Seriously though: as with everything else, your mileage may vary (YMMV). Some people and companies are doing great with it and making it permanent. Others are experiencing issues. It has to do with what you are doing and the personalities in your organization.
This is business! Billions of dollars are at stake. This is far too important for things like "research" or "science." We make decisions based on the gut feelings of charismatic white men. Charisma is proof. If reality disagrees with charisma, reality is wrong.
Absent any other details as to how Mr. Hastings has come to his conclusions I'm left wondering if
“Not being able to get together in person, particularly internationally, is a pure negative,” Mr Hastings told the Wall Street Journal.
Doesn't ACTUALLY mean "managers not being able to micromanage by proxy of physical presence is a pure negative", because in lived experience this has been at the root of much resistance to WFH in my career: managerial loss of control and influence
Sorry Reid, but I'll never set foot in an office again. Working 100% remote saves me way too much time, not to mention money, and I've long since sorted out staying connected work colleagues (I've been working 100% remote for ~6 years).
Not needing to factor in commuting when choosing where to live is a godsend.
A big one as been making it a point to contact everyone on the team regularly, even if there's nothing urgent to discuss. This could be via email or video chat. If there's no programmatic reason to chat, I'll surely have come across some new tidbit of information or insight that's at least tangentially related to work and use that as an excuse. One of the dudes I'm working with is a far better C++ coder than me, so I'm regularly asking him questions, but I'm also mentoring some junior engineers, and I'll reach out to point out things to them.
For colleagues that I'm not directly working with but want to stay in contact with, I'll email them at least every few months with any interesting problems that I solved as well as the approach that are might be of interest to them. On my team, we'll regularly do tech surveys for advancing areas of our project, and the results of them will also get sent out. I also know their interests, and if I come across something they might like, I won't hesitate to send it their way.
It's really easy to buckle down and only address what's in front of your nose. But people get weird when that goes on too long. Better to take a break a couple times a week and check in with everyone else. I find that our morning scrum isn't enough.
Whilst there are no doubt downsides to working remotely, and I certainly miss seeing the people I work with face to face, there is literally zero substance to this piece.
I mean even Reed Hastings, the subject of the article, fails to enumerate the downsides he sees to remote working. Without hard - and frankly much wider ranging - evidence this is just one man's opinion and it's not a particularly interesting or insightful one either.
Interesting OT question: How much does Netflix care about user "engagement"? Surely there is data at Netflix HQ, but I guess there isn't a linear correlation between viewed minutes and canceled subscriptions. If you use Netflix "enough" for it to feel as a nice thing to have available and not cancel the subscription, I guess Netflix is happy?
Even if marginal cost is very low, each streamed video have some small cost associated with it. Is it really worth it to try and increase my viewing, as long as it's high enough?
(Conversely, will people really get Netflix subscriptions just because they are WFH, if they din't have them already?)
He didn't say that there are negative effects but that he sees no positives. Surely anyone who's carefully considered a position would be able to point out at least some positives.
Well, of course the experience of the netflix leader is starkly different from everybody elses. So his day is spend having to give a go for project or in general listening to ideas. Since he also depends on kategorizing people quickly he is hindered by videoconferencing. An videokonferencing all day certainly has its downsides. For other jobs, it says nothing. What a waste of my time.
30 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 67.8 ms ] threadSeriously though: as with everything else, your mileage may vary (YMMV). Some people and companies are doing great with it and making it permanent. Others are experiencing issues. It has to do with what you are doing and the personalities in your organization.
Maybe for you, bossman.
(Politics is even more this way...)
“Not being able to get together in person, particularly internationally, is a pure negative,” Mr Hastings told the Wall Street Journal.
Doesn't ACTUALLY mean "managers not being able to micromanage by proxy of physical presence is a pure negative", because in lived experience this has been at the root of much resistance to WFH in my career: managerial loss of control and influence
Going freelancing internationally finally shut them up.
"Netflix boss: Remote working has negative effects"
Excluding it gives a false impression this is something more than a self interested opinion.
Not needing to factor in commuting when choosing where to live is a godsend.
for those interested, care to mention a few of your solutions?
For colleagues that I'm not directly working with but want to stay in contact with, I'll email them at least every few months with any interesting problems that I solved as well as the approach that are might be of interest to them. On my team, we'll regularly do tech surveys for advancing areas of our project, and the results of them will also get sent out. I also know their interests, and if I come across something they might like, I won't hesitate to send it their way.
It's really easy to buckle down and only address what's in front of your nose. But people get weird when that goes on too long. Better to take a break a couple times a week and check in with everyone else. I find that our morning scrum isn't enough.
I mean even Reed Hastings, the subject of the article, fails to enumerate the downsides he sees to remote working. Without hard - and frankly much wider ranging - evidence this is just one man's opinion and it's not a particularly interesting or insightful one either.
I would think there is a correlation between the amount of wfh across the world and Netflix viewership.
Even if marginal cost is very low, each streamed video have some small cost associated with it. Is it really worth it to try and increase my viewing, as long as it's high enough?
(Conversely, will people really get Netflix subscriptions just because they are WFH, if they din't have them already?)