Why Bad CEOs Fear Remote Work (2021)

I did not claim that mine was right or nuanced, but that OP' claim was easily subverted with similar claim. As for the shoulds, I think a lot of people are afraid of working remotely IF they are held accountable ( I am willing to accept not everyone has the same level of focus, follow through and so on ) . But that is the fun part, management is either unable or unwilling to learn how to manage remote workforce so from a 'slacker' perspective, it is, likely, an ideal habitat.

Why would they be afraid if management can't wrap their heads around it.

But, and I may have mentioned this on this very forum, that is a management failure.

given the current market they probably do.

But when many companies barely respect the employees to begin with, they shouldn't be surprised when the employee disengages and always has an eye on the next opportunity. There will always be other semi-unavoidable issues like pay, location, and personal passions that get in the way, but having some intention to retain and nurture your talent will go a long way. Something that has very clearly shown to NOT be the case these last 18 months or so.

>not because they work multiple jobs but because they are disingenuous about it.

it's definitely a situation with no one coming out looking good. employees should be honest, but bad companies really screwed the pooch being hawks trying to preside over every minute of their lives. messaging them in dead hours of the night, micromanaging breaks, being worried when they leave about "leaking secrets", pressure to work overtime (e.g. stealing their time for no extra pay). There's no way in high hell I'd tell my workplace anything happening outside of it unless it involves extended leave.

But I do think either way that's it's unacceptable to have two "full time jobs" with shared hours, unless all 3 parties agree to it. I have some long term freelance work I'd continue on the side, but that's specifically because the hours are low and I can fit them into evenings after conventional work hours.

>here'll be work record somewhere, either emails, commits (if they're software engineers) or system audit trails.

Sure, it'll be somewhere. Will a manager bother looking around for that when it comes time to layoff? Do they even care about that to begin with? Are they even close enough to the product where they bother to look at something like a commit log? Half may not even look at the dang Jira points they keep forcing teams to keep up with.

It comes down to care, and to be frank (in my experiences) almost no manager cares enough to take that time. They have a lot of other stuff on their plate, after all. They aren't rewarded for retention, they don't necessarily get punished if the companies underperforms as long as they can rationalize a scapegoat. why try to retain these low key "glues"?

>if you ask those 20 people during performance review, it'll clear as day.

My performance reviews tended to be personal, in my experience. a skip manager/director may ask about my direct lead, but other than that I can't recall ever calling someone out (good or bad) during one.

It comes down to the same metric, are those managers/directors going to take the time to ask everone about who they think is an unsung hero?

>Chat isn't soulless.

I have a ton of chats in game groups, but I've never had it feel active in a formal setting. If you're not in a specific feature channel talking with veterans about issues they can at least start poking at, it's pretty dead. There are times I want to help but am clearly out of my wheelhouse. And then when things do get deeper it usually turns into a DM and that channel goes quiet again.

"noise" on such a chat is much more persistant than in an office, so people tend to not make small talk on such channels, except in off-topic channels. But if I'm being honest I don't wanna browse an off-topic channel at work. I got work to do. That's where the soul starts to leave. The way a company slack works is just very different from some informal (or even formal, non-company) discords.

>Chat being async has benefits over conference calls.

Sure. a paper trail and seachability on slack has saved me many an problem that I couldn't just google. Sometimes without pinging anyone. Sometimes by pinging someone I'd never otherwise meet to say "hey I hit the same issue, is there any progress/workarounds on this issue?" Threads are really nifty ways compartmentalize tangential discussons. Some people (especially tech workers) much prefer to think and write up their suggestion than try and speak it out on the fly.

But I also get that these async benefits ultimately cost more time. A quick 1:1 will always be faster through speech than text, even for someone that can type 200+ WPM (I'm maybe 100, albiet very inaccurate). larger groups is where chats devolve into chaos and noise, and that's when a proctor for a call/live meeting helps coordinate/drive discussion. And as mentioned, tone/body language is absent. They are both just tools, no better than each other as a fork is better than a spoon.

>Work lacks cheap interrupts

Lot to break down here that I won't go into, but yes I fundamentally agree. There is no such thing as a "cheap interrupt" for a creative worker (and yes, tech is a creative process in many ways). You always need to understand that an unplanned interruption is likely costing an hour of creative thinking and consider that before doing so. Many people don't. This is more or less (should be) built into a lead's time when assigning their workload.

With all that said: there are sometimes truly urgent matters where a prompt response is needed. That is definitely where office works shines unless the worker is out for lunch. you never know if a worker who "ignores" a message didn't see it, had their phone die, has chat off/muted, etc. But that's probably a factor a lot of director+ levels face regularly, so it's a mentality passed down to the workers who rarely need to be called on a dime