Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol, or FB hired a stupid ass number of people in the first place and didn't have enough work for them.

FB is such a stupidly run company..

There have been reports that Facebook hired people to do "fake work" and that people had to fight to find any work to do.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So sad to see pathetic, incompetent managers rely so heavily on their employees’ *physical location* in order to motivate and lead them. If my ability to manage/lead my people depended on my being able to touch them (i.e., on their being physically present with me), I’d resign in disgrace.

Except not all people can WFH. My brother literally spend 3-5 days a week golfing on WFH.

Here was his schedule working for a back in NY in 2021 at his Florida house.

Get up 6am. Shower get dressed. Have breakfast wife as early riser. At 645 turn on work laptop and activate mouse juggler thing and check email and respond if have one.

7am hit golf course with his other WFH friends play 18 holes, then lunch with friends or back home to wife, check emails, then dip in pool, check emails then a nap after that BBQ with wife or go out to dinner. Between March 2020 and Sept 2022. He did 30-45 minutes a day work on a 400k salary. They were taking RTO and he still owns his NY home but instead asked for package. He got his boss to lay him off July 2022 after six month severance ran out took another WFH job as bored. This one more worn but can quit anytime. He turns 63 next month. His goal is once 63.5 hits if work gets tough just quit go on cobra till Medicare at 65.

Pre WFH he would have just retired. His entire complex is loaded with 55-65 year old men working remote who would have retired but why not milk WFH as long as possible then get a severance package then six months unemployment. I also knew a few “work at home moms”
They would have been SAHMs but why not juggle WFH remote as long as possible, get severance then unemployment. One wine I with with quiet quit in Spring 2020 with two young kids. Off the record end game is milk it as long as possible, get severance than unemployment then get a real job and by then both kids in elementary school.

How poorly run is that company to not notice the guy has zero work product for months on end?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So sad to see pathetic, incompetent managers rely so heavily on their employees’ *physical location* in order to motivate and lead them. If my ability to manage/lead my people depended on my being able to touch them (i.e., on their being physically present with me), I’d resign in disgrace.

Except not all people can WFH. My brother literally spend 3-5 days a week golfing on WFH.

Here was his schedule working for a back in NY in 2021 at his Florida house.

Get up 6am. Shower get dressed. Have breakfast wife as early riser. At 645 turn on work laptop and activate mouse juggler thing and check email and respond if have one.

7am hit golf course with his other WFH friends play 18 holes, then lunch with friends or back home to wife, check emails, then dip in pool, check emails then a nap after that BBQ with wife or go out to dinner. Between March 2020 and Sept 2022. He did 30-45 minutes a day work on a 400k salary. They were taking RTO and he still owns his NY home but instead asked for package. He got his boss to lay him off July 2022 after six month severance ran out took another WFH job as bored. This one more worn but can quit anytime. He turns 63 next month. His goal is once 63.5 hits if work gets tough just quit go on cobra till Medicare at 65.

Pre WFH he would have just retired. His entire complex is loaded with 55-65 year old men working remote who would have retired but why not milk WFH as long as possible then get a severance package then six months unemployment. I also knew a few “work at home moms”
They would have been SAHMs but why not juggle WFH remote as long as possible, get severance then unemployment. One wine I with with quiet quit in Spring 2020 with two young kids. Off the record end game is milk it as long as possible, get severance than unemployment then get a real job and by then both kids in elementary school.

How poorly run is that company to not notice the guy has zero work product for months on end?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So sad to see pathetic, incompetent managers rely so heavily on their employees’ *physical location* in order to motivate and lead them. If my ability to manage/lead my people depended on my being able to touch them (i.e., on their being physically present with me), I’d resign in disgrace.

Except not all people can WFH. My brother literally spend 3-5 days a week golfing on WFH.

Here was his schedule working for a back in NY in 2021 at his Florida house.

Get up 6am. Shower get dressed. Have breakfast wife as early riser. At 645 turn on work laptop and activate mouse juggler thing and check email and respond if have one.

7am hit golf course with his other WFH friends play 18 holes, then lunch with friends or back home to wife, check emails, then dip in pool, check emails then a nap after that BBQ with wife or go out to dinner. Between March 2020 and Sept 2022. He did 30-45 minutes a day work on a 400k salary. They were taking RTO and he still owns his NY home but instead asked for package. He got his boss to lay him off July 2022 after six month severance ran out took another WFH job as bored. This one more worn but can quit anytime. He turns 63 next month. His goal is once 63.5 hits if work gets tough just quit go on cobra till Medicare at 65.

Pre WFH he would have just retired. His entire complex is loaded with 55-65 year old men working remote who would have retired but why not milk WFH as long as possible then get a severance package then six months unemployment. I also knew a few “work at home moms”
They would have been SAHMs but why not juggle WFH remote as long as possible, get severance then unemployment. One wine I with with quiet quit in Spring 2020 with two young kids. Off the record end game is milk it as long as possible, get severance than unemployment then get a real job and by then both kids in elementary school.

Anonymous wrote:So sad to see pathetic, incompetent managers rely so heavily on their employees’ *physical location* in order to motivate and lead them. If my ability to manage/lead my people depended on my being able to touch them (i.e., on their being physically present with me), I’d resign in disgrace.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Umm, it's actually the 23 year olds who WANT to come in. It's the 40 somethings and 50 somethings who have gotten lazy and want to "walk little Ker and Fuffle from the bus stop everyday and start dinner early" that want to WFH or whatever it is they claim to be doing.

Anonymous wrote:So sad to see pathetic, incompetent managers rely so heavily on their employees’ *physical location* in order to motivate and lead them. If my ability to manage/lead my people depended on my being able to touch them (i.e., on their being physically present with me), I’d resign in disgrace.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol, or FB hired a stupid ass number of people in the first place and didn't have enough work for them.

FB is such a stupidly run company..

There have been reports that Facebook hired people to do "fake work" and that people had to fight to find any work to do.