, and otherwise discretely ask for | other people's perspectives. | | Is it a perfect science? No. Can you get fleeced by staff for a | while? Absolutely. But the low performers eventually reveal | themselves if you're paying any attention. And the reality is | the vast majority of people genuinely want to do a good job. So | my preference is to trust my staff to be honest and hard | working, recognizing the rare possibility that I could end up | the victim of a sociopath who deliberately tries to abuse that | trust. | JKCalhoun wrote: | > If you're a manager, how do you tell if your team is spending | 50% of the time slacking vs. working.... | | It's sort of strange that we even take this point of view: that | somehow human output is to be measured in the way a machine's | output is measured or the efficiency of a light bulb. | | But that opens up a whole can of worms.... | zug_zug wrote: | Well so the basic idea is this: | | Either we can A) evaluate/measure engineers' output (e.g. | commits/tickets), and promote/hire/fire based on whether they | do enough of it per/day ("meritocratic"?) | | B) Just plop engineers in chairs, and peer over their | shoulder to make sure they aren't on reddit all day, and then | trust that however long it took them to build the thing was | reasonable. | | A is really hard, it was the false-promise of agile. But in a | remote culture, you either have to do A or install screen- | monitoring software on your engineers to do B (or just | hope/pray). | | Of course perhaps there's another option, like a technical | manager who reviews the volume/quantity of PRs and assesses | based on that, but seems rare. | kwyjibo1230 wrote: | Agreed. I think the intent of the previous commenters was | more along the lines of "How do we determine which employees | are working earnestly and effectively vs working without | motivation or ineffectively?" | | Its important to take time out of the question, because time | spent, after a very small minimum, isn't a strong indicator | of performance. | 21eleven wrote: | While not fun to point out, there is such a thing as toxic | people who intentionally under perform at their jobs. | aeternum wrote: | Agreed, a team that spends 50% of the day staring out the | window may actually be thinking and come up with a solution | that beats another team. Output/results are ultimately what | matter and since we all have finite lifetimes, results per | unit time is also quite important. | | But isn't competition ultimately the only yardstick by which | we can measure this? | milansm wrote: | One of my most experienced and respected colleagues likes | to say: "when it looks like I'm not working at all that's | when I'm working the most". | juancn wrote: | The mistake is thinking about hours instead of output. The notion | of full-time comes from the factory model, where your output is a | function of the time you spend working. | | For knowledge work, we have known this is not the case for a very | long time. | | Peter Drucker has written rivers of ink about the subject. | | The most valuable knowledge work, many times happen in the | unlikeliest of places: the shower, working out, on a walk, | watching tv, etc. | | Solutions to problems come when they do, not when you want them | to. The main thing that happens at the office is the busy work. | granshaw wrote: | Similar to value based billing in the consulting world | | I wonder if we'll see a future where everyone will be | contractors paid by value delivered, and companies compete to | keep different people on retainer for capacity. Fun to ponder | about | throwaway_25434 wrote: | It seems very unlikely that this would lead to value based | pricing. | | On the contrary: with async WFH + everyone-a-contrator, the | supply of work will become much more homogeneous and | undifferentiated, which will lead to commoditization. | | Doesn't mean prices will converge to minimum wage! But | bargaining power will shift in favor of the buyer (i.e. the | businesses) | [deleted] | commandlinefan wrote: | My fear is that the author is 100% correct but that what will go | away in the near future isn't the office itself, but full-time | salaries. | munk-a wrote: | I've always found it weird that working a salaried position | means you've got to have your butt in a chair 9-5 regardless of | anything else going on - but you also need to be on hand to fix | problems at 10PM without any compensation earned. It might | honestly be nice if we transitioned professional work to hourly | compensation - I think that would _strongly_ reinforce the | bounds of what you, the employee, owe the company and what | compensation you should earn in exchange. | passivate wrote: | In my state (WA), we can't have all of our employees in the | exempt status [1]. I'm guessing its the same for most | companies in WA? | | [1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/exempt-employee.asp | pnutjam wrote: | I push back on that and comp the time. I wish there was | better regulation around comp time. | munk-a wrote: | At least in BC (and this is almost certainly illegal) a | coworker of mine was once working for Telus and was denied | the ability to take vacation in November and December due | to it being a rush season - but was then also denied a | request to have their unused vacation time either paid out | or carried over. Neither of these halves are illegal on | their own - together they're almost certainly illegal but | damnit if labour laws aren't as clear as mud. | handrous wrote: | If a shift to hourly happens, I _suspect_ we 're going to see | reluctance from a lot of businesses to pay actually- | equivalent hourly rates, which will give them sticker shock | ("$200/hr!? I was only paying about $100/hr before with | salaries!" Right, but your workers were only spending an | average of half their time on stuff that will count as | hourly-billable work--numbers exaggerated for ease of | calculation, but that's the reaction I expect, in general), | coupled with a lot of newbies willing to take those too-low | rates because they haven't done the math, and think the rates | look high, especially if we're talking (as we most likely | are) contract-type work without any kind of benefits. IOW I | expect a reduction in total effective comp for the sector, at | least for the first few years, if that shift is widespread. | hprotagonist wrote: | It's a fundamental debate about the nature of pay and work. | | Do you think you are paying $X/year to achieve Y goals? Or, do | you think you are paying $x/hour to put an ass in a chair? | | Which one you pick seems to decide how you feel about flex time, | remote work, ... . | maerF0x0 wrote: | The real issue at hand is that businesses do not like getting | played the same way they've been playing employees for a long | time. If I get my work done in 50% of the time I don't get to | take any time off, and the "quota" moves up without moving up my | pay (or at least not proportionately) . | | However if I'm late on my work there certainly will be "overtime" | ... So which is it? Is it that I am paid for a certain quantity | of work however long it takes, or that I'm paid for however much | i can accomplish in a certain amount of time? (and during certain | hours I might add...) | | They're contradictory so it cannot be both. | mdorazio wrote: | It's neither. Unless you're 1099/hourly or in sales you get | paid to be available to work during a set period of time | (generally not specific hours), regardless of how much you | accomplish during that time. Keep in mind this works both ways | - if you finish your work in 5 hours and spend the next 3 | messing around on Reddit or whatever you still get paid for 8. | Getting paid for actual hours worked isn't as much fun as you | probably think. | bagacrap wrote: | messing around on Reddit for 3 hours is a lot less useful | than what I'd be doing at home if I had 3 hours to spare | lopatin wrote: | TLDR: Middle managers are scum. "If you disagree you are part of | the problem". Remote work makes it harder to satisfy their need | to control you. And that's why corporations want you back in the | office. | | Am I missing anything? | maliker wrote: | I agree. I read: "Middle managers are often graded on the work | of their team, which means that they are actively incentivized | to steal work and do little of their own." | | Seems like they would be incentivized to help their team | perform and keep them happy (so they don't quit). | | I image this person would learn a lot from being a middle | manager. | yunohn wrote: | You mention a best case scenario for middle management, while | the article discusses a more worst case one. | | As always, reality is someone in between. Though in my | experience, there's usually more toxic middle managers. | munk-a wrote: | I, as much or more than most, fervently agree that companies | don't own us - we exchange work for pay and that is a | relationship that works best if respect flows both ways which, | recently, has been declining. | | That all said - most of this article is just a rant about how | terrible middle managers are and I feel where that's coming from | but it's not an absolute. Management can be extremely strong at | shielding you from unnecessary distractions and silliness when | it's done well. There is real value in middle managers and, since | transitioning to remote work, my manager and their manager have | both been working hard to ensure that devs are able to stay as | productive as they were while also striving to protect and defend | personal time. | | I totally sympathize with people that have worked under space- | occupiers and from what I've seen it's utterly miserable - but | staying full remote doesn't mean a flat company structure is | suddenly optimal for every workplace. | xemdetia wrote: | I agree that even middling quality middle managers provide | plenty of value, but there definitely is a class of manager | that does not know how to engage with all of their employee | charges and make them effective. Most of the egregious side | hustle situations I've run into have come from particular | employees that felt they were so close to the chopping block | that it didn't matter anyway, as they felt abandoned by their | management chain either perceived or in fact. Most others have | at least been respectful that the full time salary = time | priority and because of that and reasonable task management it | became not a problem. | rodgerd wrote: | > Management can be extremely strong at shielding you from | unnecessary distractions and silliness when it's done well. | | It is unfortunate that a good manager, not unlike a good | sysadmin, is invisible; you never realise how much of a shit | umbrella they are. | munk-a wrote: | This is why, one on ones are great but you should also | occasionally meet your manager and talk with them in a less | formal setting. If you're out at dinner celebrating a new | project release (especially if the drinks are flowing) - then | you'll hear about all the shit they're keeping off your back. | syndacks wrote: | Hi, I started reading your article and then stopped because I | didn't know what it was about. Consider leading with a more | coherent argument in the first two paragraphs. | vinceguidry wrote: | I really wish Hacker News would stop being the place for people | to share this kind of feedback. There's a comment section on | the article itself. | CarelessExpert wrote: | > Now, someone insufferable will read this and say "NOT ALL | MIDDLE MANAGERS," and let me tell you, if you're thinking that, | you are probably part of the problem. | | Clever. Take the obvious objection--that this is all based on | stereotyping of the role and, frankly, cynical assumptions about | the way management is or can be structured--and then just turn it | into another symptom of management dysfunction! | | How very tautological: Before you tell me I'm wrong, let me tell | you you're wrong for telling me I'm wrong. | | And yes, I'm a manager. And no, I never spent time '[walking] the | floors, "[keeping] an eye on people" and, in meetings, | "[speaking] for the group."'' because I have far far more | important things to do, like helping my staff understand the | corporate vision so they can make good, independent decisions; | helping solve problems for my staff when they come to me with | issues; working with our sales team to manage customer | expectations and negotiate on projects and solutions; managing | the expectations of senior management based on the information | I'm getting from my staff. And the list goes on and on. | | But, who am I to say. I'm just a middle manager who is, I'm sure, | just part of the problem... | ectopod wrote: | Clever. Completely avoid the question. | | As an excellent middle manager, is having your staff working | from home a problem for you? If so, why? | splistud wrote: | I don't get the feeling that people fully appreciate the gravity | of 'my team is more productive now that we work at home'. That | means your team does not need to be a team. The work is mostly | commoditized and completely outsourceable, in whole or in part. | CoastalCoder wrote: | It sounds like you're saying a group of collaborating persons | is only a "team" if they're physically colocated. | [deleted] ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-06-10 23:01 UTC)