Nearly 40% of Software Engineers Will Only Work Remotely (techtarget.com) 163
dcblogs writes: Despite the demand of employers like Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, AT&T and others, nearly 40% of software engineers preferred only remote roles, and if their employers mandated a return to the office, 21% indicated they would quit immediately, while another 49% said they would start looking for another job, according to Hired's 2023 State of Software Engineers. This report gathered its data from 68,500 software engineering candidates and a survey of more than 1,300 software engineers and 120 talent professionals. Employers open to remote workers "are able to get better-quality talent that's a better fit for the organization," said Josh Brenner, CEO of Hired, a job-matching platform for technology jobs.
Such a surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Noisy office you have to drive to and where you get interrupted all the time vs. your own desk, set up exactly as you like it at home? Seems like an easy choice, really.
Re:Such a surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Headline: "40% will only work remotely"
Article: "40% prefer to work remotely"
Re:Such a surprise (Score:4, Interesting)
The line between will and prefer is blurry. Depending on salary, they might not be able to afford to live within reasonable commuting distance of the office, for example. I see that a lot in the UK, companies simply not paying enough for the area their office is based in.
It's not just commute time, it's the additional costs - fuel/wear on your car, lunch, clothing. Okay at home it costs me more electricity/gas, but typically those things are a lot less than the cost of working at the office.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. And then there is the little fact that good developers, software engineers and IT security people can select from several jobs if they want a new one. For example, my current software security students basically all have either gotten a nice job half a year before they graduate or they are already working part time in one. That is not because they spend real effort on this. That is because they got nice offers without doing much. Guess who is getting the qualified people they direly need and guess w
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure what you're trying to say. /. headline is the same as TFA headline. Digging down a bit the word 'prefer' is used, but that is followed by the statement that 21% will quit on the spot if ordered to return to the office (DAMN, that's a pretty strong preference) and 49% will start looking for another job (that's a fairly strong preference as well). 40% is a reasonable estimate of how many of your programmers you'll lose if you demand a return to the office.
A man is sent to the Don with a proposal. The
Re:Such a surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because you're lazy doesn't mean everyone else is. When you make comments like this, it says more about your work ethic than anything else.
If you think nobody notices when you skip work, either your team is incompetent, or they have very low expectations of you and you just didn't realize it before. In any work environment I've been in, people have a rough idea of how long people's tasks should take and are very aware if people are deviating too much from expectations.
For me it's about two things:
1) Cutting 2-3 hours of commuting time out of my day is a huge win
2) I can use my time more efficiently when I'm at home than at the office. At home, I'm not expected to sit at my desk and stare at progress bars while I wait for the computer to do things. I can use that wait time more efficiently. And on the other side of the coin, if my hour long build or whatever finishes after normal work hours, I don't mind testing it out in the evening because I'm not anywhere near as pressed for time as I'd be if I had spent my day in the office & commuting. It's a win for everyone - I can use my time way more efficiently, and I can get to tasks when it makes sense rather than having to cram it into office hours, so the work gets done way faster.
I've barely worked in an office for over a decade now, and the few times I did, it didn't take long for my employee to realize working from home was a win for everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed and same here. For example, in my auditor job, I get a time budget beforehand for a specific audit at a specific customer. When I work is up to me, except for meetings with the customer, which I arrange myself. If I need more time (happens sometimes) I need to give solid reasons and then that works. My boss sees my final report and the customer feedback. Hence if I slack off, I do it on my own time. If I am very efficient, I essentially earn more per hour. If I have a good idea on Sunday, I can sit d
Re:Such a surprise (Score:5, Informative)
The fact that large companies are forcing people back to work is evidence they've looked at the data over the past years and made some conclusion. I'm sure you'll call them stupid to rationalize your opinion however. Because those dummies at Apple don't have a clue how to make money.
Yeah, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with companies forcing people back to justify the massive amounts of money they spend on office space. And what's the point of having a big corner office if you can't make the cube jockeys jealous? And I guess you're just ignoring all the stats that came out while everyone was working from home about how productivity actually went up.
Forcing employees back in to the office is 100% based on justifying the expense of the office space and for micromanagers and energy vampires.
Re:Such a surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Execs get bonuses in two ways: 1) increasing revenue 2) reducing costs. Neither of those are furthered by leasing office space for people that will show up 3 days a week to be less productive than they would at home.
And what's the point of having a big corner office if you can't make the cube jockeys jealous?
If that's how you think people that are more successful than you think, it explains a lot.
Re:Such a surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
> Execs get bonuses in two ways:
(Generalising here, as some shops are better run than others...)
In my experience, the cost of the office is a centrally paid cost, and so it's somewhat "invisible" to any given exec. The CFO can probably see the pointlessness of the office, but an individual VP or whomever can't. What's more, if a VP or two say it's "absolutely imperative" to have people in the office, the CFO probably can't argue with that, and so the office stays.
As a result, the cost of getting people into an office - to a VP/exec is virtually zero. The commute, the lunch and the hassle are all borne by the workers, and the office is getting paid for if they're there or not. As such, zero new costs involved. Once more than half the office is in regular use, even the CEO would struggle to say there's no need for it. The only way it doesn't work out for the exec is if people start leaving - and even then, it's got to be hard to replace them or else it just gets written off as "normal churn".
> > And what's the point of having a big corner office if you can't make the cube jockeys jealous?
> If that's how you think people that are more successful than you think, it explains a lot.
Whilst a somewhat facetious comment, the sentiment is surprisingly common. I've seen plenty of people who insist on wearing an expensive watch, smart suits (even in a casual office) and are only ever seen in expensive restaurants and bars. Hell, some of them even insist on driving to the office, even though parking is extortionate and it's quicker to take public transport. The corner office and looking important definitely does matter to a lot of people.
I'll agree that in tech such people are rarer, but they do exist. I've personally not stayed working with them for long, mind you, primarily because I've found them to be poor at their actual job function. Whether they really are more successful than me is a matter for debate - the salary you pull, and indeed how you choose to spend it, is only a small part of "success".
Re: (Score:2)
You have a naive view of the executive suite. Executives get their bonuses even when they steer the ship into an iceberg. They get huge amounts of stock, and they make money on side deals, sometimes deals where they make money at the expense of the company.
Middle managers get their bonuses based on cost reduction and increasing revenue ON PAPER. One way to look good on paper is to arrange for starting conditions that look like an unmitigated disaster (through no apparent fault of your own, of course) and tu
Re: (Score:3)
This is HIGHLY OVERRATED...
I've been working remotely for about 15yrs or so now....Skype, Teams, etc....more than make up for this.
And hell, in all these years...and we're not using cameras for those meetings either, which is nice since we're working in Tshirts and boxer shorts for the most part.
Re:Such a surprise (Score:5, Informative)
Employees like WFH because they it's an easier work day. You can skip out for hours and nobody knows. You can knock off early and nobody knows. You can sleep in and nobody knows. I work in a 3-day a week WFH offices and I live it. People disappear during the day. Fridays are an unofficial day off.
The above obviously isn't universally true, but it definitely is for over 50% of the employees conservatively... and that's a HUGE reduction in efficiency.
Horse puckey.
Two things. First, it's not about hours worked. It's about getting the work done. If J Programmer can get it all done in a 20 hour work week, more power to him. (and if he were properly motivated, he'd probably be working 2X hours and getting 2X done.) I've spent many a lazy sunny summer afternoon on the deck. I'm that much more motivated to work extra that evening, or next morning, or next rainy day.
Second, every WFH I know puts in *more* hours than they did in the office. They aren't wasting an hour+ commuting. The computer is right there and they can work early, late, whenever. If you have a sleepless night, you can get up and get something done, even if it's cleaning out the in-box.
I've notices over the decades that people who accuse "most workers" of being lazy, are probably inclined to be lazy themselves; they think that's how everyone else is.
For bonus points: if a WFH really is dogging it, it shows up in their (lack of) work. It's not hard to figure out.
Re:Such a surprise (Score:4, Insightful)
First, it's not about hours worked. It's about getting the work done.
Indeed. Bad managers never see that, but it is what makes for a good or bad business result. Hours worked are completely irrelevant for that. The "hours worked" mind-set is basically that of a slave-holder, where payment is compensation for hours taken from the worker, not for what they produce. I can still surf the web or look out the window in an office. At home I do not have the excuse of having clocked in or out (in any sane work-from-home model), I need to deliver results that are somewhat in line with the work-hours I claim.
In the end, there really are only two types of WFH workers:
1. The ones that did a good job at the office routinely do a better job at home, are more efficient and deliver better results.
2. The ones that cannot deliver good results in the WFH mode could not deliver good results in the office either. The only thing different in WFH is that they now can do less damage because they are not required simulating productivity. And they are easier to identify, because the broken metric of "hours worked" does not cut it anymore (again, in a sane WFH model).
There may be some rare exceptions that can be productive at the office and are not productive in WFH, but they will not matter in the greater scheme of things. And then, do not forget there are significant other benefits to WFH for the business: For example, less need for office space is a major cost factor. You need not be prepared for major traffic disruptions or your office building burning down, which makes BCM a lot cheaper. There are others.
Face it, WFH is the model of the future. There is one bad social impact though and that will need to be addressed politically: WFH does make the dross, the unproductive, the time-wasters a lot more obvious and these people somehow need to feed themselves too.
Re: Such a surprise (Score:4, Insightful)
Companies aren't stupid. If WFH increased output they'd embrace it.
The unfortunate truth is it didn't decrease output.
Re: (Score:3)
You can make all the arguments about office comfort but it's ultimately about the job being less demanding and expanding personal time.
I get a set of deliverables and a deadline. Doesn't matter if I'm in the office or at home. Same deliverables, same deadline. Do I goof off at home? Yes. About as much as at the office walking to/from useless meetings and goofing off. At home, I simply walk outside or check something instead of walking to a useless meeting.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and I expect being a lazy SOB makes for really great performance reviews and career options. Here is news for you: Qualified people universally have a productivity increase when working from home. It has been documented countless times. It is just the dross that would not do any good work at the office either that seemingly work less when doing remote work. But the situation is not as black and white there either: When working from home the slackers are easier to identify and getting rid of _and_ they
Re: (Score:2)
LOL. Way to call yourself out as a lazy bum.
The difference for me between WFH and work in the office?
Office: Half hour commute, sit at desk, head down, except for the five to ten interruptions every hour as people walk by the office.
Home: Use what would be commute time to work, head down, get interrupted maybe twice during the day by the dogs outside of scheduled breaks for their walks. Same hours, I just use what would be time stuck in traffic to work too.
As a developer I tend to get about half as much wor
Hallway conversations are the only true benefit (Score:5, Interesting)
With Zoom and Slack and other enabling software, I have just as many productive conversations at home as I do in the office.
What's missing is the chit-chat about last weekend's activities, and honestly I have limited desire for that. Am I the outlier?
Re:Hallway conversations are the only true benefit (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope. That's pretty much the sentiment for most engineers. But managers think that the water cooler moments are somehow important, when at best, they're what makes me bring my own water supplies.
Re: Hallway conversations are the only true benef (Score:2)
How's it different from a smoke break back at the office.
Re:Hallway conversations are the only true benefit (Score:5, Insightful)
What's missing is the chit-chat about last weekend's activities, and honestly I have limited desire for that. Am I the outlier?
Well the Middle Management that more represented themselves as office space babysitters are kinda sweating profusely these days wondering if it's ever gonna be like the pre-COVID cube farm days where you could peer across entire open office spaces and enjoy the feeling of being needed. Somehow.
Only 40%? (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder about the data source here. It should be, and likely is, far higher.
Re:Only 40%? (Score:4, Interesting)
21% would quit on the spot, and more than half would start shopping around if forced back into office. In other words, about 3/4 of people would be actively looking for something else.
That alone should give employers pause. 3/4 of your workforce would no longer consider working for you desirable.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine this fantasy scenario: all those companies simultaneously decide to enforce a work at office policy again. Everyone quits. How many wfh jobs are truly available?
I have no idea but I suspect a bunch of folks will lose that little game of musical chairs.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, sucks to be on the receiving end of "if you don't do it, the next guy will", isn't it?
Turnabout is fair game, employees had that line hanging over their heads for most of the time. Learn to enjoy it.
Re: (Score:2)
I am right there with them (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't mind occasional trips but by and large, there's no way I'd accept a job where I cannot work from elsewhere.
The last work I did in an office (many years ago now) was when I was a contractor, for a place across town that really wanted everyone there. I did get them agree to one day or work a week at home (which sounds absurd now) but four days a week I had a 30 minute morning drive to the office, even driving off peak - and a brutal 45-60 minute drive home if I left anytime after 3pm.
I did years of that and somehow you just get used to it, but being free of that and having options for never having to do that again - why would I?
Also I interviewed at a few places that would let you work remote mostly but mandated that you had to be in the same city with the team. There again, you are losing all of the advantage you could have in finding people from all over, and these days who is going to be willing to re-locate to where you have a position (that's what they wanted me to do in both cases)? It's a very tough sell.
Nope I've been full remote for a while now, I find it's very effective, and often I give a lot of commuting time I would have had to the work I am doing so the company greatly benefits as well.
Re:I am right there with them (Score:4, Insightful)
Me too. I've been working from home 100% of the time since the start of the pandemic and I have no desire to ever go back to an office.
Not having to do a 40 mile drive twice a day has reduced my stress levels immeasurably. At the office I had a tiny desk in a tiny cube with two 24" monitors in the middle of a noisy Dilbertesque cube farm. At home my office is 360 square feet with windows on three walls, a door I can close, a big desk, three 32" 4K monitors, and absolute silence.
Wagie, wagie.. (Score:2)
I'm surprised people don't see remote problems (Score:3)
I find that most people I work with are far less productive when they are working remote than when they are working from the office.
Any kind of meeting that involve more than 2 people is far more productive in person than on zoom or discord or whatever. Groups can easily and dynamically reconfigure in smaller groups to have more pointy discussion while remaining aware of the overall discussions in the room. No online tools can really give you that.
Any brainstorming session is also FAR better in person than zoom/discord.
Working with less experienced workers is a pain remotely compared to in-person. In person it is far easier to get small points across or do simple impromptu demonstrations.
Maybe I don't understand remote working tools as much as other people. But then no one around me seems to know how to do these things well either.
Now I agree that there are benefit to remote work. Cutting commute time is awesome for instance. Having focus time is also very helpful. (Though you can do that by just shutting your office door, but it's a bit easier from home.) If you are doing mostly "solo work"; then yes I get that going to an office is a pain.
Re:I'm surprised people don't see remote problems (Score:5, Insightful)
>Though you can do that by just shutting your office door
I haven't been in a situation where there was an office door for decades. High Density Seating has been the norm for me for over a decade.
As for remote tools - Screen sharing within meetings. Remote collab document writing tools.
Personally I'm a much bigger fan of writing a document, then having a discussion over the document. record the meeting, update the document, repeat until everyone is satisfied.
An impromptu in person meeting where no one writes anything down has far less impact long term compared to a document and meeting recording(s).
Re: (Score:3)
I find that most people I work with are far less productive when they are working remote than when they are working from the office.
If find that it is difficult to tell whether most people I work with are working from an office or remote because their offices are not in the same state or country as my office. We don't often use video, and when we use video a lot of people use fake or blurred backgrounds.
I was recently sitting in a conference room in a meeting where we were using video and two participants were using the same fake background. They looked like they were both in the same fake office even though I could see that one of them
Re:I'm surprised people don't see remote problems (Score:4, Insightful)
Meetings that splinter into unrelated meetings are poorly run.
Have an agenda. Stay on topic. Finish the meeting. If you need to talk about something else, do it after the meeting, or schedule a different meeting.
Since working from home, I've found that my meetings are more relevant, more on topic, and finish on time.
Half of my job is meetings and mentoring now, and it's far easier and more productive than it's ever been at the office. When I'm talking to 1 or 2 people in a slack huddle, nobody tries to interject with something irrelevant or distracting just because they're nearby. I can present my screen, then my colleagues can present theirs.
I've been working in the games industry 20 years and I will keep banging this drum: poor productivity and lack of team cohesion because of remote work is a management issue, because management doesn't want to understand how to build teams that can work together, they just want to throw people into an office and hope for the best. Our interview process is strict, because our culture is so dependent on fun, interesting people that are willing to teach AND learn.
Re: (Score:2)
That is pretty much what my company sees. Officially we are 3 days in the office and 1.5 from home. Senior staff generally just do 1 or 2 days in the office. Plenty of people hate the commute, but on the balance seem to appreciate the foundation the office gives. Everyone seems to get that if there is any reason why you need to WFH for a few extra days it is not a problem.
I actually prefer working from the office, but I am 100% remote now. I always lived close to work and had a private office my last 13 yea
Here is a clue (Score:3)
If you can be hired to work from Bangor, Maine for $200k, someone else can be hired from Bangalore, India for $20k. And btw you can live like a top 10%er in India for $20k.
Re: Here is a clue (Score:3)
I've heard it's closer to a two for one ratio, but be realistic, coming into the office doesn't keep the offshoring away, and not going into the office doesn't cause it to happen.
I'm surprised it isn't more. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I've been ahead of the curve on this for over a decade. I used to just stay home and work, pissing off people I worked with who traveled every day. They would literally scream and yell at me about it and I'd just...... stay home. My work got done so bosses didnt care too much. I was more productive then they were because they sat in a cubicle farm pissing their life away while I didnt have a drive.
I remember talking to one of them and asking why he came in at all when he sat in meetings on Skype for Busines
40% ??? (Score:2)
In my experience over nearly 50 years programming, I would estimate that only 15$ of developers work correctly (no matter where or how they are sitting).
So, no problem I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
In my experience over nearly 50 years programming, I would estimate that only 15$ of developers work correctly (no matter where or how they are sitting).
So, no problem I guess.
...and you'll notice I made a typo there (s/$/%) and didn't check before hitting SUBMIT.
So of those 15%, maybe they only work correctly 85% of the time. Maybe. :)
Work Visas (Score:2)
I wonder (Score:3)
I wonder how many of the 60% would change their mind if they had better living conditions.
ChatGPT Standins (Score:3)
What's it matter? Their days are numbered anyway. I for one love our new forthcoming Skynet overloards. :P
Let's face it (Score:3)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of us aren't looking for a "path to leadership". We just want to get work done.
Most software types I know don't object to some face-to-face time. In fact, it's beneficial in many situations. What that 40% are objecting to (and I would include myself in that 40%) is a mandate that you have to show up, regardless of whether it's going to help or hinder your current project and your teammates.
A company that trusts its employees to get together when they need to, and stay home when they don't, won't have any problems. A company that mandates in-the-office time with no consideration for circumstance or situation deserves to have the desperate and the ladder climbers, if they end up with any engineers at all.
There really isn't a path to leadership (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I would bet it comes with the proliferation of professional management. Once a business is no longer run like a family, and is devoid of any remaining non-monetary goals, then it's easy to just hire somebody from outside that has the prettiest set of lies on their resume. How could any insider, about whom you know real, human things, ever compete? See "familiarity breeds contempt".
I don't think so (Score:3)
If anything companies have mostly done away with management and the last several positions I've had the management did double duty as line wo
Re:There really isn't a path to leadership (Score:4)
Companies stopped promoting from within some time ago.
I'm not sure what your definition of "some time ago" is, but my new boss was promoted into the position a couple weeks ago. My previous boss and the one before that were promoted into those positions 5-7 years ago, I don't recall exactly when. My company did also just hire somebody in my chain of command from outside in the past six months as well as shuffling some higher level managers around between different organizations. Our current and previous CEOs were promoted into the job from non-CEO positions.
From where I sit, it looks like my company looks at both internal and external candidates and fills positions from both. When you say "companies stopped promoting" are you speaking from a statistical analysis of a large number of companies or are you puffing up an anecdote by saying "companies" when you really mean "my company" in the singular?
Re: (Score:2)
Big Four management hires are their own separate problem that has gone on forever. They always do exactly what you describe and given time will end up with an almost entirely Big Four team all the way down.
Re:There really isn't a path to leadership (Score:4)
Similarly, a company that recruits solely from external sources will lose all loyalty.
There is a mid ground, and good employers pay heed to their employees skills, potential and desires. Working from home falls under that heading.
Sadly, I don't believe there are many good employers out there, so good luck finding one. The world has spent too long glorifying the exploiters like Musk, Jobs and Bezos. It'll be a long path back and... I'm ranting, aren't I?
Sorry about that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Some of us aren't looking for a "path to leadership".
Understood - many people only want get in front of the computer, get their paycheck and that's it. Hey - far be it from me to say they aren't really happy.
What that 40% are objecting to (and I would include myself in that 40%) is a mandate that you have to show up, regardless of whether it's going to help or hinder your current project and your teammates.
A company that trusts its employees to get together when they need to, and stay home when they don't, won't have any problems. A company that mandates in-the-office time with no consideration for circumstance or situation deserves to have the desperate and the ladder climbers, if they end up with any engineers at all.
We are in two different worlds. You are planning on doing pretty much the same thing until you retire.
What is more - and this will surprise you, is that there is a lot of work that cannot be done at home - classified work, or work that involves developing and testing products, travel. Even now, I do half my work from home, and the second half - I have
Re: (Score:2)
What is more - and this will surprise you, is that there is a lot of work that cannot be done at home - classified work, or work that involves developing and testing products, travel.
I think you are demonstrating one of the problems with remote work. I don''t see why you would think that the poster you are replying to would be surprised that not all work can be done at home. They are making a point about good and bad reasons to pull people into the office. If this was a face to face conversation between you and the GP then this would be quickly sorted out. You'd get a good sense if you were stepping over a line and being rude or patronizing.
That applies especially to your "unless your d
Re: (Score:3)
Some of us aren't looking for a "path to leadership".
Understood - many people only want get in front of the computer, get their paycheck and that's it. Hey - far be it from me to say they aren't really happy.
Are you trying to suggest that the only way to be happy is to have a leadership job? I doubt most people would agree with that.
We are in two different worlds. You are planning on doing pretty much the same thing until you retire.
What is more - and this will surprise you, is that there is a lot of work that cannot be done at home - classified work, or work that involves developing and testing products, travel. Even now, I do half my work from home, and the second half - I have to be there hell or high water.
And I am paid very very well for that .
Anyhow, yeah, there are different people in the world with different thoughts on how they want to work. I only point out that you might be limiting your career path. Very few of us can work one thing from the day we enter the workforce to the day we leave it.
I don't see how any of your points connect. Plenty of companies are entirely remote now, which means both workers and upper management are all remote. It's all possible. All of your comments seem to suggest that you think being upper management in charge of an office at a large company is the end goal for everyone. Only a small percent of people follow that path, and the majority of
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't become an executive for title or power.
Remember the point of work is money. We work for money. If the pay rate was zero, how many would show up? I suspect "very few", lol.
I went into the executive path because that's where the big money is. If you're successful enough you get the ultimate prize: no more need to work because of early retirement; you won the game. Line workers very rarely win.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't become an executive for title or power.
Remember the point of work is money. We work for money. If the pay rate was zero, how many would show up? I suspect "very few", lol.
I went into the executive path because that's where the big money is. If you're successful enough you get the ultimate prize: no more need to work because of early retirement; you won the game. Line workers very rarely win.
I retired at 55 on the same income I had while working. It was rather nice.
Re: (Score:2)
Some of us aren't looking for a "path to leadership".
Understood - many people only want get in front of the computer, get their paycheck and that's it. Hey - far be it from me to say they aren't really happy.
Are you trying to suggest that the only way to be happy is to have a leadership job? I doubt most people would agree with that.
I wouldn't agree with that either. Interesting you gleaned that from my post. If you are happy doing what you are doing, I am happy for you. You can be a leader a worker bvee, or anything in between.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how any of your points connect. Plenty of companies are entirely remote now, which means both workers and upper management are all remote.
I'm certain you can supply a list of these companies.
Have any references to companies that produce physical things that are entirely remote?
Re: (Score:3)
Some of us aren't looking for a "path to leadership".
Understood - many people only want get in front of the computer, get their paycheck and that's it. Hey - far be it from me to say they aren't really happy.
Clearly you don't understand. There are many paths forward that don't involve "leadership", unless you are defining that word to mean bettering oneself in any way possible.
What that 40% are objecting to (and I would include myself in that 40%) is a mandate that you have to show up, regardless of whether it's going to help or hinder your current project and your teammates.
A company that trusts its employees to get together when they need to, and stay home when they don't, won't have any problems. A company that mandates in-the-office time with no consideration for circumstance or situation deserves to have the desperate and the ladder climbers, if they end up with any engineers at all.
We are in two different worlds. You are planning on doing pretty much the same thing until you retire.
And you figure that, how? It happens to be true in my case, but only because I passed traditional retirement age quite a while ago. Not interested in leadership is not the same thing as not interested in advancement, or not interested in variety.
What is more - and this will surprise you, is that there is a lot of work that cannot be done at home - classified work, or work that involves developing and testing products, travel. Even now, I do half my work from home, and the second half - I have to be there hell or high water.
Why would you assume that that would surprise me? When did I ever assert that there were th
Re: (Score:3)
It isn't because management wants to feel important. It is because management doesn't trust you.
In many cases it is justified. In others it is not. But statistically it only takes a few bad apples to ruin it for everyone.
Re: (Score:3)
> But statistically it only takes a few bad apples to ruin it for everyone.
True. A couple of bad managers and suddenly half the company wants to leave.
Re: (Score:2)
Or one ever left a company because someone else's manager was bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Some of us aren't looking for a "path to leadership". We just want to get work done.
Yup. My answer to the "Where do you see yourself in 5 years?" employee review question was always either, "Being hassled less than I am now." or "On the International Space Station." So far, only the former has happened.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The trouble is half your staff won’t show up period without a mandate. You get near zero levels of in person meetings because teams simply don’t meet.
Management of our dev and test teams put on a 2 day/week mandate in Jan after 6 months of trying to coax them in organically. At the peak they got 50% coming in 1 or 2 days a week but about 1/4 had not worked a day in the office since March 2020! No doubt they planned to keep that up indefinitely.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
it is short sighted to demand your working conditions to the point where you don't interact other than on Zoom. You limit upward mobility
Upward mobility is for chumps and sociopaths. Demanding comfortable working conditions is a smart move if you want to enjoy the work you have now. And if you enjoy the work you have now, why move "up"? More stress and job responsibilities that don't match a software dev temperament? Sounds pretty smart to demand good treatment, especially if it make you more productive.>br? Regarding the skill set: why would working from home make learning impossible or even difficult?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Path to leadership? You mean shuffling papers and shielding the engineers from C level bullshit so they don't quit? You can have that job... and I wish you great success. ...And we ARE that damn good, as evidenced by the current standoff. You sound like you aren't.
You would hate my work. Half from home, and the other half on site. Incredibly good pay, and lot's of perks. I'm damn good at what I do. And it's a lot of fun. But ya gotta show up when ya gotta show up.
And if you want to think I'm incompetent, reconsider consider your rage at what I wrote before. That's weird. I guess you just don't want to read anything that doesn't reflect your narrative.
All I do is point out a few things, and Slashdot goes nuts. You do you, homie. And avoid getting a rageboner ove
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You keep bringing up how much money you make. I don't care. I make more than enough money, and I don't have to do the bullshit you have to do.
The people who really earn their pay are the poor people who have to report to pretentious asshole like you.
Re: (Score:2)
You keep bringing up how much money you make. I don't care. I make more than enough money, and I don't have to do the bullshit you have to do.
The people who really earn their pay are the poor people who have to report to pretentious asshole like you.
Okay - let's forget the money, since that really pisses you off.
The interesting thing is how many nerves I touch, and how angry people get. Called names, called pretentious, called an asshole, called incompetent, all kinds of things.
First, consider why me writing something like I wrote throws you into a rage. All of ya should. Acting like the perpetually offended on Twitter or Facebook is not a productive game.
Second, what I am writing is not likely for you. You appear to have a rather fixed opin
Re:Wow (Score:4, Interesting)
It took me a long time when I first got into management to realize that some people actually -want- to be nameless cogs.
I went in with the (false) assumption that everyone wanted to advance their career go into either more senior technical roles or management but most really do just want to be part of the faceless swarm.
It is what it is and there's no debating with those folks. Hire them, use them, don't worry about their careers because they don't want a career, they just want a job, and focus your limited time and energy on the higher quality folks who really drive company success.
Every army needs a lot of grunts but only a handful will be heroes.
Re: Wow (Score:2)
they just want a job, and focus your limited time and energy on the higher quality folks who really drive company success.
Every army needs a lot of grunts but only a handful will be heroes.
You sound dangerously close to pissing off the E4 mafia or rather its analog in the civilian world.
The people that know how to get shit done, and are not trying to be a hero, because it's a job.
Re: (Score:3)
Cogs get shit done. Cog shit. But someone has to design the machine. Cogs don't do that. They cog. Cogs are useful and important and necessary but ultimately easily replaced and fungible.
If you want to add real value then don't be a cog.
You don't have to go into management, we got enough of those, be that high end technical architect that has the freedom to pick their own projects, only gets invited to important meetings and gets paid top tier money for it.
Re: (Score:3)
I have no need to network beyond what's possible via teams and the like. I don't benefit from direct interaction, if anything, it puts me at a disadvantage. I'm actually better off in a home office environment.
I had a C-Level job. It's not my cuppa java. I don't need the money, I prefer to do what I like doing rather than sit with suits in a room talking about bullshit.
That idea of "climbing the ladder" falls apart as soon as you realize that "supervisor" is a description of a position without any kind of r
Re: (Score:3)
I have no need to network beyond what's possible via teams and the like. I don't benefit from direct interaction, if anything, it puts me at a disadvantage. I'm actually better off in a home office environment.
I had a C-Level job. It's not my cuppa java. I don't need the money, I prefer to do what I like doing rather than sit with suits in a room talking about bullshit.
That idea of "climbing the ladder" falls apart as soon as you realize that "supervisor" is a description of a position without any kind of relevance concerning the power position someone actually has.
There is more than sitting in a room "talking bullshit. There is more than being irrelevant.
Travel, going to interesting places and meeting interesting people. Doing cool stuff as well. I've had experiences most have not. But you can't do it in the basement.
And we can chat about money. "Don't ever underestimate the importance of money. I know it's often been said that money won't make you happy and this is undeniably true, but everything else being equal, it's a lovely thing to have around the house."
Re: (Score:2)
So did you retire at 55? Or if you are younger than 55, will you retire at 55?
If not, why not? Don't you want those 23,316 hours?
People can always make more money. Nobody can make more time.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
I retired at 50. Like Ol Olson, I also went to interesting places, did interesting things and met interesting people. But ultimately that was all still under the umbrella of work.
Work is -work-. I worked my ass off and climbed the ladder as fast as possible so one day I wouldn't have to work anymore while still young enough to enjoy it. And it is *glorious*!
Time is one of the few things we can't buy more of or get back or whatever. Every minute passed is gone forever.
I want to spend as much of my life as possible free, not doing "well" until 65 and then being too old to really live the freedom I'd earned.
As far as this bizarre and ignorant perspective the line workers on slash dot have about all management being stupid incompetents, well, it takes all types. Yes, some management types are really stupid. That's a major cause of corporate failure but if that was the norm then no company would be successful.
When I was young I also thought companies were bottom up and the line workers drove the company. They do not. As I climbed the ladder I realized the opposite is true. Everything comes from the top. Everyone is replaceable including the CEO and the Board but the line workers are much more easily replaced. Because individually they're just not important. That's why they make less and mostly have to work until too old to enjoy retirement fully.
I didn't particularly like being CTO but it paid super well and took no more time and was no more stressful than anything else I ever did and I had greater control of my life than ever before. I don't see how that's a bad thing.
Re: (Score:2)
I was a consultant for most of my time, so I had my share of traveling. Don't get me wrong, it's fine, and I like hotels, but living out of a suitcase gets old really fast. I know a bunch of interesting people, and the fun bit about them is that you "meet" them online. The really interesting people I have noticed don't "exist" in the real world, or rather, they don't really want to waste more time in meatspace than they have to. At least not in my line of work.
Then money. I have money. I don't really work f
Re: (Score:2)
Leadership is already lacking smart and experienced people, because the ambitious ones rise too quickly and the smart ones know to avoid that path. Now you want to limit the pool even more by making leaders out of only "those who will show up". Other companies will eat your lunch (at home).
Re: (Score:2)
Leadership is already lacking smart and experienced people, because the ambitious ones rise too quickly and the smart ones know to avoid that path. Now you want to limit the pool even more by making leaders out of only "those who will show up". Other companies will eat your lunch (at home).
So how are you going to lead when you won't leave the basement? Remember the meme is that top software engineers refuse to work outside their house. Explain how this will work.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently these 40 percent of "I will not ever show up in an office" are so damn good that they can force the area they work on an employer.
Apparently they have no need to network, and eventually when they are promoted to the C-Suite, they will likewise refuse to leave their house. Apparently they will be able to have the same skillset until they retire.
If 99% of employers were "office only" this argument would have meaning, but it's maybe 50%. There aren't a particular shortage of 100% remote jobs even now even for those of us who are senior technical resources.
They are making the path to leadership a lot easier for those who will show up.
I don't think all of us are on the path to management. I doubt most of us CARE about the path to management.
My post wasn't really being sarcastic, even if it sounds like it. Because it is short sighted to demand your working conditions to the point where you don't interact other than on Zoom. You limit upward mobility, and eventually with a stagnant skillset, you become more a liability than anything else.
As much as some of the introverts among us think that never seeing other employees or supervisors in person is like a personal Nirvana, it really isn't, unless your drive is as limited as your skillset.
Why on Earth would our skillset improvement be based on working at an office? Is it the interruptions that help? Is it the missing office gossip? Is it the watercooler stuff? We still h
Re: (Score:2)
Why on Earth would our skillset improvement be based on working at an office? Is it the interruptions that help? Is it the missing office gossip? Is it the watercooler stuff? We still have all that just fine. Sure there was stupid stuff the first year of everyone working remote, but people have caught up. Maybe you need Friday Night Zoom Drinking ...
I'll just address just this one. Although you told me you don't want to be in management.
You make contacts. You network. You take classes, you go to trade shows. You allow other people to engage with your humanity. I engaged with the Mahogany row people long before I did any moving up.
Most became friends. And it isn't popular in these parts considering management = evil in so many people's minds, it ain't so.
If you are being considered for an important position, it helps those who decide to know how
Re: (Score:2)
They just think they're irreplaceable. But on the other hand, this is the first tme there's really software jobs that require nothing more than a laptop and trip to the cafe. In the past you usually had to do something with a machine somewhere, hook up some test equipment, measure some current. kick the mainframe, or you needed the workstation because the home computers were laughably bad (today they only cause a giggle).
Also I think people define their own "work" that they think they need to do, which is
Re: (Score:2)
You're the very rate very senior technical person who would have a title like architect or some such and be left alone to do whatever the fuck your want 99% of the time in any company.
You also don't in any way represent the bulk of slashdot engineering who are line workers with a 9-6 mentality and zero drive. I'd bet anything you didn't get where you are and earn the respect you have by having a shitty attitude and watching the clock while bitching about how all management are evil and stupid. I'll also b
Re: (Score:2)
I find that remote work has made career development better for those that are good, and worse for those that are not.
A key nuance to that being that, in my experience, the "those who are not good" includes junior staff who are not yet good, but have potential. If you're in a business that for whatever reason relies on hiring junior people and growing their skillset, shifting to full remote work will rot your talent pool from the inside.
Re: (Score:2)
I find that remote work has made career development better for those that are good, and worse for those that are not.
There is a difference between management and leadership. I have the latter without any of the silliness associated with the former. I work out of a mountain cabin in western Montana, haven't seen a single employee or my management for 4 years, and my comp is six figures and starts with a $6.
I consistently out-engineer and get out-promoted above those that remain in the office precisely because I can have long periods of focused work to prototype new architectures. The senior director I report to always knows I am a Slack message away, and I only get general directives from her about once a quarter to the effect of "Please go unscrew our build system. Call on whatever resources you believe are necessary."
Off to go play with the dog, feed the pigs, take a cross country ski lap around the ranch, and sight in my new assault rifle :)
It's good to see that you are successful. Good to see you are well on the way to being a millionaire. Is it your assertion that this is the standard for home working?
You have won.
Re:Big talk. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, that's unlikely in this market.
I'm in security. Finding security people, especially finding good security people who have some experience, is really hard. Our company is already paying if you can at least point to someone who might be interested. And paying handsomely if they even sign up.
We're at that level now. You think "all" employers will demand coming into office when they notice that, hey, we COULD actually get the good itsecs if we offer them work from home?
And, lo and behold, they noticed that. Pretty much any offer you read now comes with "100% home office" attached. Take a wild guess why.
Re: (Score:2)
We're at the tail end of a 10+ year growing global economy. But it never lasts.
"And then there was a recession and the business cycle turned negative and everyone got shit canned or desperately held on to whatever they had and the little pig went wee wee wee all the way to the unemployment line".
Be careful, everyone thinks they're special and _can't_ be fired. And then they are.
Re: (Score:3)
That's the other fun bit about security, unless you were throwing away money for some weird reason, you have enough of that stuff that unemployment isn't a threat but just a vacation you didn't plan for. Most people in this sector don't work because they need the money but because that way they have access to cool machines to toy with. Losing our job mostly endangers our access to hardware costing billions that we then can't play with anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Finding a "mentor" in this area is difficult for many reasons. First, everyone who did eventually had their Anakin moment. You know, where you train and tutor someone for a while and he turns out to be in it for a completely different reason than you, and that is a pretty big downer... Then again, I'm old enough to pass for Obi Wan now.
I also don't think I'd make a good mentor anymore. Back when I started, everything was very different, and I'm pretty sure my original approach wouldn't get you anywhere anym
Re: (Score:2)
I frankly have no idea what your question is aiming at, there are very well established and tested ways to create a secure VPN between two points. It's not magic, ya know?
Also, you threaten me to outsource your security to far east Asia. Go ahead. I dare you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You must not be very well connected. There are a huge number of employers capitalizing on this, offering full time remote simply because the larger employers are being dicks.
You can't put the genie back in the bottle. We proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that wfw is unnecessary and a bad use of money. Investors are panicking, but ultimately the market will do what it needs to do, even if a bunch of people lose a ton of money.
Re: (Score:2)
Investors are panicking? Over what? The only thing investors care about is ROI.
If wfh is bad for company efficiency those companies will shrink or die. If it is good they will grow and thrive. If it is neutral then life will continue as before.
What panic?
Re: (Score:3)
I just had an idea, how about we invent something how employees can actually come together to some sort of, let's call it "alliance" (yeah, we need a better word for that, it sounds too Star Wars'y), to negotiate with one voice.
Wonder if I could patent that...
Re: (Score:2)
Have you read Downbelow Station?
Re: (Score:2)
I just had an idea, how about we invent something how employees can actually come together to some sort of, let's call it "alliance" (yeah, we need a better word for that, it sounds too Star Wars'y), to negotiate with one voice.
We call them ERGs, short for Employee Resource Groups, and they are optional and don't charge any membership fees. Employees join them, or not, as they please and you don't have to formally be a member to participate.
But if you were slyly hinting at the type of "alliance" that forces all employees to pay a membership fee regardless of whether they agree with what self serving and/or politically motivated agenda the "leaders" of the "alliance" want to push, no thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Those "alliances" work differently here. Join and pay the membership fee and you have access to all sorts of representation and aid, or don't and you don't. Aside of that, nobody cares whether you want to be a member or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Wtf? You think companies -like- to pay outrageous sums for office space?
Jfc. You're nuts.