Meta notes problems with WFH productivity in firings memo

[Anonymous]

Meta has now fired 30,000 employees in the last bit. In this latest round, Zuch noted that an analysis of engineer productivity showed that those who worked in-person were more productive. He encouraged people to be in-office at least 3 DOW. This may be the start of employers fighting back with “facts” regarding worker claims of better productivity at home.

[Anonymous]

Haha, sure it’s because of WFH not foolish investment in Second Life 3D…

He’s just looking for a scapegoat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Haha, sure it’s because of WFH not foolish investment in Second Life 3D…

He’s just looking for a scapegoat.

Yeah, I know several people at Meta and nobody believes Zuckerberg here. It’s obviously a cover for his massive failures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haha, sure it’s because of WFH not foolish investment in Second Life 3D…

He’s just looking for a scapegoat.

Yeah, I know several people at Meta and nobody believes Zuckerberg here. It’s obviously a cover for his massive failures.

even so, I wonder if this is a cover to bring everyone back, and fire those who won't come back now that there are more workers in the market from layoffs of other big techs like Google.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haha, sure it’s because of WFH not foolish investment in Second Life 3D…

He’s just looking for a scapegoat.

Yeah, I know several people at Meta and nobody believes Zuckerberg here. It’s obviously a cover for his massive failures.

even so, I wonder if this is a cover to bring everyone back, and fire those who won't come back now that there are more workers in the market from layoffs of other big techs like Google.

Oh yeah that has been a thing since IBM and Yahoo.

[Anonymous]

How much more productive?

Satisfaction with work-life balance is directly correlated with people staying longer at companies, developing greater institutional knowledge and deepening their expertise in their area. It's short-sighted to argue to change a policy that might result in 2% more productivity but 10-15% more attrition. Sure, Meta is looking to shed headcount now because of executive-level mistakes in investment and vision (sorry, but Mega's financial issues have zero to do with engineer productivity due to WFH -- zero). But in the future economic winds will shift and they will be back in the market for talent and, in the tech industry, rigid in-office requirements will be a major liability for attracting the best talent at all levels.

Anecdotally, most people I know want to be in the office at least a couple days a week (unless they totally hate their employer, which is in itself a massive red flag). But they want to feel trusted by their employer to decided when in-office makes sense according to their work flow. I work in a slightly different field but my work is similar to a programmer -- there are definitely collaborative elements to my work, especially when initiating a project and when getting it ready for the client. But in between there are long stretches when I just have to sit at my computer and focus. I do that a million times better at home, with minimal distractions and with the ability maximize my work day without needing to commute. I can start my workday at 7 or 7:30, take shorter breaks for food or coffee since I'm just grabbing something from my kitchen, even my bathroom breaks are more efficient. When I'm mid-project, home is absolutely the most productive option and my employer often gets 10+ hour work days out of me because I'm "in the zone" with minimal distraction. It's basically impossible for me to get that in the office.

So a policy that required 3 days in office each week, with limited leeway for me to determine when that makes sense for my work, is a total no-go for me. I am a 20 yr veteran in my field, my work is in demand, and I know how I work best. I'm not some 23 yr old recent hire who just hates wearing clothes or getting off my couch.

Zuckerberg needs to remember what it is to be a high performer and look for ways to attract them. This ain't it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How much more productive?

Satisfaction with work-life balance is directly correlated with people staying longer at companies, developing greater institutional knowledge and deepening their expertise in their area. It's short-sighted to argue to change a policy that might result in 2% more productivity but 10-15% more attrition. Sure, Meta is looking to shed headcount now because of executive-level mistakes in investment and vision (sorry, but Mega's financial issues have zero to do with engineer productivity due to WFH -- zero). But in the future economic winds will shift and they will be back in the market for talent and, in the tech industry, rigid in-office requirements will be a major liability for attracting the best talent at all levels.

Anecdotally, most people I know want to be in the office at least a couple days a week (unless they totally hate their employer, which is in itself a massive red flag). But they want to feel trusted by their employer to decided when in-office makes sense according to their work flow. I work in a slightly different field but my work is similar to a programmer -- there are definitely collaborative elements to my work, especially when initiating a project and when getting it ready for the client. But in between there are long stretches when I just have to sit at my computer and focus. I do that a million times better at home, with minimal distractions and with the ability maximize my work day without needing to commute. I can start my workday at 7 or 7:30, take shorter breaks for food or coffee since I'm just grabbing something from my kitchen, even my bathroom breaks are more efficient. When I'm mid-project, home is absolutely the most productive option and my employer often gets 10+ hour work days out of me because I'm "in the zone" with minimal distraction. It's basically impossible for me to get that in the office.

So a policy that required 3 days in office each week, with limited leeway for me to determine when that makes sense for my work, is a total no-go for me. I am a 20 yr veteran in my field, my work is in demand, and I know how I work best. I'm not some 23 yr old recent hire who just hates wearing clothes or getting off my couch.

Zuckerberg needs to remember what it is to be a high performer and look for ways to attract them. This ain't it.

I want ti go back as literally staff goof off all day and I chase them for work and I fall
Behind or I do my work and they fall behind

Pre pandemic we had two scrums a day. One in morning 830-845 am and the other 445-5pm

Folks who finish assigned tasks by home folks who did not got to attend 7 pm scrum and if not done then a few times fired .

Nearly everyone finished work by 5

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How much more productive?

Satisfaction with work-life balance is directly correlated with people staying longer at companies, developing greater institutional knowledge and deepening their expertise in their area. It's short-sighted to argue to change a policy that might result in 2% more productivity but 10-15% more attrition. Sure, Meta is looking to shed headcount now because of executive-level mistakes in investment and vision (sorry, but Mega's financial issues have zero to do with engineer productivity due to WFH -- zero). But in the future economic winds will shift and they will be back in the market for talent and, in the tech industry, rigid in-office requirements will be a major liability for attracting the best talent at all levels.

Anecdotally, most people I know want to be in the office at least a couple days a week (unless they totally hate their employer, which is in itself a massive red flag). But they want to feel trusted by their employer to decided when in-office makes sense according to their work flow. I work in a slightly different field but my work is similar to a programmer -- there are definitely collaborative elements to my work, especially when initiating a project and when getting it ready for the client. But in between there are long stretches when I just have to sit at my computer and focus. I do that a million times better at home, with minimal distractions and with the ability maximize my work day without needing to commute. I can start my workday at 7 or 7:30, take shorter breaks for food or coffee since I'm just grabbing something from my kitchen, even my bathroom breaks are more efficient. When I'm mid-project, home is absolutely the most productive option and my employer often gets 10+ hour work days out of me because I'm "in the zone" with minimal distraction. It's basically impossible for me to get that in the office.

So a policy that required 3 days in office each week, with limited leeway for me to determine when that makes sense for my work, is a total no-go for me. I am a 20 yr veteran in my field, my work is in demand, and I know how I work best. I'm not some 23 yr old recent hire who just hates wearing clothes or getting off my couch.

Zuckerberg needs to remember what it is to be a high performer and look for ways to attract them. This ain't it.

I agree. But letting go of control is VERY hard. For parents, for managers, for governments... for everyone who has to supervise anyone. Even if intellectually, they know what you just explained.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much more productive?

Satisfaction with work-life balance is directly correlated with people staying longer at companies, developing greater institutional knowledge and deepening their expertise in their area. It's short-sighted to argue to change a policy that might result in 2% more productivity but 10-15% more attrition. Sure, Meta is looking to shed headcount now because of executive-level mistakes in investment and vision (sorry, but Mega's financial issues have zero to do with engineer productivity due to WFH -- zero). But in the future economic winds will shift and they will be back in the market for talent and, in the tech industry, rigid in-office requirements will be a major liability for attracting the best talent at all levels.

Anecdotally, most people I know want to be in the office at least a couple days a week (unless they totally hate their employer, which is in itself a massive red flag). But they want to feel trusted by their employer to decided when in-office makes sense according to their work flow. I work in a slightly different field but my work is similar to a programmer -- there are definitely collaborative elements to my work, especially when initiating a project and when getting it ready for the client. But in between there are long stretches when I just have to sit at my computer and focus. I do that a million times better at home, with minimal distractions and with the ability maximize my work day without needing to commute. I can start my workday at 7 or 7:30, take shorter breaks for food or coffee since I'm just grabbing something from my kitchen, even my bathroom breaks are more efficient. When I'm mid-project, home is absolutely the most productive option and my employer often gets 10+ hour work days out of me because I'm "in the zone" with minimal distraction. It's basically impossible for me to get that in the office.

So a policy that required 3 days in office each week, with limited leeway for me to determine when that makes sense for my work, is a total no-go for me. I am a 20 yr veteran in my field, my work is in demand, and I know how I work best. I'm not some 23 yr old recent hire who just hates wearing clothes or getting off my couch.

Zuckerberg needs to remember what it is to be a high performer and look for ways to attract them. This ain't it.

I want ti go back as literally staff goof off all day and I chase them for work and I fall
Behind or I do my work and they fall behind

Pre pandemic we had two scrums a day. One in morning 830-845 am and the other 445-5pm

Folks who finish assigned tasks by home folks who did not got to attend 7 pm scrum and if not done then a few times fired .

Nearly everyone finished work by 5

I sense your issues with managing your team might stem from your communication issues. I read this three times and still can't figure out what "Folks who finish assigned tasks by home folks who did not go to attend 7 pm scrum" means. Like no idea. I have a few theories based entirely on keywords and my general knowledge of work environments but I can't even square this with the rest of your post (I thought you had two scrums and the last one was over by 5pm), it's a total mystery.

If you are having trouble getting your team to meet deadlines, I'd start with your communication style.

[Anonymous]

It’s a complete joke to argue that working from home is more productive than working in the office and everybody being honest with themselves knows it. Sure, it’s easier but it isn’t more productive. Be serious.

[Anonymous]

Does Zuck WFH?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much more productive?

Satisfaction with work-life balance is directly correlated with people staying longer at companies, developing greater institutional knowledge and deepening their expertise in their area. It's short-sighted to argue to change a policy that might result in 2% more productivity but 10-15% more attrition. Sure, Meta is looking to shed headcount now because of executive-level mistakes in investment and vision (sorry, but Mega's financial issues have zero to do with engineer productivity due to WFH -- zero). But in the future economic winds will shift and they will be back in the market for talent and, in the tech industry, rigid in-office requirements will be a major liability for attracting the best talent at all levels.

Anecdotally, most people I know want to be in the office at least a couple days a week (unless they totally hate their employer, which is in itself a massive red flag). But they want to feel trusted by their employer to decided when in-office makes sense according to their work flow. I work in a slightly different field but my work is similar to a programmer -- there are definitely collaborative elements to my work, especially when initiating a project and when getting it ready for the client. But in between there are long stretches when I just have to sit at my computer and focus. I do that a million times better at home, with minimal distractions and with the ability maximize my work day without needing to commute. I can start my workday at 7 or 7:30, take shorter breaks for food or coffee since I'm just grabbing something from my kitchen, even my bathroom breaks are more efficient. When I'm mid-project, home is absolutely the most productive option and my employer often gets 10+ hour work days out of me because I'm "in the zone" with minimal distraction. It's basically impossible for me to get that in the office.

So a policy that required 3 days in office each week, with limited leeway for me to determine when that makes sense for my work, is a total no-go for me. I am a 20 yr veteran in my field, my work is in demand, and I know how I work best. I'm not some 23 yr old recent hire who just hates wearing clothes or getting off my couch.

Zuckerberg needs to remember what it is to be a high performer and look for ways to attract them. This ain't it.

I agree. But letting go of control is VERY hard. For parents, for managers, for governments... for everyone who has to supervise anyone. Even if intellectually, they know what you just explained.

I used to manage a fully remote team (pre-Covid) and I found that the key was setting very clear expectations for check ins and deadlines, making sure there were consequences for failing to meet them (like you lose projects, get demoted, or lose your job) and then otherwise being very supportive of peopel setting up their work as made sense to them. I'd have peopel join the team and start out telling me every detail of their schedule (because they were used to working in office or for micromanagers who didn't trust them) and I'd be like "it is a waste of both of our time for you to explain to me that you are working from a coffee shop from 2-4 in the afternoon because it is closer to where you will need to pick up your kids after that." People were unused to be treated like adults who could manage themselves. I viewed my job as facilitating theirs, and had regular check ins where they could let me know what resources they needed or I could discuss any issues with accountability on their end. It worked great.

I think most people struggle with this because they don't know how to (1) provide clear expectations -- they don't want to put in the effort to think about what is really expected of people and then communicate it clearly, and (2) hold peopel accountable. I fired peopel in that job. I didn't like doing it, but I did have people who would just did not get their job done and would hide from me instead of responding to check in calls or emails. And I'd been clear about expectations so even though those firings sucked, no one was confused about why they happened, and people had gotten ample warning.

Most companies are instead way too vague about expectations but then also never actually fire anyone for cause due to liability issues, and as a result they just rely on trying to watch people all the time or using metrics like "time spent at desk within view of my office" which is a crap metric for work performance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haha, sure it’s because of WFH not foolish investment in Second Life 3D…

He’s just looking for a scapegoat.

Yeah, I know several people at Meta and nobody believes Zuckerberg here. It’s obviously a cover for his massive failures.

even so, I wonder if this is a cover to bring everyone back, and fire those who won't come back now that there are more workers in the market from layoffs of other big techs like Google.

My cousin was let go from Google and hasn't been successful in finding anything within $25k of what he was making. Other companies know the market is flooded with laid-off workers who need jobs so they can be conservative with salaries offered. We'll see how that changes when some of the severances start dropping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haha, sure it’s because of WFH not foolish investment in Second Life 3D…

He’s just looking for a scapegoat.

Yeah, I know several people at Meta and nobody believes Zuckerberg here. It’s obviously a cover for his massive failures.

even so, I wonder if this is a cover to bring everyone back, and fire those who won't come back now that there are more workers in the market from layoffs of other big techs like Google.

My cousin was let go from Google and hasn't been successful in finding anything within $25k of what he was making. Other companies know the market is flooded with laid-off workers who need jobs so they can be conservative with salaries offered. We'll see how that changes when some of the severances start dropping.

These lay-offs may take some of the froth out of the tech labor market, which had been going crazy. But it is still a very tight labor market and unless there is a recession the workers will still have a lot of power. I don’t think many people will be forced back full time, though I am sure that three days a week will be more common.

[Anonymous]

NOPE! Techs dying!