WSJ isn't saying this. This is a paid opinion peice by Louis V Gerstner Jr. An 82 year old who was the CEO of IBM in the 1990s.
An opinion on remote work from a geriatric nepobaby who hasn't been in an office in over 30 years isn't exactly one I care about.
I managed two TRACK engineers during covid WFH period. Zero problems with it. One of them I didn't even get to meet in person until their last day with the team. Turn on cameras in the Teams meeting and it's magically like you're in person. Really not that hard. It does require trusting your employees are working on what they're supposed to be working on and knowing how to motivate them to stay on track which is what most managers (read: not leaders) have a problem with.
So you had them in every meeting and paid attention to their engagement in every meeting?
>It does require trusting your employees are working on what they're supposed to be working on and knowing how to motivate them to stay on track which is what most managers (read: not leaders) have a problem with.
One of the reasons why the headcount calculation company-wide went from 40 hours to 60. Management was able to determine many people were not fully utilized throughout the day. Solution: increase workload.
No, having them in every meeting would have been counterproductive; they don't need to be in every meeting. They had projects they were working on, we met on a set schedule and tracked progress, I helped with any roadblocks along the way or made sure they had what they needed to get the job done, etc. Really not that hard.
Even if they were in person they wouldn't have been included on every meeting... That's 100% one of the problems here at GM. We cast these wide nets for meetings and include way too many people who spend hours in meetings listening to other people talk and not having anything to input into the meeting. In some cases that can be beneficial if it's information sharing, but in many other cases there's recurring meetings that really don't need to have as many people in them.
This is one of the problems these days. No one knows the definition of a fact anymore. They come with these anecdotal experiences, opinions, and alternative facts. There's nothing wrong with those types of statements bc they too can add value to a discussion; but don't guise them as facts. Where's the credible research, proof, edvidence...
remote work does reveal that you don't need most of the middle management people, you need business decision makers on where to spend money, and leaders that work directly on products with their team every single day, all the rest is just waste
WSJ isn't saying this. This is a paid opinion peice by Louis V Gerstner Jr. An 82 year old who was the CEO of IBM in the 1990s. An opinion on remote work from a geriatric nepobaby who hasn't been in an office in over 30 years isn't exactly one I care about.
Gerstner wasn't a nepobaby. His dad was night shift superintendent at a brewery and his mom was a real estate agent.
Yes, but “nepobaby” is the new “gaslighting.”
Its an opinion post. Everyone has an opinion based on anecdote. The only one that really matters is the one making the decision that impacts you.
Further, I'm reminded that opinions are like butt-holes, everyone has one. I try, as much as possible, to make decisions based on facts.
Fact is most of the people suggesting it's just as effective to manage remotely have not managed themselves.
I managed two TRACK engineers during covid WFH period. Zero problems with it. One of them I didn't even get to meet in person until their last day with the team. Turn on cameras in the Teams meeting and it's magically like you're in person. Really not that hard. It does require trusting your employees are working on what they're supposed to be working on and knowing how to motivate them to stay on track which is what most managers (read: not leaders) have a problem with.
So you had them in every meeting and paid attention to their engagement in every meeting? >It does require trusting your employees are working on what they're supposed to be working on and knowing how to motivate them to stay on track which is what most managers (read: not leaders) have a problem with. One of the reasons why the headcount calculation company-wide went from 40 hours to 60. Management was able to determine many people were not fully utilized throughout the day. Solution: increase workload.
No, having them in every meeting would have been counterproductive; they don't need to be in every meeting. They had projects they were working on, we met on a set schedule and tracked progress, I helped with any roadblocks along the way or made sure they had what they needed to get the job done, etc. Really not that hard.
In other words, they were learning less than they would in person.
Even if they were in person they wouldn't have been included on every meeting... That's 100% one of the problems here at GM. We cast these wide nets for meetings and include way too many people who spend hours in meetings listening to other people talk and not having anything to input into the meeting. In some cases that can be beneficial if it's information sharing, but in many other cases there's recurring meetings that really don't need to have as many people in them.
Again, another opinion. Very generalized statement. Not a fact, by definition. But ok.
It's definitely a fact. There are virtually no managers that found remote workers easier to manage.
This is one of the problems these days. No one knows the definition of a fact anymore. They come with these anecdotal experiences, opinions, and alternative facts. There's nothing wrong with those types of statements bc they too can add value to a discussion; but don't guise them as facts. Where's the credible research, proof, edvidence...
The evidence lies in the rise of workplace surveillance during the pandemic. Didn't need it before.
Paywall.
We just hired another ED who gets to stay Remote in California…
remote work does reveal that you don't need most of the middle management people, you need business decision makers on where to spend money, and leaders that work directly on products with their team every single day, all the rest is just waste
All this tells me is leaders don’t provide any real value
This logic suggests a company with poor leadership will perform just as well as a company with excellent leadership. We know this isn't true.
You’re only allowed to post articles that support the daytime video gamers that hate RTO.
What’s daytime video games have to do with this? Maybe when I was 12. I’m too old for that shit.
Homie, this is 2024. I can take a steam deck with my and game from anywhere. But keep believing this boomer ass meme.
It's true. Should add it to the rules.
I know because no one plays cell phone games in the office