Microsoft's CEO Satya Nadella Says 'New Norms' Needed as 'Real Structural Changes' Rock Workplaces (hbr.org) 93
For the first interview of its new series on "The New World of Work," Harvard Business Review asked Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella what team collaboration will look like in workplaces of the future. And Nadella begins by arguing that this tail-end of the pandemic brings "real structural changes" — and two megatrends for the future workplace:
One is the trend around hybrid work, which is a result of the changed expectations of everyone around the flexibility that they want to exercise in when, where, and how they work. And then the second mega trend is what Ryan Roslansky, who is the CEO of LinkedIn, termed, which I like, which is the great reshuffle. Not only are people talking about when, where, and how they work, but also why they work. They really want to recontract, in some sense, the real meaning of work and sort of asking themselves the question of which company do they want to work for and what job function or profession they want to pursue...
I think we should sort of perhaps just get grounded on what are we seeing in the expectations. For example, when we see all of the data, the reality is close to 70% of the people say they want flexibility. At the same time, 70% also want that human connection so that they can collaborate. So therein lies that hybrid paradox. Interestingly enough, if you look at the other sort of confounding piece of data: 50-odd percent of the people say they want to come into work so that they can have focus time. Fifty-odd percent also want to stay at home so that they can have focus time.
So the real thing I would say is right now, it's probably best not to be overly dogmatic. Because I don't think we have settled on the new norms... [W]e are taking what I would call a much more organic approach right now. What I would say is what we want to practice and what we want to evangelize is empowering every manager and every individual to start coming up with norms that work for that team, given the context of what that team is trying to get done. In some sense, we are really saying, let's just use an organic process to build up through empowerment new norms that work for the company to be productive.
"Nobody quits companies," Nadella says at one point. "They quit managers."
And towards the end, when he's asked what's the greatest source of innovation, he answers: empathy. To me, what I have sort of come to realize, what is the most innate in all of us is that ability to be able to put ourselves in other people's shoes and see the world the way they see it. That's empathy. That's at the heart of design thinking. When we say innovation is all about meeting unmet, unarticulated, needs of the marketplace, it's ultimately the unmet and articulated needs of people, and organizations that are made up of people. And you need to have deep empathy.
So I would say the source of all innovation is what is the most humane quality that we all have, which is empathy.
I think we should sort of perhaps just get grounded on what are we seeing in the expectations. For example, when we see all of the data, the reality is close to 70% of the people say they want flexibility. At the same time, 70% also want that human connection so that they can collaborate. So therein lies that hybrid paradox. Interestingly enough, if you look at the other sort of confounding piece of data: 50-odd percent of the people say they want to come into work so that they can have focus time. Fifty-odd percent also want to stay at home so that they can have focus time.
So the real thing I would say is right now, it's probably best not to be overly dogmatic. Because I don't think we have settled on the new norms... [W]e are taking what I would call a much more organic approach right now. What I would say is what we want to practice and what we want to evangelize is empowering every manager and every individual to start coming up with norms that work for that team, given the context of what that team is trying to get done. In some sense, we are really saying, let's just use an organic process to build up through empowerment new norms that work for the company to be productive.
"Nobody quits companies," Nadella says at one point. "They quit managers."
And towards the end, when he's asked what's the greatest source of innovation, he answers: empathy. To me, what I have sort of come to realize, what is the most innate in all of us is that ability to be able to put ourselves in other people's shoes and see the world the way they see it. That's empathy. That's at the heart of design thinking. When we say innovation is all about meeting unmet, unarticulated, needs of the marketplace, it's ultimately the unmet and articulated needs of people, and organizations that are made up of people. And you need to have deep empathy.
So I would say the source of all innovation is what is the most humane quality that we all have, which is empathy.
future workplace 29 hours on paper but need (Score:2)
future workplace 29 hours on paper but need to put in 60 but that 29 on paper = no health care for you
Re: (Score:2)
economics.
Microsoft's CEO Satya Nadella has a more serious problem.
xbox series x.
within 30 days i will pull the trigger on buying an xbox or ps5.
Microsoft's CEO Satya Nadella.
are you wasting my decision time
Empathy (Score:3)
The final point of empathy is great but we should be careful to realize empathy can be utilized for exploitation.
It reminds me of Star Trek where a few different empathetic individuals are exemplified. Of course the first we always think about is the counselor but in one episode they bump into a businessman who negotiations large contracts. In that episode he doesn't reveal his empathic abilities and exploits them to negotiate deals.
While clearly Star Trek is fictional, these stories can reveal deep truths. Empathy is likely rarely benevolent.
Re: (Score:3)
Your comment is almost a job description for HR. Sufficient empathy to realise when an employee is in trouble. Sufficient psychopathy to fire them before it causes any needless additional costs.
Re: (Score:2)
I laughed. HR always seems like a bit of oxymoron in this regard, like business ethics which I literally could not stomach in college, so I actually minored in philosophy/religion, grabbing my ethics class that way.
Re:Empathy (Score:5, Insightful)
The final point of empathy is great but we should be careful to realize empathy can be utilized for exploitation.
His final point on empathy is debatable; yours is spot on and, reading between the lines, is exactly what he's aiming at. We, in the western world at least, have no unmet needs. We almost certainly have "unmet and unarticulated" wants and desires, and we definitely can be persuaded we 'need' these things through marketing. This is not a 'good thing', and in my view you have to be a bit of a sociopath to think it is, let alone to come out and say it openly in an effort to persuade us it's desirable and for our benefit.
I'd also point out that most innovation has not occurred because of empathy, putting ourselves in others' shoes. Most innovation arises as a result of problems the inventor has, not problems someone else has - there are obviously exceptions, but they are just that, exceptions not the rule.
Empathy is likely rarely benevolent.
Indeed! The book Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion [wikipedia.org], by Paul Bloom, explores this in some detail with numerous excellent examples of why we should be very wary of relying on empathy.
Re:Empathy (Score:4, Insightful)
We, in the western world at least, have no unmet needs.
That's debatable. Material needs are well met for most, but there is a big hole when it comes to things like financial security (enough income and savings today, it could be wiped out tomorrow). For too many, food security is still a problem (They have enough to eat today, but no reason to believe that will be true next week). We have insurance that doesn't insure, so we get insurance insurance (also known as supplemental insurance), but that doesn't always insure either, next up insurance insurance insurance.
For many, job/work satisfaction is an unattainable dream.
Re: (Score:2)
We, in the western world at least, have no unmet needs.
That's debatable.
Debatable, certainly. But...
For many, job/work satisfaction is an unattainable dream.
I was specifically talking about needs (e.g. breathable air, shelter, food to eat, etc.) not 'things that would make life more comfortable / bearable'. That said, like any generalisation, there are clearly exceptions - an increasing number of people in the US / UK do not have shelter, or enough to eat, but compared to what we euphemistically call 'developing countries', we have the basics covered. And any exceptions we do experience are more to do with (a failure of) political wi
Re: (Score:3)
A chronic failure of political will is indistinguishable from inability.
You are talking about bare essentials to remain alive. Needs go beyond that. Give a child only those essentials and you will likely lose custody. The reason is that we recognize that those bare essentials are necessary but not sufficient. The latest greatest toy craze is a want, something to play with to foster motor skills and imagination is necessity.
Re: (Score:2)
True!
My failure, perhaps, was being too quick to write "etc.", having only listed the essentials, without explicitly considering wider, social, needs.
Thank you for the addendum.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed! The book Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion [wikipedia.org], by Paul Bloom, explores this in some detail with numerous excellent examples of why we should be very wary of relying on empathy.
A counterpoint to consider: There's research mentioned in this article [gizmodo.com] which found that people who are high in cognitive empathy (they're good at rationally understanding what other people are feeling) but low in affective empathy (they don't feel the feelings of others) are most likely to be aggressive trolls both online and offline.
Thinking about those two kinds of empathy, I'm guessing that no-one is going to be better at manipulatively taking advantage of people through addictive, harmful design than
Re: (Score:2)
A counterpoint to consider: There's research mentioned in this article [gizmodo.com] which found that people who are high in cognitive empathy (they're good at rationally understanding what other people are feeling) but low in affective empathy (they don't feel the feelings of others) are most likely to be aggressive trolls both online and offline.
Not so much a counterpoint, as Paul Bloom covers the distinction between these types of empathy within the book, but an interesting article and paper all the same. Thanks!
Thinking about those two kinds of empathy, I'm guessing that no-one is going to be better at manipulatively taking advantage of people through addictive, harmful design than the rationally empathetic.
Yup, intuitively this sounds plausible, likely even. One slight hesitation I have with it is in relation to how we experience affective empathy - personally, individually, and locally. i.e. we don't generally experience it, no matter how 'affective' we are, for large numbers of people in distant places. That's why charities, and indeed new
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't read the book but it does say "rational compassion". The discussion here is kind of rooted in the difference between compassion and empathy. Rational thinking is another dimension to that. Someone who is rationally empathetic is likely very different from someone who is rationally compassionate. As you point to trolls, there is the potential for someone with empathy to know exactly what buttons to push in order to piss them off. If that's their desire, then they aren't being compassionate which I
Re: (Score:2)
Affective empathy doesn't necessarily make you nice. If you've ever watched a "cringe" video and got mad at the person for behaving in a way that would have made you feel embarrassed, that's a form of affective empathy. Involuntarily feeling as if you are in the situation of the person you're watching, and getting mad at them for it.
At the extreme, honor killings are probably the same basic mechanism at work. It seems it's not just some coldly "rational" decision this person must be killed to show our famil
Re: (Score:2)
Very interesting reply. This book recommendation sounds great and I personally have had my empathy bite me in the ass for lacking rationality at times.
However, I think I kind of disagree about your usage of innovation here. Though I feel the problem is this worth is a bit vague in definition. In the sense of something more "new", we would be better apt to say invention and in this regard I agree with you, most invention is the product of an individual's specific needs. The innovation is taking that inventio
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It reminds me of Star Trek where a few different empathetic individuals are exemplified. Of course the first we always think about is the counselor but in one episode they bump into a businessman who negotiations large contracts. In that episode he doesn't reveal his empathic abilities and exploits them to negotiate deals.
While clearly Star Trek is fictional, these stories can reveal deep truths. Empathy is likely rarely benevolent.
I don't recall that episode, but I think the types of people you're warning against are actually diagnosable narcissists, who tend to lack empathy entirely.
An individual with Narcissistic Personality Disorder projects a false persona to the world and relies on the reactions of others to reinforce the illusion and maintain self deception. They get very good at reading the reactions of others, often playing them like fiddles, doing or saying whatever reflects back on them the version of themselves they want
Re: (Score:2)
It was called The Price [wikipedia.org]. I remembered seeing it, but not its content.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeap. It's actually a pretty mediocre episode. A bit about Deanna Troi's romance, a bit about the federation as business, and then this kind of "moral lesson". It doesn't surprise you that you don't remember the content and I wouldn't if I haven't had re-watched this series a stupid amount of times.
Re: (Score:2)
I would really like to better understand the overlap between narcissism and sociopathic or psychopathic behavior. They seem to overlap a lot, such that if a narcissists has empathy, they are likely a sociopath and without likely a psychopath.
Re: (Score:2)
People do quit companies (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
our dumb country managers
Just because they're not fancy big city managers is no reason to insult them.
Re: People do quit companies (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually you'll find that there is policy and that there are good managers who know how to get around that policy. It brings it back to managers. Corporate rules exist to empower management. It's usually up to your manager to use those rules to screw you.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think I've seen a positive outcome from any of the instances where I saw a leader attempt to prevent an employee from internally transferring. It always goes badly. I have had a few times where I had someone ask to transfer where I thought it probably wasn't in their best interest (or sometimes mine) to do so. However, I've always articulated my concern and then wished them well on their new adventure. We're not omnipotent. Sometimes a person sees an opportunity that we don't see. On a number
Re: People do quit companies (Score:2)
Just be sure to give them a good reference when they transfer out:
"You will be lucky to get this person to work for you."
Re:People do quit companies (Score:4, Interesting)
In fact most of the time they quit the company, not the manager..,
You're both wrong. Nadella because he spoke in absolutes, and you because you have it backwards. Employees tolerate a lot of shit from companies if they have otherwise good working relationships with managers. And by companies here we're talking white collar jobs, not some minimum wage McDonalds burger flipper or someone running a lathe in a shop.
Harvard did a nice study on this which was published a decade ago in the HBR and the conclusion they draw is that even in major companies a bad manager can stonewall, gaslight, micromanage and prevent you from getting away from them within a company. But most of the actual complaints people have with companies are temporary. Your example is good, a wage freeze. Shit happens, can come from any company, can come at any time and is often temporary, and it affects all people in your position equally. Bureaucracy is another one, but that rarely affects someone personally as well. If you pick your company purely by the dollars in your pocket then you already have a general miserable working condition that isn't representative of employees on the whole. Sure in that case you may leave due to a pay freeze. I know someone who did that. I still work with him now because he came back a year later after realising the other guys who paid him more were horrible to work for.
But if you're at a company where you're passed up for promotion because of the line, or prevented moving to another line, or in other ways *personally* affected in ways that make you appear disadvantaged to your peers, those scenarios are the kinds that frustrate people to the point of quitting.
Most people quit managers. Though you could make a distinction between "quitting" and "moving on if a better thing falls in your lap".
Re:People do quit companies (Score:5, Interesting)
That may be true, but I could see how anecdotally things may be the other way around for some people based on specific companies.
For example, at two large companies I worked at, the culture was such that the managers were set up to be the 'good cop' and middle-management was the mean guys that heartlessly did whatever was 'needed' and even as the manager is 'forced' to carry out the will of those above, the manager joins in with his team as they all say that it's bullshit. I recall this being made clear in employee satisfaction results right after a major layoff. Despite the layoffs, the direct manager category had nearly all happy employees, and the 'senior leadership' category took all the blame. This has been consistent every time they do the survey, managers are well-liked and middle-management fluctuates based on the wider context of what's going on. In his example, even without a wage freeze the manager goes and makes every showing of pushing a pay increase but ultimately says "sorry, couldn't make it happen because of those darned execs or HR".
It has always struck me as quite a deliberate strategy to foster that small-team feel-good loyalty, but reserve the right to be 'mean' by proxy when they thought the business called for it.
Re: (Score:2)
They say people don't quit companies, they quit bosses.
Wether that boss is your direct line manager or the CEO, it's still ultimately someone who drove you away.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, maybe you just didn't like the work? It was boring, stifling, doing nothing of value to the world, etc? I guess you could blame it on the bosses for not being in a different line of work but that's a stretch.
Ie, I used to work wtih enterprise oriented software. I left because of the bosses, but still I would never want to do that sort of meaningless crap ever again. I mean, if you work at a company where if it folded overnight no one would really miss it, it's really hard to claim you're being ful
Re: (Score:2)
If he really believed that people were leaving because of their managers, managers at Microsoft would be bricking it right now. If a few people on their team leave they would expect to have their own performance review marked down severely, when the most likely reason is that company policy doesn't let them pay a competitive rate.
But as you say, it's gaslighting.
Re: (Score:2)
The jobs I had quit, was actually hard for me, because I actually liked the managers. I even liked the work I was doing. However... My choice had been from other reasons...
* The company was too small, and I couldn't grow professionally there.
* The company was going into hard times and I knew that I would be a lay-off target (working in a Cost Center, being a newer Employee, Being paid more than my peers)
* Changed to my Home life environment where I needed more money than what the company can offer.
* Gettin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The cossacks work for the czar.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Or more precisely the CEO is at fault. Nadella just wants to lie about his part of the problem.
Re: (Score:1)
Good leadership is rooted in responsibility. And good senior leaders recognize that it's up to them to retain talent, through good policies and line management. When you see losing people as your failure, it provides a good opportunity to examine why they left and improve.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
However, the last several positions I've left have most-definitely been due to the managers -- in two cases, they were truly toxic human beings.
Plus, he does run MS and anyone who has ever worked there knows some truly nasty pieces-of-work have made it into middle-management there.
Paradox (Score:5, Insightful)
So therein lies that hybrid paradox. Interestingly enough, if you look at the other sort of confounding piece of data: 50-odd percent of the people say they want to come into work so that they can have focus time. Fifty-odd percent also want to stay at home so that they can have focus time.
This isn't a paradox. You're talking about different people, not the same person that can't make up their mind.
If I'm single, I'd want to stay at home where I'm alone to focus on work.
If I'm in a relationship where there are people at home, I want to head to the office away from the family to focus on work.
Re:Paradox (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Paradox (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm single. I can't focus at home. Too many distractions, too many other things I want to do. What ends up happening is I can only half focus. Then I feel anxious about working and avoid it because I feel guilty about not getting enough done and I don't really feel like I'm at work anyway. Then I get anxious when I'm not working, even at night, because it feels like I'm at work.
It takes about 2 weeks for me to get like that, and the end result is I can't code at all. I can't do anything that requires focus. I can go to meetings, I can talk to people, I can do high level architecture (because I always did that in background processing anyway). Then when I go back into an office, I get more done in a day than I did in the last week.
The end result is going to be something flexible. Offices aren't going away. Some people (like me) will be there every day. Some people won't. Some may be there only on occassion for meetings. I don't think you're going to see the big remote everyone in different cities thing that some people envision though (at least not as a norm)- too much value in meeting teammates, forming connections with them, and being able to get in a room and talk that Zoom doesn't cover.
Re: (Score:3)
Houses used to have a room called a "study", where ideally you could work in peace and quiet and free from distractions.
The real shift here is not so much about where we work, but the whole balance of power between employers and employees. Every time there is a shift towards employees, employers start to panic because they think in terms of using their strong position (control of things people can't live without, income and in the US also healthcare) to exploit people.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Paradox (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are talking about a single looking to find a relationship at work....man that is DANGEROUS and should be avoided at ALL costs!!
With all the "MeToo" movement and anti-male environment out there, you're an idiot if you try to meet and find a work relationship. It can get you fired really quickly if anything goes sour.
I've always separated work people from real life friends.
I get along just fine with work co-workers, but I have no relationship with them outside of work.
I have real friends outside of work that I run around with, share life with and date, etc.
It's always been a bit risky, but into days environment, especially for a male, you're an idiot if you pursue romantic relationships in the workplace.
All it takes is pissing off the wrong person, even if inadvertently and you're out the door at a minimum, and at max you may have legal problems.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
anti-male environment out there
That does not exist.
There's an anti-asshole environment out there now, so don't do a Stallman and ask someone out when you're first introduced. But if you think that things are "anti-male", then you've got a pretty warped view about how to conduct yourself in the workplace.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course there is.
They just now are calling it "end the patriarchy"....I think previously you were quickly accused of man-splaining things, etc.
Re: (Score:1)
Patriarchy is a system where men are given preferential treatment simply because they are male. If the goal is to treat people as people, ending it would make sense.
But you see that as threatening. Interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you wouldn't be dumb enough to try and date a subordinate/superior. With that out of the way, people may think you, or the other, are still playing favorites with any sort of interaction with the significant other. Heaven forbid if the relationship ends and you still have to see the person every day. The flips side being one of you quits your job, but still has to h
Re:Paradox (Score:5, Insightful)
Before all the #MeToo stuff, I dated someone at work. Mutual attraction, we were both on board, no problem there. But it didn't work out. It was REAL BAD after that. Seeing an ex in the halls is a huge bummer, especially if they start dating SOMEONE ELSE at work.
Forget #MeToo, dating people at work is the equivalent of shitting where you eat. Don't do it. The potential downsides are so high.
Re: (Score:1)
Depends on the job requirements too.
Most project oriented jobs can be done remotely.
Also, some people *need* an effective manager to be productive-- they get distracted or even have out right addictions if they are not in a safe work environment.
And the bullcrap about about "people quit managers not companies" is incorrect 80-85% of the time. The companies treat the employees like crap, hire new people at higher salaries, push down completely unrealistic schedules. Most the time an average or better manag
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Start some exercise and get the doctor to pull chemistry each year. Watch potassium, D and B12.
I tried to convince my wife that I need a lot more sex in my 50s. She didn't buy it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not single. I stay home not just because it's easier to concentrate at home (even in a 1 bedroom apartment with the office in the living room), but also because my partner is chronically ill and it lets me take care of her when she needs it without stressing.
You're right that it's not a paradox, it's just that everyone has different reasons for everything; it's overly reductive to make it about groups like you have. Different people are different, as the saying goes.
Re: Paradox (Score:2)
I wasn't saying that's all there is to it. There are probably happily married people that want to stay home and single people that want to get out of their apartment.
sometimes true (Score:3)
"Nobody quits companies," Nadella says at one point. "They quit managers."
It goes both ways, you can follow managers out if the company is just a mediocre place. I quit Cisco because they wanted to force me to be full time at a fraction of what I was being paid as a contractor. My great manager ended up quitting shortly before all this, so I left and did some side work for his new company.
Much later in my career, I quit a start-up because I felt like I was a terrible manager. I was over worked, unhappy, and worried that I was letting down all the people on my team. In this case I did quit because of a manager, myself.
And I quit Amazon, yet I got along with the manager. But the company started making him do stuff in a terrible way and it stopped being fun for everyone on the team. When you're a front line manager, you can be a great leader and still fail. Is that the manager's fault, when it happens to many managers in different departments you start to wonder if it is a systematic failure and the blame lies with the company and upper management.
Re: (Score:2)
The MS asshole-in-chief was just saying that it is for sure not his fault. Of course, he is fundamentally wrong. It is one of the responsibilities of the CEO to shape corporate culture.
There's no paradox here at all... (Score:5, Interesting)
People are different, have different goals, outlooks, needs etc.
For many, going to the office to work, was as much a social aspect of their lives as a means to earn a living.
For others, it's a soul destroying grind.
There's no simple picture and no paradox at all. If your commute to an office took up 4 hours of your day, either on crowded public transport or sitting in traffic in a car, then being able to work from home was a release.
Conversely, if your commute was 15 minutes by bicycle or walking, that paints and entirely different picture.
This is before we even get to the type of environment the office offered to people.
Many office environments are toxic "gossip houses", with bullying managers, unrealistic goals and co-workers doing anything to try and clamber up the greasy pole, including screwing people over.
Other office environments are largely pointless. An office full of people coding, for example. Whilst there's absolutely a case for brainstorming sessions, 90% of the time where that activity happens, needs to be distraction free.
And there's another aspect - distraction.
For some, working from home has given them the freedom to have quality, distraction free time.
For others, the pandemic has bought a nightmare of childcare, trying to work from the bedroom or kitchen - so the office is seen as an escape.
Forget the paradox, that's just an invented situation in the eyes of a top manager - their work involves pretty much back-to-back meetings, constant communication. It's a fairly simple leap of logic for them to prefer an office environment much of the time.
The way I see it, every company who employs office workers who aren't public facing in their jobs, will come up with some sort of flexible solution. That also depends on the sector.
If that sector has few open positions, the company calls the shots.
But if the sector is desperately short of workers, the workers call the shots.
"Sorry, if I don't have the flexible time I want, I'll look elsewhere"
Re: (Score:2)
In some ways I do miss the office a little, but would only want to return if there were some changes.
Open plan is okay, doesn't bother me, but I need a reasonable amount of space. I also need to come and go as I like, not be on a fixed 9-5 schedule with lunch at a particular time. Meetings should still be via video chat, although I might physically be in the conference room sometimes.
Actually in my current job we don't even use video, it's voice only for most meetings.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually in my current job we don't even use video, it's voice only for most meetings.
If you know the people well or there is a solid level of mutual understanding as to ideas and approaches otherwise, that is perfectly fine. Voice-only is also less stressful.
Re: (Score:2)
You are over-simplifying the situation, because of teams.
Here is a very real scenario playing out across the industry, today: Let's say you have an agile team of 9 employees and 1 manager. 3 of the employees want to work from home 100%. 3 of them want to be hybrid. And 3 of them want to be in the office 100%. How does this play out? Well, the office people will ask the hybrid people if they mind coming in for the Monday and Wednesday strategy meetings, and they will, and the other 3 employees, Zoom in. Ever
Re: (Score:2)
I get you, but there's ways and means around this.
Not perfect ones, it just takes the person chairing the meeting to be mindful of the fact that those remotely connecting, are at a huge disadvantage.
Body language is easily 40% of a physical meeting, the fact that you *know* when someone is about to make a point, before they do.
The remote people will be completely unaware of this.
So, yeah, it's down to learning new etiquette, where the chair will do a round with the people 'dialing in' from remote locations
Introverts vs. extroverts (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems pretty obvious that the survey results reflect the two kinds of people: introverts and extroverts. The extroverts want back in the office, want those chats over coffee. Stuck at home, they feel lonely and (cynically) discover what it means to actually work instead of blathering all day. The introverts, on the other hand, enjoy not having to play office politics with extroverts, enjoy not being continually interrupted, enjoy being able to get their work done in less time due to the lack of said distractions.
Top managers seem almost incapable of understanding the introvert's point of view, because top managers are - by definition - extroverts.
Re:Introverts vs. extroverts (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't label people. The world isn't split up between introverts and extroverts, we all know it's split up between people who fold and people who scrunch toilet paper. My girlfriend is a huge introvert, couldn't wait to get out of the house and back into the office. I'm a raging extrovert, the lack of parties and clubbing and meetups and sport during COVID was killing me, but I have asked for a permanent work from home contract because I can't stand the constant pointless bullshitting that goes on in my bro culture workplace.
The situation is dependent on personality, it is dependent on job, it is dependent on workplace, it is dependent on your team interaction, it is depend on how bad the guy sitting next to you normally smells, it is dependent on how much you like flexibility.
Don't put x and y labels on people. The world is far more complicated than that.
Re:Introverts vs. extroverts (Score:5, Insightful)
The last n years of "business improvements" have all been invented by extraverts. Introverts have been horrified by open plan offices, constant meetings, and, horror of horrors, hot-desking.
Introverts can be incredibly productive if you stop messing with their lives.
I'm convinced Agile is just a bit trick to enable more micro managing, and more bloody meetings.
Enough, I say!
A polite way of saying we will steal your ideas (Score:1)
Confounding (Score:4, Insightful)
confounding piece of data: 50-odd percent of the people say they want to come into work so that they can have focus time. Fifty-odd percent also want to stay at home so that they can have focus time.
Why is this confounding?
Some people have quiet space at home where they can concentrate on work, whereas others live in cramped apartments with kids running around distracting them etc.
Some have quiet offices where they can concentrate on work, others have noisy colleagues and other distractions.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this confounding?
More than half ("50-odd percent") prefer working at home, while more than half prefer working at the office. So some must prefer both. I guess it's confounding that some people like variety?
That's not a good sign (Score:4, Interesting)
After all, we all know a trend is over once MS jumps onto the bandwaggon.
M$ is going to Extinguish Empathy!!! (Score:2)
Actually, I just quit a company this year (Score:2)
The MS asshole-in-chief is lying, as usual. My manager was perfectly fine and still is a friend. He just could not do anything about the messed-up strategy that the "leadership" decided on.
Re: (Score:2)
All you have is AdHominem? Pathetic. FYI, they would have absolutely loved to keep me, and because the way things are set up here I have written proof of that. Probably not something you are equipped to comprehend.
Re: (Score:2)
So you didn't leave "your" manager, but you did leave "their" manager, or perhaps the one above them.
Someone created a toxic environment in your previous organization. It may not have been your direct manager, but it was someone, and it created a situation you found untenable.
"Nobody quits companies..." (Score:2)
Sure they do. Your immediate manager has very little control over how much money is available for raises or bonuses. They have very little control over corporate governance. Very little control over what the company stands for globally.
So if an employee feels that they are underpaid their manager is limited in how much they can do about it. Or if that employee is not happy with how workers in foreign countries are being exploited the manager is powerless to do anything about it. Having been a manager I can