No, Remote Employees Aren't Becoming Less Engaged (hbr.org) 128
"Employees have gotten more — not less — engaged over the past three years since remote work became the norm for many knowledge workers," argues an assistant professor of management from the business school at the University of Texas at Austin. He'd teamed up with a software company providing analytics to large corporations to measure the number of spontaneously-happening individual remote meetings:
Given the anecdotal evidence of workers recently disengaging or quiet quitting, we had originally predicted that one of the easiest ways to observe this effect would be a continual decrease in the number of times remote or hybrid coworkers were engaging — or meeting — with each other. However, we found quite the opposite.
To more deeply explore the nature of how remote collaboration is changing over time, we gathered metadata from all Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and Webex meetings (involving webcams on and/or off) from 10 large global organizations (seven of which are Fortune 500 firms) spanning a variety of fields, including technology, health care, energy, and financial services. Specifically, we compared six-week snapshots of raw meeting counts from April through mid-May in 2020 following the Covid-19 lockdowns, and the same set of six weeks in 2021 and 2022.... This dataset resulted in a total of more than 48 million meetings for more than half a million employees....
In 2020, 17% of meetings were one-on-one, but in 2022, 42% of meetings were one-on-one... In 2020, only 17% of one-on-one meetings were unscheduled, but in 2022, 66% of one-on-one meetings were unscheduled. Furthermore, the growth in one-on-one meetings between 2020 and 2022 was almost solely due to the increase in unscheduled meetings (whereas scheduled meetings remained relatively constant)... The combination of these findings presents an interesting picture: not that remote workers seem to be becoming less engaged, but rather — at least with respect to meetings — they are becoming more engaged with their colleagues.
This data also suggests that remote interactions are shifting to more closely mirror in-person interactions. Whereas there have been substantial concerns that employees are missing out on the casual and spontaneous rich interactions that happen in-person, these findings indicate that remote employees may be beginning to compensate for the loss of those interactions by increasingly having impromptu meetings remotely.
To more deeply explore the nature of how remote collaboration is changing over time, we gathered metadata from all Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and Webex meetings (involving webcams on and/or off) from 10 large global organizations (seven of which are Fortune 500 firms) spanning a variety of fields, including technology, health care, energy, and financial services. Specifically, we compared six-week snapshots of raw meeting counts from April through mid-May in 2020 following the Covid-19 lockdowns, and the same set of six weeks in 2021 and 2022.... This dataset resulted in a total of more than 48 million meetings for more than half a million employees....
In 2020, 17% of meetings were one-on-one, but in 2022, 42% of meetings were one-on-one... In 2020, only 17% of one-on-one meetings were unscheduled, but in 2022, 66% of one-on-one meetings were unscheduled. Furthermore, the growth in one-on-one meetings between 2020 and 2022 was almost solely due to the increase in unscheduled meetings (whereas scheduled meetings remained relatively constant)... The combination of these findings presents an interesting picture: not that remote workers seem to be becoming less engaged, but rather — at least with respect to meetings — they are becoming more engaged with their colleagues.
This data also suggests that remote interactions are shifting to more closely mirror in-person interactions. Whereas there have been substantial concerns that employees are missing out on the casual and spontaneous rich interactions that happen in-person, these findings indicate that remote employees may be beginning to compensate for the loss of those interactions by increasingly having impromptu meetings remotely.
Do people seriously use video? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've seen all these articles about walls of faces on zoom, but frankly, I've never witnessed it myself.
The only meetings where video is used when there are externals involved - and even then, only for the first 5 minutes until the screen sharing (powerpoint or live debugging, whatever) begin. In fact, several times when we have done some sort of remote debugging session or something over shared screen, one of the first things said has been "hey, turn off your video, it's eating your screen sharing bandwidth".
For internal meetings, video is never used. You see the guys name and still photo, and that's quite enough.
Re: Do people seriously use video? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes. Iâ(TM)m a bit surprised that they are at big companies; when I was at a big company nobody did. Now Iâ(TM)m at a small company and everyone does. The smaller the meeting, the more likely it is. Iâ(TM)m also using Slack huddles more. Those impromptu meetings are definitely a thing I feel more comfortable with now.
The people and culture are what matter, though. Iâ(TM)m at a company now that treats me well and employs good people in general. I like interacting with them, so I make an effort to be available for interaction in kind. And because I get my quiet time when I need it, Iâ(TM)m not nearly as bothered about interruptions.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps one of the best overviews of video meetings I've seen.
Re: (Score:3)
Small meetings == good.
Big meetings == bad
This has always been true. The more people, the less communications takes place. It degrades from a one-on-one exchange of ideas to a one-to-many pony show. Of course people in large meetings tend to disengage - there's not as much opportunity for meaningful 2-way exchanges of thoughts and ideas.
A hard limit of 8-10 is pretty much it (2-6) is much better. Anything more, people will totally zone out.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds much like numbers for road cycling group rides. More than six and the group descends into chaos on the road.
Re: Do people seriously use video? (Score:4, Insightful)
Group dynamics increase quicker than the actual numbers all the time. It's a simple power function.
When I own one dog, I only need to worry about the interaction between me and my dog, so N=1.
When I own two dogs, I need to worry about my interaction with dog 1, my interaction with dog 2, and the interaction between dogs 1 and 2, AND the interactions between us as a group, so N=4.
When I own three dogs, I need to worry about my interaction with dog 1, my interaction with dog 2, my interaction with dog 3, the interaction between dogs 1 and 2, dogs 2 and 3, dogs 1 and 3, the interactions with me and the subgroups 1 and 2, 2 and 3, and 1 and 3, the subgroup of 1,2,3 themselves, and the interactions of all of us as a group. N=11.
There's a lot of emergent behavior between the 4 of us that wouldn't happen when N=4 (me and two dogs).
That's why relationships are HARD! They're never truly in isolation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With much of my team in India over not the greatest internet connections (and wfh was even worse), we've kept video off zoom just to make sure there's no throttling and we can understand each other.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My wife's company went mostly permanent WFH and she's on her cam most of the day - it's a total joke
good thing I have solid internet at home
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I honestly don't think she has those problems - she's mostly on with her colleagues or employees as she's essentially a CSR going through things as opposed to a bunch of people
Re: (Score:2)
For about 5 years I worked at a company that was big on regular meetings. Pre-covid most of the team was in the office, but some members were remote. Once covid hit, it all went remote.
We had daily scrums that were about 10 minutes. Very few people turned on their camera for that.
We had a weekly hour long meeting for more in depth stuff. Almost everyone turned on their cameras for that.
For any non-regular meetings, cameras on or off depended on who was in the meeting and the length of it. Certain people ten
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No, Remote Employees Aren't Becoming Less Engaged (Score:5, Funny)
...they just weren't very engaged to begin with.
"More engaged" is a bad thing (in the US) (Score:5, Insightful)
The US is already infested with stupid hustle unculture.
Now, they can put in "996" weeks online without them and their bosses worrying about boundaries between home and work ... long-term, WFH will increase working hours, since there's no longer as strong of an incentive to stop "I need to go home because my kid is getting home from basketball practice."
Make the 40 hour week great again. 10 sick/personal days for every US workers, 15 days of vacation. Not "work on a tablet from a beach house" "vacation". Actual vacation. The right to disconnect, drop out, and tune out. Instead of demanding concessions for railroad workers, we should be demanding them for ALL workers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"More engaged" is a bad thing (in the US) (Score:5, Insightful)
I will add that people being stuck behind screens for most of the day already reduces opportunities for socialization and human contact. The least we can do is give people more free time OUTSIDE OF WORK, so they can go to a bar, a social event, or join a club without the pressure of hustle culture nagging them to work-work-work, rush-rush-rush.
You've spouted a lot of opinions in this thread that I -- and others -- heartily disagree with but here you're on to something. The problem remains that you're seemingly convinced that office work is the only way to accomplish this goal and it clearly isn't. I, for one, can't reconcile schlepping into an office with having more time "OUTSIDE OF WORK." Lunch and after work drinks with co-workers does not meet that definition, that's still work. Playing pool in the break room with co-workers is work (I remember the dot com boom). The commute is work.
The other assumption that I think you've made is that WFHers are somehow suburban hermits. I'm sure that describes some people and I'm sure some who fit that description are happy and some are unhappy. It does not describe all of us though. It's possible to WFH, live in a city, ride trains regularly, and have a bountiful social life; I've done all this for years. I can only speak for myself but I go to lunch a few times a week with actual friends, have impromptu drinks with WFHers from other companies where we gossip about our workplaces, put in a set amount of weekly hours, produce significant contributions at my job, unplug when I'm not on the clock, take lengthy non-working vacations, and have reclaimed all the time lost to non-work-but-still-work BS.
If that doesn't all work for you, by all means commute to an office and engage with your co-workers. Don't go thinking that you've somehow figured out the one true key to happiness (or best work practices, or maximum productivity, or plan for bringing society together, or cure for loneliness, or ...) though. There isn't one. The best an employer can do is offer flexibility and treat their employees like adults.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Working from does not increase working hours, it increases flexibility and employee choice. It makes it much more easy for employees to do things like run errands for their lunch break, that might go long, and then just work late to compensate. The sheer fact that an employee can work beyond 40 hours from home does not, in any way force an employee to work beyond 40 hours.
And anyway, employers have shown that they have no inhibitions about demanding sustained excessive hours even in work-from-office envir
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't force employees ... but it does remove psychological barriers to working longer hours, so bosses will demand. Employees can choose to meet those demands or not, but will they be seen as a "team player" at the annual performance review?
Also, it's a lot easier to push back in person than remotely ... you can't mute 5 pissed off employees who are suddenly glowering at you in person. Mutiny is more effective in person than it is remotely.
Also, if we're going to have people be stuck at home, the lea
Re: (Score:3)
it does remove psychological barriers
Those "psychological barriers" have never inhibited employers from demanding exploitive hours, nor have they prevented employees from being manipulated into self-exploitave martyrdom working cultures. Working from home, if anything, gives employees MORE defense against this. Your reasoning is a prime example of what I was talking about....specious....from an extrovert.
Also, in person absolutely does not make it easier to push back. Naturally assertive people (like..
Re: (Score:2)
(1) Even naturally agreeable people may take a whizz in the appropriate coffee pot when pushed too far. The possibility of retaliation in person keeps people somewhat honest.
(2) Benefits? Reduced pollution? Not if it encourages people to de-urbanize and move to some sprawled fuckhole where you have to drive to get everywhere. Spread of diseases? Loneliness and lack of in-person human contact actually shorten life expectancy far more than any airborne disease. COVID is a TEMPORARY problem, not one th
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What you are saying does not make sense.
(1) Even naturally agreeable people may take a whizz in the appropriate coffee pot when pushed too far. The possibility of retaliation in person keeps people somewhat honest.
This is no argument for forcing them into the office. Your position seems to be that allowing them to work from home MEANS they will be driven to work more hours. So you want to force them to work in an office (which they don't want) in order to protect them from working more hours (which they c
Re: (Score:2)
(4) Being able to go out for drinks or talk in person and gripe
You can still do that. Nothing stops you from getting together with co-workers for drinks after work. Seriously, you are grasping at straws here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OH NOES! You might have to PLAN an outing with others! IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD!!!
Oh wait, you still seem to be assuming that allowing introverts to work from home means you will be forced to work from home, which I have already thoroughly debunked. You really don't need to feel so threatened by this. The introverts aren't forcing you to do anything. You, however, keep wanting to force all the introverts in the world to do your bidding. You MUST see how unreasonable this is.
You like working at an off
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, for someone with ADHD, social anxiety, and executive disorder, PAH-lanning SUCKS. It's much easier and more organic to ask someone to do something after work verbally, than to send an app message, then spend the next few hours shivering, cringing, and weeping inside with rejection anxiety that I may have written something that's a faux pas. More likely, I'd never send the message, since I'd have spent two stinking hours rewriting it trying to get the tone right. If I have to look forward to hours of
Re: (Score:2)
OH NOES! You might have to PLAN an outing with others! IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD!!!
In fairness, there's a lot of this going around. Now that cellphones are all the rage getting anyone to actually commit to a plan seems more difficult than it used to be.
You MUST see how unreasonable this is.
I agree heartily with everything else you've said in the thread but here I think you're mistaken. There's not a shred of evidence the poster can imagine a world outside of their experience.
Re: (Score:2)
All of this is culturally mediated. Some cultures don't put as much of a premium on "alone time" as Americans ... people aren't socialized to be so introverted. The French actually VALUE time spend BS'ing and socializing with co-workers at work rather the demonizing it... guess I can hope to move to France. They have nice trains (TGV), too, and are hoping to build suburban rail systems in more cities... maybe individualistic American "culture" just isn't compatible with what I like:
https://www.bbc.com/w [bbc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
My social life should not be exclusively limited to people I work with. I've almost always had a policy of NOT mixing work and social life. The only time I'll violate that is when I really click with someone - same interests outside of work, etc. In which case, we'd be socializing outside of work anyway.
Also, the PP who said "COVID is a TEMPORARY problem" totally missed the demographic shift of an aging population. This isn't the 1980's any more, when there were way more people than jobs available. Now i
Re: (Score:2)
Normalizing WFH will be ripping the only social opportunities people have away,
NO it WON'T. Why do you keep repeating this obvious falsehood? Only the introverts will work from home. Right now, as we speak, offices across the country have extroverts working in them by choice. And that is clearly going to stay. Nobody is going to take that option away from you. And even if this ridiculous scenario actually happens, employers across the country shut down their offices and force everybody to work from
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't talking about marriages. I was talking about friendships.
Church? Many people are atheists, and the number is growing. Should you be forced to believe in some fairy Gerd daddy in the sky just to have friends?
Gym? Personally, I get nothing from working out. I just feel pain and fatigue for a week after. Gyms are a form of torture, not joy.
Grocery stores? They're closing, being replaced by homestuck delivery via app. BLEH!
Re: (Score:2)
Get a frigging dog. You'd be amazed at how many people like a small dog (used to be a big dog only person, but my current little dog changed that. People are friendlier, so he gets more opportunity to socialize, which makes him more sociable). And a lot less poop to pick up. And a big bag of dog food lasts an eternity.
This morning we ran into a dog we literally haven't seen in two years. Happiness all around. A lot of the dog walkers have open invites to drop in any time with their dogs - just text me to
Re: (Score:2)
I can't stand animals and pets, especially curs and moggies. Sensory issues ... they just startle and annoy the shit out of me. They're loud, stinky, unpredictable, and require care that I probably won't remember to provide (ADHD).
I already have "the one". Again - I'm talking about meeting friends and being able to go out for a drink with co-workers. My cousins in Europe complain that it's sort of mandatory to go out for drinks on Friday after work, and I envy the hell out of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok now you are just arguing in bad faith. You DID mention marriages so its relevant, and even if the topic IS friendships, nothing changes.
The rest of your post is just refusing to see the forest for the trees. No, nobody is going to force you to go to church and no, it's not the only way to meet people, etc. This was just a random jumble of places where people gather that I thought up off the top of my head. The fact that you might not like some of them does not mean that there aren't ones you DO like,
Re: "More engaged" is a bad thing (in the US) (Score:2)
You are so selfish. You think everyone should be like you and like the things that you like. Turns out a lot of people like working from E fact that you do not is irrelevant to them. Stick to working in an office if that is what you like but *all* your arguments against it come down to I don't like therefore it is bad and everyone else should be forced to do the things I like.
Re: (Score:3)
I can't stand animals and pets, especially curs and moggies. Sensory issues ... they just startle and annoy the shit out of me. They're loud, stinky, unpredictable, and require care that I probably won't remember to provide (ADHD).
I already have "the one". Again - I'm talking about meeting friends and being able to go out for a drink with co-workers. My cousins in Europe complain that it's sort of mandatory to go out for drinks on Friday after work, and I envy the hell out of them.
They should do what I did - instituted a Friday Afternoon payday extended lunch break at a local pub during work hours. The boss complained, I pointed out that (1) it's Friday afternoon, do you REALLY expect people to be 100%, (2) feel free to tag alone, (3) we actually are able to discuss work issues in a more relaxed environment, so catching problems before they become PROBLEMS pays for the time "lost."
But as far as socializing is concerned - the whole world is at your doorstep. But you have to take th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How would you "lose contact with humans" unless you choose to? Nobody is stopping you from pursuing activities outside of work.
Isolation is a huge problem for large segments of the population. That's one reason why recent projects to build in resiliency in communities by encouraging neighbors to get to know each other, so when disaster strikes they already know who's vulnerable, who's available to help, etc.
Unless you're living in the bush alone, you have neighbors. Maybe you should start a "resilient
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because I don't have the executive function or stamina to actually follow through on a project like printing flyers and pasting them up. I just get tired halfway and want to crawl into bed for a nap, since no one will ever respond anyway.
Whereas in-person work provides the contact with other humans that I need and crave without needing to expend effort and curl up in a ball in bed from fear of rejection. It's great.
I'm happy working in person. Why do techie scum like yourself want to rip that out of my life?
Stamina? It doesn't take "stamina" if you have a printer. You're not hand-printing the damn things.
Pasting them up? Seriously, just go for a walk and stick them in 50 mailboxes if you don't want to talk to anyone. Shouldn't take as long as going shopping for a loaf of bread and some milk. Probably less. Or do it on your way.
You keep looking for reasons to say "no." That's one of the problems of "black/white" negative thinking. Ask any shrink or therapist - they'll tell you that ultimately YOU chose your
Re: (Score:2)
My cousins in Europe complain that it's sort of mandatory to go out for drinks on Friday after work, and I envy the hell out of them.
Not mandatory in France, at least as of a couple weeks ago: https://www2.staffingindustry.... [staffingindustry.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm happy working in person. Why do techie scum like yourself want to rip that out of my life?
Not one of the techie scum on this thread has any desire to dictate your work situation at all. Don't like where you're at? Find a situation that's a better fit, it's not like employers aren't still hiring office bound staff. They'll appreciate your enthusiasm even. Try not to use the phrase "techie scum" during your interview.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Know what? People here have felt kind of bad for you. Sure, you've got some hangups; we've all got issues. Know what we do? Get up in the morning and have fucking breakfast and get on with our lives.
You need some help. Please consider talking to a therapist. It is not normal to rely on work to have social interactions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry? This is the same person who's afraid to talk to people at a bar? I don't think you should be throwing any stones from your tiny glass apartment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't force employees ... but it does remove psychological barriers to working longer hours, so bosses will demand. Employees can choose to meet those demands or not, but will they be seen as a "team player" at the annual performance review?
Everybody should read Scott Adam's "Dilbert." And learn to explain to their boss that if they have a "bad performance review" based on "not being a team player", that it actually reflects badly on the boss - "which would you rather have - work your direct reports have actually completed or a bunch of people under you who don't produce? Because, buddy, eventually actual work completed is what counts when YOUR position comes up for evaluation as to whether you're a good manager or the next deadwood. Now leav
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather have a 40 hour week AND vacation (as most developed countries offer), not either/or. And being paid more isn't really a substitute for having free time to enjoy life, so no to overtime.
The idea of overtime (1.5x base pay at 44 hours, 2x at 60 hours, 2.5x at 70 hours, 3x at 80 hours) is that it forces employers who rely on it too much to decide it's cheaper to hire someone else than to pay excessive overtime.
There's absolutely NO reason somebody on salary can't demand overtime for the extra hours. You just gotta ask, and if they say no, you say no.
Remind them, Abraham Lincoln freed (most of) the slaves.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You wouldn't be working with me.
Or anyone I'd work with.
If you lack executive function, that pretty much disqualifies you from anything but "Joe Jobs."
Sorry, but that's the way it is in most of the world.
I encourage people I work with to take the initiative, speak up, come up with new ideas, add their own nuances to how things should be done. Take responsibility.
If you can't do that, my time is better spent elsewhere, because I can't fix your brokenness. Best you find a job more suitable.
Commun
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So I had to look up what you keep referring to as "executive function". It means being able to plan and execute on a longer term goals correct? If that's correct and you have it, well that sucks. It is also the case you would be a terrible employee for all but the most menial jobs. This is a forum for mostly engineering and scientists who work in largely self-directed ways. I have to actually beg my boss for a decision and when something is a decision for him (or the executives) instead of me is entire
Re: (Score:2)
My dream job would literally to be some kind of healthcare worker in a truly socialized medical care system, where salaries and conditions of work are set either by union contract or by government decision, and free time is set by law, not by employees begging for it. I do my job, the state and the union take care of the rest.
Dealing with patients in a health care setting is definitely NOT for you. You would be a danger to them. You seem to be focused on the benefits of the job, not the requirements.
Also, there's lots of mandatory overtime during health a health crisis. Ask anyone in healthcare why they're all burning out.
It's also a physically demanding job. On your feet all the time, few breaks, grabbing a snack to keep you going because the patient load just never gives anyone a break, and LOTS of stress.
If you can't s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not lacking in physical energy. My current job basically has me on me feet, talking, 6+ hours a day. The idea of flyers is MENTALLY exhausting, not physically. I hate the idea of rejection (since I was basically rejected and bullied all the time growing up), so having to deal with the risk makes me depressed and mentally exhausted.
Mentally exhausting? Then you simply don't have what it takes to work in health care except as something menial.
6 hours a day? That's all? Go talk to those who are on their feet 24-48 hour shifts. I used to do a job that sometimes required 96-hour shifts, and by the end I wasn't the only one really loopy. Like stopping at a stop sign waiting for it to turn green. But this is the reality.
Even software development has its' "death marches." Where people burn out and still work through the burn-out, because
On your dime, just as it was for actual commute. (Score:2)
No one is paying my cable bill but me. I'm not getting any electricity stipend. No one is running my network equipment or paying for that but me either.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is paying your cable bill because you're not asking for them to.
Ontario, in it's latest minimum wage increase ($15.50/hr) tacked on an extra premium (to $17.05/hr) to compensate for people working at home. After all, the employer is saving WAY more than that. So no matter what your pay is, ask for an extra $62/wk to compensate for your extra expenses and share the savings your employer gets from people working from home. If the government has calculated that it's worth at least an extra $3,224 a y
Re: (Score:2)
make the no OT pay level be say 80K+COL! (Score:2)
make the no OT pay level be say 80K+COL!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
depends industry by industry and person by person (Score:2)
Been working from home for over a decade, and none of that's true for me. ...
OK, 158,470,000 workers in the US, and we now have a data point on one of them. From that one data point, let's extrapolate to the workforce in total!
The whole problem is that "remote employees" is not a singular. You can't say "remote employees are less engaged" or "remote employees are more engaged" because the actual answer is, some are, some aren't. It's a diverse population.
and it will depend industry by industry as well as person by prson.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they are... (Score:4, Insightful)
At least relative to any metric a rational person might consider relevant here.
It's completely idiotic to compare "how we engaged" immediately following the COVID lockdowns when everyone was scrambling to make sense of how to proceed against "how we engage" now, 3-years into a new remote shift where we've pretty much "seen it all" now and understand what works and what doesn't.
Compare, instead, how engaged we were 1 or 2 years prior to COVID to how engaged we are now. I'm pretty sure you'll find a different result. I'm pretty sure you'll find far more people these days willing to switch work life off in exchange for personal time.
Now..whether they *can* or not is an entirely different topic.
Still can't measure productivity (Score:4, Insightful)
Meetings are a time-sink, representing a negative state compared to actual work.
Possibly managers perceive the opposite: see Paul Graham's essay, "Maker's Schedule, Manager's Schedule".
Hypothetical: If there was a company that was fully "engaged", i.e., everyone having meetings 100% of the time, and literally no productive work being done whatsoever, would managers and analysts see that as a good thing? What an abominable metric.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd go along with this, for about 90% of meetings.
For the other 10%, they are absolutely required - but those meetings are held between people actually working on the _same_ thing.
They are time-boxed, they are pre-planned ahead of time, they are optional and are often impromptu.
"Hey, can we get together for a quick 15 minutes to discuss this thorny refactoring issue?"
Those 90% of meetings that aren't required, yep, generally set
Re: (Score:2)
Those 90% of meetings that aren't required, yep, generally setup by managers who seem to want to haul as many people as they can into a meeting to make it look like they are needed.
Last week, I told my boss I was absolutely buried and I could not handle all of the random meetings on my calendar next week. I asked him about 2 of them that I have no idea what they are, that he's also attending. His response? "I don't know what these meetings are either. I guess we'll both find out!"
So yeah, my job search definitely continues.
"I'd rather you go to meetings with me which have no stated purpose or agenda, organized by other people without our knowledge, than get the work done I'm paying yo
Re: (Score:2)
Usefulness of a meeting is inversely proportional to the number of people and length of the meeting.
A 10-15 minute meeting (20-30 minutes TOPS) with 4-6 people (8-10 tops) is basically the limit of a useful meeting. These are meetings where you get the actual thing done and that's it. Any longer and it gets less focused and less useful. Likewise, too many people means people disengage and it gets less useful overall because there's less participation.
A 4-6 person 15-20 minute meeting to discuss some technic
Re: (Score:3)
Using meetings to coordinate the work of multiple people is effective and necessary.
Most of the time meetings are used by managers to collect status to pass on to their manager. Status I could have put in an email or shared on a wiki.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course not. Time spent in meetings is how some measure their status. It's like time spent indoors avoiding toil in the field. Today's full schedule of meetings is the pale skin of success.
Using online meetings to measure engagement? (Score:3)
Anecdotes - all I have ... (Score:2)
Heck, I just did two hours work and its a Sunday - I'm totally engaged.
My time is just now super flexible. Those hours I spent commuting? Guess what, my company gets them back, in work.
I get paid well enough and appreciate that the company I work for are not being dicks about "return to the office".
That makes me engaged.
I'm also very engaged over zoom calls - we tend to leave our cameras on for stand-ups and other important meetings, because it grounds the team - it's very useful visual feedback. You know,
Re:Anecdotes - all I have ... more of them... (Score:3)
So, they say the risk of remote work and being online 24/7, is you can never "Switch off"
That's only a problem if the company you work for are asshats, if you have more work than you can handle, if managers are contacting you out of hours.
For me, the flexible time means I can take a few hours out any day of the working week, to do what I want - shopping, exercise, whatever.
Everything just works out - I don't mind doing hours over the weekend, I don't mind thinking over work problems outside of office hours.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that a lot of companies and bosses ARE in fact asshats ... note that sane countries like France actually had to pass "right to disconnect" laws in response to a real problem.
Oh yeah, I've worked for the asshats before.
At the moment, long may it last, I'm in a position where I can pick and choose - sure, that won't always be the case.
I'll enjoy it whilst it lasts.
My previous job - company were ass-hats.
I asked if I could do 7.30am to 4pm, because my commute was hell and was impacting on my health.
They gave me 8.30am to 5pm instead, which didn't solve the problem.
So, I'd get to the office at 7.30am and every damn day, at 4.30pm - "hey, I have a 2 hour commute, can I leave now?"
So
Re: (Score:2)
At the moment, long may it last, I'm in a position where I can pick and choose - sure, that won't always be the case. I'll enjoy it whilst it lasts.
Celebrate, because the current labor shortage is boiled in.
Japan was the harbinger to the demographic shift with an aging population. They experienced the same labor crunch at least a decade before COVID. And it's damn hard to change a demographic trend. Do you suddenly discover a magic potion that stops people aging? We only have one so far - death. Kind of works in that it reduces demand on services and products, but I think most of us would say "You go first ..."
This is actually Putin's solution for
Re: (Score:2)
Your assertion about Ukraine doesn't make sense. The people being drafted and dying are mostly under 30; not the elderly. He might be preferentially using ethnic minorities as cannon fodder ... only to replace them with another ethnic minority imported from Ukraine (who will justifiably hate Russia and Russians for the next 200 years)? You're ascribing far too much logic to his policies.
The way the US/Canada can fix their labor shortage is through immigration. Canada is mostly on the right path (skille
Re: (Score:2)
Putin was picking pretty much anyone - and had to reverse that because people in their 50s with serious medical conditions, and their relatives, made a huge outcry. Also, prisoners. Especially prisoners - for the Wagner Group.
Canada has 1 million jobs of all skill levels available. And one million people who choose welfare rather than working. This made sense in 1980 when there was a jobs shortage. It absolutely doesn't make sense now, and increasingly everyone is aware of this problem, and the need to s
Engagement (Score:3, Insightful)
I was losing my engagement at work for years prior to Covid. It took me away from my family, made me miss out on most development milestones of my children, and the commute had sucked the life out of me. I was caring less and less about whether the place got wiped out by natural disaster.
Then Covid hit, and management was forced to finally adopt working from home. It took a massive threat to our lives before it happened, but it finally did. At that point, I got to actually be a part of my family, got to watch my children grow, and my happiness started growing now that there wasn't a soul-sucking commute. Incidentally, I wasn't sick even once during that period.
My attitude has rebounded, and I put more effort into helping the place succeed. It was almost like it was when I was first hired. But then they started that stupid fucking hybrid schedule (one day a week in the disease pit, four days a week at home). That's all it took to undo most of the gains. After they started the hybrid schedule, I started getting sick again regularly. I'm sure it's purely coincidental.
Re: (Score:2)
I started getting sick again regularly. I'm sure it's purely coincidental.
It isn't, but not for the reason you think. Your immune system is like most parts of your body, especially your muscles. If you don't use them, they atrophy and waste away. You staying at home doesn't exercise your immune system so the first little thing that comes in your path makes you sick (it isn't so simple but the metaphore works well here). Get out more and this will go away unless you are very old or have some other immune issue. That being said, referring to your office as a "disease pit" is pr
In parallel news... Job Justification Up! (Score:2)
Show me the PRODUCTIVITY NUMBERS.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, how is it not easy to just have MOAR meetings and show how "busy" you are with engagement, instead of doing your actual job? Sounds about the same as it is in studios/big corp floors, just now with less bad breath in your face. Show me the PRODUCTIVITY NUMBERS.
Give them a Greenies doggie treat every day. If it works for doggie breath (and you KNOW what they've been licking), should work for them.
Much easier to quiet quit in the office (Score:2)
Managers track productivity when at home. Managers track presence when in the office.
Re: (Score:2)
Managers track productivity when at home. Managers track presence when in the office.
So managers track how much their significant other at home puts out? Interesting.
I guess once a manager always a manager?
Questionable metric (Score:2)
Since going to any meeting is easier than doing work
Re: (Score:2)
Not a measurement of engagement (Score:2)
This is just a data point on changes in tools people use over the past two years; it is meaningful in terms of real engagement or impromptu communications. Teams makes it much easier to do a call on the fly, especially for video. We switched from Slack and Hangouts to Teams and the effectiveness of the tool was a huge boost to utilization... but real utilization or employee effectiveness was not impacted by that.
For us, utilization and effectiveness improved when we started being mostly in the office ~2 d
Fault (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why are there absolutely no stories on slashdot about what's happening on twitter?
You could ask the same about Soylent News [soylentnews.org] You'd get the same answer - twitter lost most of it's coders, soylent has no coders, and both have made cutbacks and with further money crunches have about the life expectancy of a lettuce.
Similarly, they both had serious problems with ultra-right-wing anti-jew/lgbt, racist, white supremist users shit-posting. That tends to drive people away. And afterwards they only check in to watch the ship go down, down, down.
Re: (Score:2)
Similarly, they both had serious problems with ultra-right-wing anti-jew/lgbt, racist, white supremist users shit-posting. That tends to drive people away. And afterwards they only check in to watch the ship go down, down, down.
You posted that on the original site on the net that had that problem. Did /. have to ban users? Did /. have to make draconian policies? No they (we) didn't. Reddit, Twitter and other social media has shit moderation policies which is why they have those problems. Instead of coming up with a better solution (which already existed), they blamed users and the companies behaved with all the maturity of a toddler. If you have to ban the other side, it isn't a good look. It means your policies and argumen
Re: (Score:2)
Similarly, they both had serious problems with ultra-right-wing anti-jew/lgbt, racist, white supremist users shit-posting. That tends to drive people away. And afterwards they only check in to watch the ship go down, down, down.
You posted that on the original site on the net that had that problem. Did /. have to ban users? Did /. have to make draconian policies? No they (we) didn't. Reddit, Twitter and other social media has shit moderation policies which is why they have those problems. Instead of coming up with a better solution (which already existed), they blamed users and the companies behaved with all the maturity of a toddler. If you have to ban the other side, it isn't a good look. It means your policies and arguments are so weak that they can't hold up to examination. Do you believe in the public policies you advocate for? I bet you do. And I bet you can defend them. When you start believing you can't, that's when authoritarian elements start advocating for violence against those they disagree with. And that's when it spirals out of control. I don't believe that is what you or the vast majority of Americans want. So perhaps judge social media companies based upon their ability to handle shitposting without banning. Advocating for banning as the only solution to shitposting is one step from authoritarianism and advocating violence against those who disagree with you. And I don't believe that is actually what you want.
Your claim of "Did /. have to ban users? Did /. have to make draconian policies? No they (we) didn't." - that's an outright lie, but you weren't around when it happened. Do you see any ascii art nazi trolls on the site now? And certain other users who have been banned, shadow-banned, etc. by multiple sites, including this one and ars.
Advocating for banning as the only solution to shitposting is one step from authoritarianism and advocating violence against those who disagree with you. And I don't believe that is actually what you want.
What a bunch of horseshit. banning crap-flooders, white supremists, etc "is one step from authoritarianism and advocating violence against those who disagree with you" is
Re: (Score:2)
"to measure the number of spontaneously-happening individual remote meetings" Are they seriously trying to suggest that is a measure of workplace productivity? Either this assistant professor is incredibly stupid or thinks everyone else is.
Shhhh. You know they'll say "Quick, let's call a series of meetings to discuss this!"
On second thought, screw them - let them die of meetingitis.