Live data from Hacker News

'Too many employees, but few work': Pichai, Zuckerberg sound the alarm

business-standard.com

941–950 of 1001 posts

Re: 'Too many employees, but few work': Pichai, Zuckerberg sound the alarm

#941

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference between working from home and working in the office is not how many hours of productive work you do, it's in what you do with the rest of the day. Every single study done on it shows that creative staff (including engineers) are more productive working where they are less disturbed, that open-plan offices are the least productive environment, etc. So it's utterly unsurprising that people get more produ…

So is it a question of the work day or where you work from?

I'm not sure I understand your question completely, but if I understand it right, this is more a question of "are you hired to do 40 hours a week at work, or are you hired to perform a set of tasks?".

The objections to WFH tend to come from managers who manage by insisting their employees do at least 40 hours in the office each week, rather than measuring actual output and productivity, because it's easier. A similar question is: If you're super efficient and get your work done quickly, can you end your day early and go home?

Re: 'Too many employees, but few work': Pichai, Zuckerberg sound the alarm

#942

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference between working from home and working in the office is not how many hours of productive work you do, it's in what you do with the rest of the day. Every single study done on it shows that creative staff (including engineers) are more productive working where they are less disturbed, that open-plan offices are the least productive environment, etc. So it's utterly unsurprising that people get more produ…

> Every single study done on it shows that creative staff (including engineers) are more productive working where they are less disturbed, that open-plan offices are the least productive environment, etc. Do you have any specific sources on hand (preferably a good meta-study)? I've heard this claim a lot, and I'd like it to be true, but I've never seen it sourced. Also, I feel like it could depend a lot on the indivi…

Sorry, I don't. I did have it when we were discussing productivity during my MBA, and the lecturer gave us a bunch of references for the studies that have been done, but that was a few years ago and they're probably out of date now.

It's one of those well-known truths ("diverse teams are more productive" is another one) that's well-supported by the literature and generally agreed on, but still comes up as "needs citation" every time. I should go dig out the citation so I can avoid this when I bring it up ;)

Re: 'Too many employees, but few work': Pichai, Zuckerberg sound the alarm

#943

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is it a question of the work day or where you work from?

I'm not sure I understand your question completely, but if I understand it right, this is more a question of "are you hired to do 40 hours a week at work, or are you hired to perform a set of tasks?". The objections to WFH tend to come from managers who manage by insisting their employees do at least 40 hours in the office each week, rather than measuring actual output and productivity, because it's easier. A similar…

Sorry, let me clarify.

In your GP comment, you say "But even aside from that, if you can complete your work in 6 hours, but can't leave the office for another 2-4 hours because of the office culture, then you'll spend those 2-4 hours doing random stuff in the office. If you're at home, you can leave Slack on and go do something useful."

I think I agree with your second paragraph entirely.

To me, two issues are being conflated here: the location of the work (wfh vs office) and the length of the work day. The benefits of wfh you are describing sound like they could more or less also come from a 6 hour work day. Ignoring commute time (it's an issue, but just for simplicity's sake). You'd be able to do useful things around your house just the same if you were in an office for 6 hours and able to go home.

Some would describe what you're saying as "slacking" for those hours outside the six, but I don't see it that way. Instead, wfh has become a socially acceptable vehicle for a shorter work day. It allows workers to achieve a shorter work day while bypassing those arguments. I think productive discussion around the issue is impossible until these issues are disentangled.

Re: 'Too many employees, but few work': Pichai, Zuckerberg sound the alarm

#944
post #191

I'm reading this as "Executive leadership makes hiring and planning mistakes and punishes employees opposed to taking personal responsibility" Also, I block everything Facebook at the router level with unbound.

Not a Facebook or a google fan or an apologist. But isn't this a business decision? "Punishment" implies a fault, but the employees are not at fault here. What would "taking personal responsibility" look like for management?

Not sure because no one has ever seen it...

Re: 'Too many employees, but few work': Pichai, Zuckerberg sound the alarm

#945
post #781

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading this caused the following factoid bubbled up in my mind: the leading cause of death for firefighters is now heart disease. The 98% of their time that’s not responding to calls is evidently spent napping and eating lasagna. I’m not naysaying this arrangement, it’s how it has to be. I don’t see why it should be too different at Google, for some employees anyways.

Isn't the #1 cause of death for everyone heart disease?

Yeah, but for a long time previously it was things actually related to fire (burns, asphyxia, internal trauma, etc.)

Re: 'Too many employees, but few work': Pichai, Zuckerberg sound the alarm

#946

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If somebody wants to pay me $300k to work 4 hours a week, I'll happily take the deal. As long as that's the actual acknowledged situation and not "most of your job is pretending to work and making people think you're important". I wonder how successful a lot of companies would be if they openly cut required hours in half.

If somebody wants to pay me $300k to work 4 hours a week, I'll happily take the deal. Would you take that over $300k to work 40 hours doing something you actually care about? I don't think I would.

Depends on if the 4 hours a week was all time I had to be at the office or the time I could do something useful but still had to be there 40 hours. For the first option it might be ok. I could find other things to do, maybe start my own little company, spend more time with the family and so on.

Re: 'Too many employees, but few work': Pichai, Zuckerberg sound the alarm

#947
post #650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have time to faff around at a FAANG, you have time to be cultivating your network to include some very influential people, you have time to be taking advantage of training resources or learning from the experts there that are completely free that most ordinary developers would have to pay thousands to get access to, you have time to work on side projects either for the company or, if you dare, for your own per…

I posit there is another category: people who don't accept or can't deal with being idle, but are not careerists and so instead of following your advice or resting-vesting, they find ways to spend their time helping solve actual problems in the company. My theory is that these people keep many companies afloat, because they go proactively solve the problems the resters are not solving because work, and the job-optimi…

I don't think there's anything on the list I mentioned, other than the "working on personal projects" one, that conflicts with that. Augmenting their own capabilities increases their effectiveness at "solving actual problems in the company" in addition to benefiting themselves. It's their own choice as to whether they do that.

Re: 'Too many employees, but few work': Pichai, Zuckerberg sound the alarm

#948

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is fair in theory, and I imagine that some smart, high-agency people take advantage of the situation, but as is often the case, “down time" leads to more down time rather than more time to devote to career advancement, networking, and so on. In fact, one might think that one day, when free of obligations and with plenty of gas in the tank that is currently used for work, one will pick up the barbell, take long b…

Can you expand on the flywheel analogy?

It is imperfect like all analogies, but let's take a toy example to clarify what I think. Let's say you are going to start something in 3 months, a new job or maybe you want to finally get in shape. If you think that your energy, will, and desire are like fuel in a slowly refilling tank, you might want to stop what you are doing now to save the energy that will have to be spent in 3 months. I remember years ago, when I was a serious sportsman, we had a few days off at Easter. And I rested. I came back flat, dead, without energy.

Now the flywheel accumulates energy when the motor to which it is connected is working. The flywheel stores energy during the expansion phases (the combustion phase in an ICE) of the engine to return it during the passive phases. Which, going back to the dilemma "when you have long-term down time, you have energy available to do other work, for networking, etc.," if the flywheel analogy is the right one, it means that you store energy to spend when there is down time by doing work, not by turning the engine off for days or weeks.

If no work is done for a certain period of time (the motor is off), the flywheel does not accumulate energy to spend, it is dead, needs time to accumulate energy again.

If you don't go to the gym one or two days after a period of serious training, which may be a week or a month, the training session is likely to go well. If the rest period, "I'm so tired, I need a break," is longer, say two weeks, you are likely to come back not invigorated, but flat, without desire, you may think about putting it off for another two weeks because you still feel tired, the tank has not been filled with fuel, you may think. But it is because energy, will and desire work like a flywheel.

Re: 'Too many employees, but few work': Pichai, Zuckerberg sound the alarm

#949

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been at places where I would love to hear the CEO say that. Being forced to work with poor performers, lazy people, and people who deliver poor quality results is frustrating and demoralizing. Those kinds of people can stick around for years, especially in good times when the company is making so much money that leadership doesn't need to care. Netflix is one of the few large companies that has a culture of cull…

It depresses me no end that someone can see poor performance, laziness etc only as a trait others possess, and not as a reaction to circumstance that they themselves might experience one day. I guarantee that anyone -- anyone -- can find themselves viewed as substandard. It's truly disturbing when Zuckerberg says something so dystopian, and people 'in the trenches' call for more.

Sub-standard is relative to a standard. If someone finds themselves to be sub-standard, maybe they should find a place with lower standards? That's exactly what Zuck is saying.

On one hand, I've worked with a guy once who, as far as I could tell, did about an hour of work per day (if that) and played fantasy baseball in his office most of the time, waiting to be PIPed and managed out for a really long time... I inherited his code and it was a patchwork of minimum effort hacky fixes with no care for quality (cause he wasn't going to maintain it, I guess?). I really don't care what his circumstances are, I don't want to work with people like that, I wish they could fire him much faster than they did, and I bet most people would agree.

On the other hand I've heard about FB in particular is that there are teams with lots of people working 12-hour days. I am not willing to do that; it would be dumb for me to join such a team, and kind of a dick move to stick around as a low performer (I heard it from a friend who tried to keep up then decided to quit).

Re: 'Too many employees, but few work': Pichai, Zuckerberg sound the alarm

#950
post #560

Once again, companies blaming strategic problems on ICs rather than real culprit: leadership. Or, rather, the lack thereof. Having worked at both Google and Facebook I can tell you it's contradictory because in some cases you have an embarrassment of riches, hundreds or even thousands of heads, virtually unlimited resources (CPU, storage, networking), etc. Some make sense like Google+. I mean it was a failure and pro…

The bureaucracy to launch a project can be high. I think some of it is essential. A company really does need to ensure every project launch adheres to regulatory/branding/legal guidelines. We do have to adhere to a high a11y/i18n standard. A smaller company can just choose to ignore a bunch of these things.

The problem is when these requirements mean you have to hunt down a lawyer who can flip the bit and they're busy with other things for the next few weeks. Same goes for security reviewers. Another thing is the ambiguity for what exactly is required for a11y/i18n. These things can be improved.

I work in Google Cloud. After the main technical work is done, a feature launch requires probers, integration tests, metrics, alerts, dashboards, updating the gcloud CLI tool, updating client libraries in several libraries, writing internal support playbooks, writing external docs, writing an external business-side blog post. This can all be construed as bureaucracy since it's not the main feature itself. But we do need all of these things to provide a good customer experience. I've written the main code for a feature that took about 2-3 weeks and then spend 2-3 months doing the rest of these things.

Post reply on HN