this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2023
411 points (96.6% liked)

Asklemmy

43939 readers
372 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I have posted this on Reddit (askeconomics) a while back but got no good replies. Copying it here because I don't want to send traffic to Reddit.

What do you think?

I see a big push to take employees back to the office. I personally don't mind either working remote or in the office, but I think big companies tend to think rationally in terms of cost/benefit and I haven't seen a convincing explanation yet of why they are so keen to have everyone back.

If remote work was just as productive as in-person, a remote-only company could use it to be more efficient than their work-in-office competitors, so I assume there's no conclusive evidence that this is the case. But I haven't seen conclusive evidence of the contrary either, and I think employers would have good reason to trumpet any findings at least internally to their employees ("we've seen KPI so-and-so drop with everyone working from home" or "project X was severely delayed by lack of in-person coordination" wouldn't make everyone happy to return in presence, but at least it would make a good argument for a manager to explain to their team)

Instead, all I keep hearing is inspirational wish-wash like "we value the power of working together". Which is fine, but why are we valuing it more than the cost of office space?

On the side of employees, I often see arguments like "these companies made a big investment in offices and now they don't want to look stupid by leaving them empty". But all these large companies have spent billions to acquire smaller companies/products and dropped them without a second thought. I can't believe the same companies would now be so sentimentally attached to office buildings if it made any economic sense to close them.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] fratermus@lemmy.sdf.org 33 points 1 year ago (2 children)

why are companies trying so hard to have employees back in the office?

Managers generally don't know how to manage people, so point fingers at WFH (or anything else that's handy)

[โ€“] Diplomjodler@feddit.de 28 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Managers are managers because they're good at playing power games, not because they're competent at their jobs. Power games are much harder if you never see the people you manage. Managing in a predominantly WFH environment will be very different and a lot of people who are successful now will fail in this world. That's what they're scared of.

[โ€“] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

I read some research paper not too long ago that showed how a majority of managers promoted from within are bad at their jobs because they got all their experience in other jobs along the way to management that are not even remotely similar to the tasks required for management, thus they don't actually develop skills that make for good managers.

Like just because you flipped burgers really good at McDonald's doesn't mean you would be good at managing other burger flippers.

[โ€“] Curious_Canid@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 year ago

There is a concept, known as the Peter Principle, that says people will rise to the level of their incompetence. Basically, anyone who is good at a job gets promoted. That keeps happening until they finally end up in a job where they are not good. And that is where they will stay.

[โ€“] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Makes sense, but you see the opposite all the time. Someone who has little experience, but has a fresh degree or an MBA in management. They might have learned some management concepts, possibly even supervised people in the past... but they have no idea how the organization truly functions, they don't know what their team is really doing and if one of their team members or an SME is gone they have no idea what to do other than bark orders at the other team members because they have never done the work themselves.

In an ideal world, you would find someone who was excelling at the vasious jobs they would be managing and then put them into a management training program or pay for their schooling.

[โ€“] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 2 points 1 year ago

Oh for sure. The last decade, most of the jobs I've had tell me they want to eventually make me a manager; but then they never actually train me how to manage so I never take the position.

[โ€“] SouthEndSunset@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Exactly. There are many managers out there that have picked up a few management skills, put in to a management role over jobs that they have no clue about. Theyre frequently a big dick and create hostile company culture.

[โ€“] MegaUmbreon@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

It's called the Peter Principle.

[โ€“] SouthEndSunset@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Ive not had many managers in my working life with actual people skills...

[โ€“] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago

I think there was literally a management consultant quoted on CBC that said most managers rely on time in office as their only measure of productivity.

Humanity has done many atrocities, but that's somehow just as disappointing if true. Like, measuring and increasing productivity is the entire point of that job, isn't it?