this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2024
657 points (99.7% liked)

Work Reform

9797 readers
490 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 215 points 1 month ago (13 children)

It feels like the big elephant in the room about shorter work weeks and more remote work is that lower level employee productivity is not the issue with them (likely at all).

And it isn't even that managers and higher-ups have some biases against such schemes (which they certainly do).

It's that such schemes put a clearer focus on the actual role managers and higher-ups are supposed to be performing, namely organising employees and their tasks and priorities into coherent and well-planned projects. Managers are, on average, not actually good at this. And the problem is systemic ... the average work culture doesn't have a good sense of what this looks like. Instead, there are "glue people" all over the place, working beyond their roles to fill in the gaps and keep things together.

But, with a less "monolithic", co-located and co-active workforce, the need for actual coordination beyond "do the things! LFG!!" becomes very real, and very anxious for people who either don't know how to do that or don't want the world to find out that things were actually working fine in spite of their inability to do it. A remote and discretely scheduled workforce necessarily asks accountability questions like "who is responsible for planning this?" and "this isn't my responsibility, you need to get someone else to do it" etc.

Managers and higher-ups aren't comfortable with their actual value being scrutinised more closely. And in many ways, it's actually understandable ... as they likely don't know the answer themselves.

[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I wish it were that simple. There's also personality and behaviour differences in people. Some people simply suck at working alone or remotely and it fucking sucks to be their manager because guess who has to work onsite now?

Even if my current team was like my previous ones where everyone could 100% remote—hell, I saw one guy every six months or so and let another travel Europe remote working—theres's personalities that loooooooove seeing everyone at work and 0.6 of their FTE is socialising. Work is getting out of the house and away from the family. They complain that no one's at the office to get paid to talk to.

[–] maegul@lemm.ee 24 points 1 month ago

And what about the people that suck at working at the office? And those that don’t get any or are not interested in a work based social life?

Reality is that there’s diversity and lots of in betweens. Thus diversity and flexibility and the value of managers in bringing it all together (like maybe they were always supposed to?)

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)