Cue the mass exodus! Backwards policy that is even worse than it was before (where managers could let people work on their own schedule, as an agreement between the manager and the report).
But those magical hallway conversations...
Google mandates workers back to Silicon Valley, other offices from April 4
371–380 of 1001 posts
Re: Google mandates workers back to Silicon Valley, other offices from April 4
#372I think anyone who's claiming that remote work has been "proven" to be better or worse is wrong. There are some studies but they use estimations and proxies, carrying the same flaws as doing performance reviews based on lines of code. We've proven that the big tech companies can go fully remote and not completely crash and burn, that's about it. Some people love the lack of commute and less semi-forced hanging out, s…
Like most work related policies, I think this falls squarely under “it depends.”
I’m an in-house video producer for a tech start up. I absolutely do not need to be in the office most days, let alone every day.
Re: Google mandates workers back to Silicon Valley, other offices from April 4
#373I think anyone who's claiming that remote work has been "proven" to be better or worse is wrong. There are some studies but they use estimations and proxies, carrying the same flaws as doing performance reviews based on lines of code. We've proven that the big tech companies can go fully remote and not completely crash and burn, that's about it. Some people love the lack of commute and less semi-forced hanging out, s…
Note: just an typical enterprise dev take, not in the Bay Area/part of the FAAMNG environment A big part of the equation (for some) will be what kind of office they are being asked to return to? At the office my company used to have before it was acquired in 2019 everyone had a cube, not big by any means and not with full walls, but enough space to have a few pics of family, maybe a plant, personal nick-nacks, whatev…
"Productivity trough" god that sounds like absolute hell.
Re: Google mandates workers back to Silicon Valley, other offices from April 4
#374I have been fully remote my entire career (several decades), in fact in 30+ years have never been on site anywhere for more than 2 weeks total. Wouldn't have it any other way. But as a counter-point, seeing a whole bunch of people who were never remote before, how little work they are actually doing, it is no surprise to me that a lot of employers are going to start forcing - to the extent possible - employees back i…
Even if what you're saying is true, I don't see the problem with everyone working less in the remote world. If everyone secretly wants to work less maybe we should all just work less. If we collectively need an excuse like remote work to do what we all actually want to do, then so be it. Everyone wins...
Re: Google mandates workers back to Silicon Valley, other offices from April 4
#375And still another step back to normality. Money speaks and as we get into 2022 we get back to normal in time for 2023...
About 2 years too late but nothing needs essentiality than a good old economic depression.
Re: Google mandates workers back to Silicon Valley, other offices from April 4
#376Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a 95% chance that this is a disguised RIF. People they want to keep will be able to continue WFH if they want. People who are on the margins or destined for the Performance Improvement Camps will have to come in and warm seats if they want to eke out a year or two more of existence.
You can just fire people. If I had a report that was not meeting expectations I sure as hell wouldn't make "deny their remote work application, hope they are dissatisfied with the office, and wait for them to quit" be my plan.
In big tech companies, who gets fired has very low correlation to performance. Instead, it usually comes down to:
(1) people who make their bosses look bad are first to go.
(2) next are people who are perceived to cost their bosses time, regardless of whether it's their fault.
(3) after that, it's usually the infanticide cases: i.e., the people who did nothing wrong but haven't been there long enough to establish themselves.
The infanticide is especially ugly, because (a) it means the company is firing people basically at random, and (b) it rapes the shit out of the resumes of the people affected, because they now have Underperformance does get people fired, but rarely. It's at least as likely to get someone promoted, because underperformers usually have a career's worth of experience of being shitty, and therefore have developed such political skills they can easily fail up every time.
Re: Google mandates workers back to Silicon Valley, other offices from April 4
#377Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a 95% chance that this is a disguised RIF. People they want to keep will be able to continue WFH if they want. People who are on the margins or destined for the Performance Improvement Camps will have to come in and warm seats if they want to eke out a year or two more of existence.
You can just fire people. If I had a report that was not meeting expectations I sure as hell wouldn't make "deny their remote work application, hope they are dissatisfied with the office, and wait for them to quit" be my plan.
> You can just fire people.
Not at Google, you can't. Firing someone who's performing abysmally still takes up to 6 months, between all the process and PIPs and paperwork and shit.
Re: Google mandates workers back to Silicon Valley, other offices from April 4
#378Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I have had coworkers literally disappear for days at a time, miss meetings for weeks at a time, constantly miss deadlines etc As a manager why cant you call out this behaviour when you see people slacking off?
I don't know about disappearing for days and weeks, but as a manager I can say that in practice, performance problems are often subtle and hard to detect. I don't subscribe to the idea that you have to be at your desk to get work done, and I do my own best work usually hiding away somewhere quiet. However , with the middle- to low-performers, I admit it's disquieting to suspect that some people are working only an ho…
> I admit it's disquieting to suspect that some people are working only an hour a day
A tiny minority might be doing that but I dont think the vast majority work only 1 hour a day.
Are also saying that you can figure out an employee is working only 1 hour a day when you are in the office?
Re: Google mandates workers back to Silicon Valley, other offices from April 4
#379Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, there is a great deal of flexibility and patience. I worked from home a couple days a week. In the old days, they drew the line at going full-remote. When the Atlanta office closed, everyone there had to either move somewhere else or, eventually, leave. I guess that's changed.
Why did that office originally close? And haven’t they opened a new, larger one since then?
Engineering offices need an exec to serve as site lead. Whoever was there left or moved, and I guess they couldn't find a replacement. There is now an engineering office there again, so someone must have wanted (or been willing) to move there.
Re: Google mandates workers back to Silicon Valley, other offices from April 4
#380Earlier quoted context omitted.
That "individual preference" has a massive effect on the team just one remote person is a massive drain on efficiency. You can't frame it as "individual" when work is an inherently collaborative process.
Implying companies that embrace remote work are less collaborative?
Depending on how the rest of the team prefers to work, they can be, in the same way that two in-person workers at a predominantly remote company could be less collaborative if they do most of their conversing/deciding in person instead of on Slack/Chat/Email/etc