The article doesn't mention how or what kind of location data will be collected/used. There is no explicit mention of tracking location using smartphones or laptops.
It is mentioned that the firm already uses location data in connection with billable hours (verifying/approving the billable hours, I'm guessing). Again, no mention of how/what location data is collected.
It is mentioned that EY does something similar (office attendance tracking) using swipe card data.
I realise you're being sarcastic but the main argument for in-office work is increased levels of collaboration which only works if most people are coming in.
I work in a creative industry that's entirely driven by close collaboration. It's really just much harder to do this kind of work remotely. I get that people have other priorities but it's really not as absolute as you say it is.
If you're not needed in person ... To move something or specifically to physically interact with your surroundings you're not needed onsite ever. Exceptions for national security obviously.
Sorry if that impacts your delicate sensitivities or preferences. But facts are facts.
One think I never enjoyed was endless meetings talking about what was to be done and how to do them. Hours of time wasted for usually one or two people to dominate that time enjoying the fact that others we forced to listen to them.
That's not work nor is it value for money, not for the businesses, the shareholders/stakeholders nor the employees.
And a bit about trust, as managers are often clueless about the true performance of their team. To them, as long as there are easily observable people in chairs, things are working well.
If people aren't performing, then adjustments need to be made.
If they're not doing the job they're paid to do then they're in breach of their employment contract.
Trust is about belief that someone is going to (not) do something.
Facts are demonstrable. You're either doing your job or you're not.
Feelings are subjective and irrelevant.
If a manager has no clue about the performance of their team, then it's the manager that needs replacing.
It's a common trope by C-suite execs who have zero clue what their business does, sure they need to guide the business, maybe inspire their subordinates.
But falling back on logical fallacies such as call to authority: "Elmo said this and he's the CEO of ChadCorp who are worth trillions", is lazy and pathetic.
I'll buy you one box of Kleenex to dry your tears, because I'm not a monster. But facts is facts.
Just because covid pushed these facts out there and now everyone knows that they can work from home if they're in an appropriate job.
Sure nurses/doctors of all disciplines are almost always needed in person. Though there has been a lot of progress in telepresence in the last few years.
Short answer is no. But I can see why you think that. Some great ideas are derived from pub conversations, and team building exercises.
Teams (and companies) usually end up in a state of groupthink, a bit like the rule of thumb "you are the average of the five people that you're closest to".
However I'm usually hired to think outside that social structure, and if I'm not, I bring it with me anyway.
Besides, there's nothing stopping you from talking to someone on slack, or your team's WhatsApp group, or private conversations.
People are much more likely to drop their social masks and tell you what you really think if you're talking one to one. Regardless of the medium.
I've not read anything that requires that you need to be in person for any of this?
I think the vast majority of roles / professions fall on a spectrum, and the vast majority do also benefit from at least a steady component of in-person interaction.
Yes, even tech roles. Doesn't have to be daily, or even weekly. But ideally it should happen at least once in a while (on a mutually-agreed upon basis of course).
In general I am pro-WFH/anti-RTO (on balance). That said, the absolutist stance you seem to be taking here ("always, always, control, control") seems patently out of touch with reality, and difficult to fathom.
It's the CEOs who enable and managers who want to micromanage that are wanting the return to the office. Threating to fire people if they don't comply.
That is, by definition, control.
Oh I agree wholeheartedly with your second paragraph.
So just to be clear, you’re saying there is no job where in person collaboration yields better results? And you don’t need to keep writing ‘it’s always about control’ over and over again, it doesn’t add any weight to your argument.
If you can elaborate a role that does require in person collaboration, I'll discuss it for sure.
But you are aware that videoconferencing has been around for decades now?
As I've said in earlier posts, if you have to physically manipulate something or its a performance of some kind then it's unlikely not to be able to be done remotely.
I'm not here to destroy my own argument. If you think I'm wrong then you need to present your own argument.
Video conferencing imposes a hurdle to communication that doesn't exist when people are working in the same physical space. One thing I've heard from some people who prefer working remotely is that it's easier for them to 'just put their headphones on and focus' because there are less distractions. But that makes the mistake of assuming they're being being paid to focus on a specific set of tasks, when in actual fact they're being paid to do a lot of things including passing on their experience to junior members of staff, and to communicate freely with other people working on their project. These things (in my and many other peoples opinion) work better when the small hurdle to communication I mentioned earlier doesn't exist.
Actually, if that's not in your contract, it literally isn't your job to train up junior members of your team. Of course, we're not monsters so we do.
You're paid to do what's outlined in your contract nothing more.
Headphones on. Crack on with the job at hand. That's exactly the way to go. Having to be distracted by annoying co-workers who don't understand that, is a benefit of WFH for sure.
Who wants to be constantly interrupted by random folk when you're likely working to a deadline?
That's because when you're suddenly distracted by "just a quick question..." It takes you an age to unwind the stack and try to realign back to what you were doing.
That 5 minute 'quick question' becomes 15-30 minutes of getting back into the zone. Send an email, an IM, post the question on the slack channel for anyone to answer.
Just. Don't. Disturb. Me.
You think it's subjective. "My and other people's opinion", who? Really? Or are they just nodding and saying that you're right because it's actually impossible to talk any sense into you?
Take a moment and meditate how toxic the behaviour you described above actually is to the real needs of the business, and not your feelings.
It's very difficult to have a conversation when you're making so many projections about a business you likely know very little about. Most of the employees in the industry I work in are artist, not SWEs, and they're working on creative problems with often loosely defined briefs that change every day, and require teams of people to work closely together for many months to achieve. They're also using complex and often poorly documented software that may have been built to solve a specific problem they're attempting to solve.
It's very difficult indeed to argue, when you're giving very little information to back up your assertions.
If you're not given clear briefs, and you accept the work, then it's clear to me that as an industry you've allowed this to go on too long ;)
Let's face it, you're unable to be shifted from your viewpoint. So the utility of this discussion is approaching zero.
I hope your situation improves. Especially with the cranky software! I'm very curious what the software does as I'm always looking for a niche product to build!
I’ve heard that argument before, but I’m not convinced. I think it’s uncontroversial to say that teams who collaborate more should easily surpass teams that don’t.
Therefore, if in-person proximity is important for collaboration, in-person teams should have clearly superior performance to remote teams.
We know that’s not true though, so the argument for in-person presence needs some refinement. Why is it better, and better how?
28 comments
[ 5.2 ms ] story [ 67.8 ms ] threadIt is mentioned that the firm already uses location data in connection with billable hours (verifying/approving the billable hours, I'm guessing). Again, no mention of how/what location data is collected.
It is mentioned that EY does something similar (office attendance tracking) using swipe card data.
Please don't confuse the two.
If you're not needed in person ... To move something or specifically to physically interact with your surroundings you're not needed onsite ever. Exceptions for national security obviously.
Sorry if that impacts your delicate sensitivities or preferences. But facts are facts.
One think I never enjoyed was endless meetings talking about what was to be done and how to do them. Hours of time wasted for usually one or two people to dominate that time enjoying the fact that others we forced to listen to them.
That's not work nor is it value for money, not for the businesses, the shareholders/stakeholders nor the employees.
It's always been about control.
It will always be about control.
And a bit about trust, as managers are often clueless about the true performance of their team. To them, as long as there are easily observable people in chairs, things are working well.
If people aren't performing, then adjustments need to be made.
If they're not doing the job they're paid to do then they're in breach of their employment contract.
Trust is about belief that someone is going to (not) do something.
Facts are demonstrable. You're either doing your job or you're not.
Feelings are subjective and irrelevant.
If a manager has no clue about the performance of their team, then it's the manager that needs replacing.
It's a common trope by C-suite execs who have zero clue what their business does, sure they need to guide the business, maybe inspire their subordinates.
But falling back on logical fallacies such as call to authority: "Elmo said this and he's the CEO of ChadCorp who are worth trillions", is lazy and pathetic.
I'll buy you one box of Kleenex to dry your tears, because I'm not a monster. But facts is facts.
Just because covid pushed these facts out there and now everyone knows that they can work from home if they're in an appropriate job.
Y'all not getting that genie back in the bottle.
Not even wanting to! I totally agree with you.
Could it be that there are some roles for which regular in-person interaction is highly beneficial?
But what were you thinking about?
Teams (and companies) usually end up in a state of groupthink, a bit like the rule of thumb "you are the average of the five people that you're closest to".
However I'm usually hired to think outside that social structure, and if I'm not, I bring it with me anyway.
Besides, there's nothing stopping you from talking to someone on slack, or your team's WhatsApp group, or private conversations.
People are much more likely to drop their social masks and tell you what you really think if you're talking one to one. Regardless of the medium.
I've not read anything that requires that you need to be in person for any of this?
Yes, even tech roles. Doesn't have to be daily, or even weekly. But ideally it should happen at least once in a while (on a mutually-agreed upon basis of course).
In general I am pro-WFH/anti-RTO (on balance). That said, the absolutist stance you seem to be taking here ("always, always, control, control") seems patently out of touch with reality, and difficult to fathom.
It's the CEOs who enable and managers who want to micromanage that are wanting the return to the office. Threating to fire people if they don't comply.
That is, by definition, control.
Oh I agree wholeheartedly with your second paragraph.
But you are aware that videoconferencing has been around for decades now?
As I've said in earlier posts, if you have to physically manipulate something or its a performance of some kind then it's unlikely not to be able to be done remotely.
I'm not here to destroy my own argument. If you think I'm wrong then you need to present your own argument.
You're paid to do what's outlined in your contract nothing more.
Headphones on. Crack on with the job at hand. That's exactly the way to go. Having to be distracted by annoying co-workers who don't understand that, is a benefit of WFH for sure.
Who wants to be constantly interrupted by random folk when you're likely working to a deadline?
That's because when you're suddenly distracted by "just a quick question..." It takes you an age to unwind the stack and try to realign back to what you were doing.
That 5 minute 'quick question' becomes 15-30 minutes of getting back into the zone. Send an email, an IM, post the question on the slack channel for anyone to answer.
Just. Don't. Disturb. Me.
You think it's subjective. "My and other people's opinion", who? Really? Or are they just nodding and saying that you're right because it's actually impossible to talk any sense into you?
Take a moment and meditate how toxic the behaviour you described above actually is to the real needs of the business, and not your feelings.
The world has moved on. Maybe you should too?
If you're not given clear briefs, and you accept the work, then it's clear to me that as an industry you've allowed this to go on too long ;)
Let's face it, you're unable to be shifted from your viewpoint. So the utility of this discussion is approaching zero.
I hope your situation improves. Especially with the cranky software! I'm very curious what the software does as I'm always looking for a niche product to build!
Therefore, if in-person proximity is important for collaboration, in-person teams should have clearly superior performance to remote teams.
We know that’s not true though, so the argument for in-person presence needs some refinement. Why is it better, and better how?