Microsoft CEO warns remote work could have serious consequences

[colonel_mortis]

21 minutes ago, TempestCatto said:

I must respectfully disagree. Without technology we couldn't work remotely. I feel as though it is very tech related.

It is related to technology, but the news here, and resulting discussion, is about human interaction, not technology, so it doesn't quite meet the (somewhat nebulous) bar for Tech News.

[GoodBytes]

50 minutes ago, schwellmo92 said:

I preferred my working arrangement prior to COVID19. The social interaction. The disconnection between work and home. Walking to a cafe to get a coffee with a colleague. Catching up with friends over lunch at a nice restaurant. Even the 20 minutes on the train with my headphones on was nice.

You can still have this.. well.. ok not now, as we speak... but assuming this situation is over, I don't see why this can't be done.

 

33 minutes ago, colonel_mortis said:

I am working fairly well from home, but I've found that higher level planning and software architecture design, where there's a big benefit to just talking through ideas and getting thoughts from other people, is much harder to do over video chat (especially without a whiteboard). I also definitely feel that I'm missing out on the social interaction of the office, just stuff like discussing things over lunch.

 

I wouldn't want to work fully remotely forever, but I wouldn't be opposed to wfh for some of the week and being in the office on the other days.

Well, ok not 100% at home, but coming to the office 1-2 days a week or the week(s) during architecture phase takes place, in your situation, can be done.

In my case, my company, my team is actually spread out between teh office I work in, and around the globe, so I guess you can say, I got used to it.

 

Keep in mind that due to the shock, you probably don't have the tools. In my case, while not everyone, by a long shot, has a Surface Pro. What I try to do is use Microsoft Whiteboard (you can use the mouse to draw.. but me having a Surface Pro with a pen, helps hugely, and I do most of the drawing). Microsoft Whiteboard allows you to live share a whiteboard (which scrolls to 'infinite' on any direction), and you can have multiple of them, with everyone, and you can export your drawing as standard image or OneNote (I tend to do both and send an e-mail to all involved in the meeting). Something to look into.

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/microsoft-whiteboard/9mspc6mp8fm4?activetab=pivot:overviewtab

 

 

13 minutes ago, steelo said:

IMO, working from home has been a win win...I've used less gas, have been less aggravated dealing with rude people, traffic and coworkers I really dont care to spend time with. Overall, I just feel healthier.

 

Of course, everybody has a different situation.

I agree. And the savings of not going out to eat, is just massive!

[Anjelllo]

I’m with WFH policies. Companies can get more qualified candidates that exist outside their region (the bay area), and those employees have a chance at better jobs without having to uproot their lives.

[Tech_Dreamer]

2 hours ago, Sauron said:

tHaT's CoMmUnIsM

AKA eVeryBody oWes mE tHiNgZ fOr fREEEE beCaUse i eXiSt.

[spartaman64]

who gets their social needs from work LUL and probably most people have family or pets at home so this just seems like baloney 

[Lurick]

3 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

who gets their social needs from work LUL and probably most people have family or pets at home so this just seems like baloney 

Sounds like you've never been in a good work environment then where coworkers become friends.

[spartaman64]

8 minutes ago, Lurick said:

Sounds like you've never been in a good work environment then where coworkers become friends.

sounds like just a distraction. I dont have time to talk at work. or probably most relationship that other people consider friends i consider acquaintances. I only have like 5 people i consider my friends

[steelo]

1 hour ago, spartaman64 said:

sounds like just a distraction. I dont have time to talk at work. or probably most relationship that other people consider friends i consider acquaintances. I only have like 5 people i consider my friends

Honestly, I dont care to get to know any of the people I work with outside of work. Work is work and I separate it from real life. I consider them as work acquaintances, nothing more.

[Anjelllo]

1 hour ago, spartaman64 said:

who gets their social needs from work LUL and probably most people have family or pets at home so this just seems like baloney 

The big tech campuses promote a culture where “everything you need is at work” free gyms, massages, showers, entertainment etc. which leads to people spending a lot of their personal time on campus, and working longer hrs. Good for the company as it promotes loyalty because your social life is engrossed in the company, but bad for the employee long term. Imo it’s best to make your closest friends and have the majority of your social life outside of work. Dating too. 

[AlTech]

QUICK! The Employees might start to get independent thoughts and think for themselves! We need to stop remote working so we can resume the brainwashing!

 

/joke

 

Edit: I'm only half joking.

[Curious Pineapple]

6 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

QUICK! The Employees might start to get independent thoughts and think for themselves! We need to stop remote working so we can resume the brainwashing!

 

/joke

That's the schools

[Ezzy-525]

4 hours ago, HarryNyquist said:

The problem here is the middle/upper management/executives wanting to see people around and hold meetings so they feel vital.

EXACTLY!

 

The ones who do the work aren't the ones who want to sit in a conference room for 2 hours going over the stuff they've already done whilst their boss takes credit for "the team" doing it.

 

Without useless meetings you'll find a lot of middle management are going to get fired.

[foldingNoob]

5 hours ago, TempestCatto said:

Microsoft was one of the first companies to shift its tech workforce remotely

to India.

[steelo]

36 minutes ago, CircleTech said:

Or instead of mandating thing like paid vacation, we just measure the performance of employees by what they actually produce for their boss. Ex: If I finish a project in one day that that was supposed to take a week, then I can have the rest of the week off. I have done this with my contractors. If you show up and get your work done in an hour, I will still pay you for three hours of work, but you just get to go home early.

 

Measuring productivity by time spent in the office is such a horrible boomer mentality of how modern work operates that it needs to die in a dumpster fire today. Most people no longer work on assembly lines where their productivity is directly tied to their time. Today, we work on projects, which can easily be measured by output. We need to stop measuring projects by time and instead measure them by the amount of productvity people actually create, then compensate them accordingly.

 

The reason bosses want to continue measuring productivity by time is because if you finish a project in one hour that was supposed to take five, then the boss can give you an additional project and more work to do. This is an exploitave system which only encourages employees to work as slowly as possible without being fired (and waste time browsing facebook and doing nonsense work). A latter situation of paying employees by output means that you encourage your workers to get more done in the same amount of time, which ultimately saves your business money since you can more quickly bring a product or service to market. Your employees like it because they can spend more of their time actually working, and still end up with more vacation time. I don't understand why we don't do this everywhere we can. Probably because it would appear as a higher cost on a businesses balance sheet in the very short-term.

 

PS: This is why freelancing is becoming more common. People can work on a project, get paid for only the project, then take the rest of the week off. By 2030, there will be more freelancers than W2 workers, and it's no wonder.

IMO, Getting paid by productivity looks great on paper, however in my younger days I worked 'piece rate' type jobs and realized how toxic the environment was. Almost everybody was extremely back stabbing and on edge at all times. It felt like kindergarten with toddlers fighting for their favorite color crayon. They would cherry pick easier work to make it appear like they were doing more. It was always a race to grab the less time consuming work units and throw them in your work queue. It brought out the worst in people...there were actually fist fights in the office.

 

It was an AWFUL work environment for me personally. However, some people enjoy that type of work...

[GoodBytes]

42 minutes ago, CircleTech said:

Or instead of mandating thing like paid vacation, we just measure the performance of employees by what they actually produce for their boss. Ex: If I finish a project in one day that that was supposed to take a week, then I can have the rest of the week off. I have done this with my contractors. If you show up and get your work done in an hour, I will still pay you for three hours of work, but you just get to go home early.

Well that is what happens with job that pay per year basis. For example, me as a software developer, some period I am under full work load, and even giving overtimes, other periods its "dead", with little to do.  But, doing the average, it comes down to the same things.

The problem with your model, is that I can say something that I know will take a day, say takes 1 week, and do it in a day, then gets paid vacation. Also, it encourages rushed work, which leas to poor quality work (I don't mean only bugs, but also get poor maintainability or the requested work, whether it is a software or a shelf).

 

Quote

Measuring productivity by time spent in the office is such a horrible boomer mentality of how modern work operates that it needs to die in a dumpster fire today. Most people no longer work on assembly lines where their productivity is directly tied to their time. Today, we work on projects, which can easily be measured by output. We need to stop measuring projects by time and instead measure them by the amount of productvity people actually create, then compensate them accordingly.

Correct and agree. And many companies, forces employees to wear a full suit at work, everyday, even if they see 0 customers. I actually don't apply to jobs like that. Because, to me to means that the rest is old school, and the wage is similar to other positions, and I have to buy expensive suits for my job, meaning that I'll actually make less money then working somewhere else.

 

Quote

The reason bosses want to continue measuring productivity by time is because if you finish a project in one hour that was supposed to take five, then the boss can give you an additional project and more work to do. This is an exploitave system which only encourages employees to work as slowly as possible without being fired (and waste time browsing facebook and doing nonsense work). A latter situation of paying employees by output means that you encourage your workers to get more done in the same amount of time, which ultimately saves your business money since you can more quickly bring a product or service to market. Your employees like it because they can spend more of their time actually working, and still end up with more vacation time. I don't understand why we don't do this everywhere we can. Probably because it would appear as a higher cost on a businesses balance sheet in the very short-term.

I agree. 

Quote

PS: This is why freelancing is becoming more common. People can work on a project, get paid for only the project, then take the rest of the week off. By 2030, there will be more freelancers than W2 workers, and it's no wonder.

Actually, companies love freelancers. Because it is a "0 risk" solution. So they force people to go under that model. They dont' have to pay Unemployment Insurance, Insurances, and many other fees and things for hiring an employee full time, and if you don't like them, just fire them. Easy. No complication with lawyers to build a case, in the case you sue, don't have to deal with goverment, and depending on where things are, pay a portion of the unemployment insurance of the employee that you fired to the goverment.  So much complexity reduces, reduce the risk significantly. And once the job is done, they can toss you away. And you, have to continuously hunt for contracts.

 

The down side for companies, is that they are unable to build a knowledge based or expertise. So the company has little value. But many companies don't realize the importance of this. And when things breaks or needs upgraded, it is hell for them.

 

So, they are ups and downs.

 

[Guest]

This would probably be more relevant to tech companies and office workers. I really enjoy going into work and the disconnection from home is important for me. 

[Curious Pineapple]

48 minutes ago, CircleTech said:

Or instead of mandating thing like paid vacation, we just measure the performance of employees by what they actually produce for their boss. Ex: If I finish a project in one day that that was supposed to take a week, then I can have the rest of the week off. I have done this with my contractors. If you show up and get your work done in an hour, I will still pay you for three hours of work, but you just get to go home early.

 

Measuring productivity by time spent in the office is such a horrible boomer mentality of how modern work operates that it needs to die in a dumpster fire today. Most people no longer work on assembly lines where their productivity is directly tied to their time. Today, we work on projects, which can easily be measured by output. We need to stop measuring projects by time and instead measure them by the amount of productvity people actually create, then compensate them accordingly.

 

The reason bosses want to continue measuring productivity by time is because if you finish a project in one hour that was supposed to take five, then the boss can give you an additional project and more work to do. This is an exploitave system which only encourages employees to work as slowly as possible without being fired (and waste time browsing facebook and doing nonsense work). A latter situation of paying employees by output means that you encourage your workers to get more done in the same amount of time, which ultimately saves your business money since you can more quickly bring a product or service to market. Your employees like it because they can spend more of their time actually working, and still end up with more vacation time. I don't understand why we don't do this everywhere we can. Probably because it would appear as a higher cost on a businesses balance sheet in the very short-term.

 

PS: This is why freelancing is becoming more common. People can work on a project, get paid for only the project, then take the rest of the week off. By 2030, there will be more freelancers than W2 workers, and it's no wonder.

Meanwhile those that do work in manufacturing/production/transport/logistics/services have to choose between taking time off and loosing income, or working constantly to earn the money they need to pay the medical bills for the stress-induced heart attack as they can't afford to take time off and loose income.

 

At least you're alright in your little "charge for a week and finish in 3 days" world.

[GoodBytes]

18 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

This would probably be more relevant to tech companies and office workers. I really enjoy going into work and the disconnection from home is important for me. 

No one is saying that a balance can't be done. And many, don't have the luxury of an "office at home" for various reasons (from distractions to simply lack of space to have a proper office). Many companies that do have "Work at home" options have work at the office options. Heck, when you "work at home" companies still have what they call "hot desks" areas. Where you have tables or cubicles that aren't assigned to anyone and meeting rooms that allows employees who work from home to come at the office at times (could be coming to the office for a month, 3 months, or just 1 day the week or never show up for 6month or the whole year. Doesn't matter). The only difference, is that the space is not guaranteed to be available, as it is a "hot desk", and it means it is a shared with first come, first served model.

 

No one is saying that companies should have 0 onsite employees ever, or something like that. The big news/push of working at home, is that many companies are going "Hey! That works, and guess what.. less space needed... and hey, we don't need to worry about as much on the location of our office, being further away from "hot real estate areas", all contributing to reduction in cost. Insurance cost, reduces as well, form things like work injures, being reduced, as the employee isn't at work, electricity and building maintenance reduces... all massive savings in the long run. They just need meeting rooms, and hot desk areas. They'll have space for those who prefer to work at the office. You'll still have meeting rooms to allow people to get together and do meetings.

 

So all in all, employees wins, companies wins. This is a rare case. 

 

The scare that some company faces is data loss or IP loss due to employee lack of security in their setup. But in my opinion, this can be fixed by still providing work system with company security software installed and system configured to their liking (drive encryption, for example), or request that company data is hosted on company servers, or that the company validate the employee security. For example, allow the company to run a security audit on an employee every now and then, to check router configurations (make sure there is a password on wireless, anti-virus and OS is updated, etc.). Many options.

[Curious Pineapple]

11 minutes ago, CircleTech said:

But remember: people don't take those jobs because they want them, people take them because it's their only choice. When I had a McDonalds job in high school, I quit my job to start flipping PCs full time (out of a space that I paid for). Louis rossmann has talked about this, that paying people a better wage for the same low-end work does not encourage them to train and increase their skill set:

Interesting, I never knew that I didn't want my job and it's my only choice. Over a decade of not realising that I don't actually want to work there.

 

I'll quit tomorrow, thanks for the advice!

[ARikozuM]

3 minutes ago, CircleTech said:

Notice how I said for *most* jobs, not all. If you job is in the service industry, then as far as I know there is no easy way to measure it by productivity. In that case, time is really the only efficient way to measure compensation.

 

But remember: people don't take those jobs because they want them, people take them because it's their only choice. When I had a McDonalds job in high school, I quit my job to start flipping PCs full time (out of a space that I paid for). Louis rossmann has talked about this, that paying people a better wage for the same low-end work does not encourage them to train and increase their skill set:

 

One person is only anecdotal (and he was in NYC which has an immense job market compared to other areas). Making minimum wage higher does allow better management of money for education or trades. The major problem with companies like McDonalds and alike tend to be increasingly prevalent but they don't pay enough for the productivity of their workers, so the workers have to work longer hours which means that the workers can't find time to study or take up skills. 

 

Then there's the issue of people needing more than a single job to make ends meet (and that's not just people with kids, plenty of single adults are in that situation as well thanks to rent, credit, and such. 

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

This conversation could even extend beyond the workplace and into the classrooms. With many higher-education institutions moving to online instruction for the foreseeable future, could we see online instruction be the only option for some classes post COVID-19?

[TempestCatto]

21 minutes ago, BlueChinchillaEatingDorito said:

This conversation could even extend beyond the workplace and into the classrooms. With many higher-education institutions moving to online instruction for the foreseeable future, could we see online instruction be the only option for some classes post COVID-19?

Negative. As a special needs student I need to be in a classroom and in person interacting with my instructors and helpers. The only reason I passed my trig class this semester is because I literally Googled everything but still got a C+ because I only understood so much from Google. When actually trying to learn something, being in a classroom is so much better for taking in information. Environment, lack of distractions, and having the instructional personnel right there all make for a better learning experience, imo.

[GoodBytes]

1 hour ago, BlueChinchillaEatingDorito said:

This conversation could even extend beyond the workplace and into the classrooms. With many higher-education institutions moving to online instruction for the foreseeable future, could we see online instruction be the only option for some classes post COVID-19?

Elementary and a portion (at the very least) of High School, cannot study from home. You have many issues in this, including, but not limited to: issues with parental guard, parents who need to work, physical education, and of course, socializing. However, higher than those (like University), it could be a possibility, yes. But a socializing system needs to be put in place. 

[ARikozuM]

1 hour ago, BlueChinchillaEatingDorito said:

This conversation could even extend beyond the workplace and into the classrooms. With many higher-education institutions moving to online instruction for the foreseeable future, could we see online instruction be the only option for some classes post COVID-19?

No. Better option would be to mandate VAK (VARK) or LSQ testing at the beginning of every school year, up to and including undergrad, to ensure that each and every student is given the best choices for his/her courses.