CEOs are running companies from afar even as workers return to office(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
CEOs are running companies from afar even as workers return to office
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-08-15/starbucks-victoria-s-secret-are-part-of-broader-trend-of-remote-ceos
288 comments
> Sometimes that translates to aloofness for staff, but what more often happens is that when the CEO _does_ come in they expect other people to be there.
Anecdotally, I have seen companies that have "oscillations" in their WFH policy and this, in my experience, has often been the driver of it. Instead of putting trust in the process or the data, you will simply have a situation where the CEO or (especially) where a group of the top level execs are all in the office on a particular day when the office 'feels empty', which then results in a "where is everyone" conversation. Couple that with a sniff of an internal deadline being missed or something behind schedule and suddenly you have a perfect storm of discontent resulting in updated WFH rules and policies being hastily fired off without regard to actual performance data or previous commitments or conclusions drawn around WFH policy.
> Make a fun space, and make people's work schedules be loose enough to where they can actually relax in the space, and some people will show up!
Personally, I don't care about having my workplace be fun or loaded with too many amenities. But if I'm going to be in a company workplace, I do need an office with a closing door if I'm expected to be able to focus and be productive. So much of the insanity with the WFH debate is employers who think that people can be productive or enjoy their work when working in loud, open-concept office configurations. For a lot of employees the WFH vs. office debate then feels very much a "my private, quiet home office vs. chaotic, loud office environment" debate.
Anecdotally, I have seen companies that have "oscillations" in their WFH policy and this, in my experience, has often been the driver of it. Instead of putting trust in the process or the data, you will simply have a situation where the CEO or (especially) where a group of the top level execs are all in the office on a particular day when the office 'feels empty', which then results in a "where is everyone" conversation. Couple that with a sniff of an internal deadline being missed or something behind schedule and suddenly you have a perfect storm of discontent resulting in updated WFH rules and policies being hastily fired off without regard to actual performance data or previous commitments or conclusions drawn around WFH policy.
> Make a fun space, and make people's work schedules be loose enough to where they can actually relax in the space, and some people will show up!
Personally, I don't care about having my workplace be fun or loaded with too many amenities. But if I'm going to be in a company workplace, I do need an office with a closing door if I'm expected to be able to focus and be productive. So much of the insanity with the WFH debate is employers who think that people can be productive or enjoy their work when working in loud, open-concept office configurations. For a lot of employees the WFH vs. office debate then feels very much a "my private, quiet home office vs. chaotic, loud office environment" debate.
Yes and some people don't appreciate that some jobs really do require quiet focus for extended periods of time.
Asking someone to be a programmer in a loud chaotic open office environment is not dissimilar to asking them to program while juggling two balls and sitting on a unicycle. Its just excess difficulty that doesn't need to be added on top of the jobs.
Asking someone to be a programmer in a loud chaotic open office environment is not dissimilar to asking them to program while juggling two balls and sitting on a unicycle. Its just excess difficulty that doesn't need to be added on top of the jobs.
I just always assumed an "open office", really meaning a non-office, an empty building, was what was available for startups after the dot com bust in SF.
Then after the fact we made up a bunch of bullshit as to why this is some brilliant idea. Then this idea spread as if it was some kind of technological advancement because it worked for small tech companies trying to not spend money on furniture and walls.
We just aren't very good at any of this at scale. The open "office" and battle against remote work are different flavors of the same type of stupidity.
Then after the fact we made up a bunch of bullshit as to why this is some brilliant idea. Then this idea spread as if it was some kind of technological advancement because it worked for small tech companies trying to not spend money on furniture and walls.
We just aren't very good at any of this at scale. The open "office" and battle against remote work are different flavors of the same type of stupidity.
Nah it's because walls cost money and take up space. Open plan is cheaper with the trade-off that nobody likes it
I actually like that environment, unless I'm having problems debugging something. If something is not working after an hour or so I am on edge and need peace and quiet, but otherwise I can program fine for most tasks with noise around me.
in hindsight its amazing anything actually ever got done
My team is very small remote-primary, but we will travel to each others cities / offices quarterly or so.
We have long since given up on getting any work done on our in-office days, but see them as collaborative / bonding / light planning only.
It's gotten to the point that even if we fly to each others city for a week, we might only go to the office 2~3 days, or by Wednesday/Thursday we might by physically collocated but go to different rooms in silence with headphones to actually get work done.
As a dev these days are actually pretty stressful as they have the feeling of creating work faster than doing any of it. It makes me remember how unproductive my dev teams used to be with the constant in-office interruptions. At prior jobs, I used to do most of my actual dev work after hours, and on unilaterally declared WFH days
We have long since given up on getting any work done on our in-office days, but see them as collaborative / bonding / light planning only.
It's gotten to the point that even if we fly to each others city for a week, we might only go to the office 2~3 days, or by Wednesday/Thursday we might by physically collocated but go to different rooms in silence with headphones to actually get work done.
As a dev these days are actually pretty stressful as they have the feeling of creating work faster than doing any of it. It makes me remember how unproductive my dev teams used to be with the constant in-office interruptions. At prior jobs, I used to do most of my actual dev work after hours, and on unilaterally declared WFH days
I think the introduction of WFH during the pandemic hurt a lot of IT workers in the long-run.
In the interests of “fairness” they are being ordered back to the office post-Covid even when their work processes mean they can be done perfectly well remotely, and even if they have widely geographically-distributed teams.
Anecdotal, but we had a team that was split with 50% working remotely before Covid, and we saw an improvement when everyone was forced to work remotely: conversations that were being held in person were shared openly.
In the interests of “fairness” they are being ordered back to the office post-Covid even when their work processes mean they can be done perfectly well remotely, and even if they have widely geographically-distributed teams.
Anecdotal, but we had a team that was split with 50% working remotely before Covid, and we saw an improvement when everyone was forced to work remotely: conversations that were being held in person were shared openly.
I see the opposite. Conversations that used to happen in ear reach so I'd know what was going on with various team members and be able to contribute when I knew a solution are now conversation that happen in private chat or private VC.
Productivity is way down.
Even more interesting, a team lead lives in another country 6 times zones away. Some times they visit the main office for 1-2 weeks. Productivity shoots through the roof those weeks.
Productivity is way down.
Even more interesting, a team lead lives in another country 6 times zones away. Some times they visit the main office for 1-2 weeks. Productivity shoots through the roof those weeks.
That doesn’t seem like a sustainable alternative. In the case you are describing, the productivity boost is highly dependent on actually having the right people within ear reach. You are relying on the right people happening to hear other conversations. What if your team is large, so that even if you are all in office, the chances of stumbling into the right conversation is lower? What if you are grabbing lunch, or in the bathroom, or meeting with someone else when that conversation is happening?
The most effective solution in my experience has been when working remote, and having a culture where a team has open discussions on their own Slack channel, with threads for particular conversations. That way, everyone can contribute to the conversation, it’s asynchronous so you don’t have to be in exactly the right place and right time to participate, and people can go back and review details very easily if needed.
You are right that that doesn’t apply if the conversations are happening in private DMs, but that’s a matter of team culture. You have to be intentional in a remote setting, just the same as you do in an office setting. But if you are it can work very well in my experience, perhaps even better than in person.
The most effective solution in my experience has been when working remote, and having a culture where a team has open discussions on their own Slack channel, with threads for particular conversations. That way, everyone can contribute to the conversation, it’s asynchronous so you don’t have to be in exactly the right place and right time to participate, and people can go back and review details very easily if needed.
You are right that that doesn’t apply if the conversations are happening in private DMs, but that’s a matter of team culture. You have to be intentional in a remote setting, just the same as you do in an office setting. But if you are it can work very well in my experience, perhaps even better than in person.
>The most effective solution in my experience has been when working remote, and having a culture where a team has open discussions on their own Slack channel, with threads for particular conversations.
IME a lot of the really useful "in earshot range" conversations are those that were intended privately but were overheard by someone that has an idea.
Engineer A might go to engineer B to ask B on how to do X. B is being asked because they are usually knowledgeable about similar topics. In this case they don't know.
In slack A would message B directly. B answers that they don't know.
In the office C might overhear it and have an idea and chime in.
I think this unintentional broadcasting can be really helpful to productivity and spreading ideas. It just doesn't work so well in a messaging app.
IME a lot of the really useful "in earshot range" conversations are those that were intended privately but were overheard by someone that has an idea.
Engineer A might go to engineer B to ask B on how to do X. B is being asked because they are usually knowledgeable about similar topics. In this case they don't know.
In slack A would message B directly. B answers that they don't know.
In the office C might overhear it and have an idea and chime in.
I think this unintentional broadcasting can be really helpful to productivity and spreading ideas. It just doesn't work so well in a messaging app.
Well yea, when I go on a work trip I tend to work a lot more those weeks because I’m not home. That doesn’t mean productivity during those two weeks are representative of normal.
Sounds like you need a group chat that people are willing to talk in. If that isn’t happening, then there’s a barrier to doing it that you need to resolve. Could be they’re fine with you listening in, but not the manager. Could be something else. Fix that, and get back to productive remotely.
> Conversations that used to happen in ear reach
Sorry, is this a real thing? I've never experienced this.
We all have cubes and sure, maybe sometimes I can hear someone kind of close to me. But not very often. And typically, people actually speak in a low voice as to not disturb others.
We have many floors in the office too, so all our meetings are on Teams. I can't remember the last time I went to a conference room.
I actually really enjoy the async nature of chats. Because you can come and go in the conversation, and you don't have to grind everything you're doing to a halt. Plus, I can go back later and refresh my memory.
Sorry, is this a real thing? I've never experienced this.
We all have cubes and sure, maybe sometimes I can hear someone kind of close to me. But not very often. And typically, people actually speak in a low voice as to not disturb others.
We have many floors in the office too, so all our meetings are on Teams. I can't remember the last time I went to a conference room.
I actually really enjoy the async nature of chats. Because you can come and go in the conversation, and you don't have to grind everything you're doing to a halt. Plus, I can go back later and refresh my memory.
That's a shame. We're a mostly remote workplace with very high productivity. Hopefully you can figure out how to make it work, or move to a place that suits you better.
I think the real pain comes from many managers discovering that if they're going to have remote workers, might as well go whole hog and hire them in Bangalore for 1/10th the price instead of paying SV salaries.
That’ll cause real pain for the management. Unless you pay near western market rates, you’re getting the bottom of the barrel in India or anywhere else, much like if you tried to hire US developers for even 50% of the market rate. The low priced contractors do such poor work it’s almost not useful.
Or they'll get hired, get taught really basic shit (chmod/chown) on the job, get a cisco/AWS certificate then leave 6 month later to join a better paying job.
But not before misapplying chmod/chown settings in your environment.
In my first job we loaned Hadoop clusters that we either managed ourselves or let the client manage the IT. One of our client decided to use a contractor instead (I might miss details, it was almost 10 year ago) .
The day after configuring the cluster and giving him the metaphorical keys, we saw low-level alert on one computer in that cluster, some monitoring daemon couldn't be reached but nothing really concerning (could still be pinged, no issues with the virtualisation). We still tried to look at it, but could't ssh on the computer (which explains why our daemons couldn't be reached). We contacted the client, said basically: 'we can remove the monitoring and our access keys if you want, but please tell us before you do this. Do you want it done on the other computers?'.
He came back the day after that saying basically 'what?' then talking about a shard that couldn't be reached (he was nice about it).
Turns out, 'chmod 777 /' is the dumbest way of breaking your workstation I've ever seen. We all hear about 'rm -rf /' but let's be real, no one has ever done it, not outside of school at least. Chmod 777 / because you couldn't manage to understand a Java stacktrace has 100% been done in a professional environment: I had to fix it.
Luckily you can copy the permissions of filesystem A onto filesystem B (can't remember how, but it was easy) so the fix didn't involve any reinstallation and Hadoop wizardry.
The day after configuring the cluster and giving him the metaphorical keys, we saw low-level alert on one computer in that cluster, some monitoring daemon couldn't be reached but nothing really concerning (could still be pinged, no issues with the virtualisation). We still tried to look at it, but could't ssh on the computer (which explains why our daemons couldn't be reached). We contacted the client, said basically: 'we can remove the monitoring and our access keys if you want, but please tell us before you do this. Do you want it done on the other computers?'.
He came back the day after that saying basically 'what?' then talking about a shard that couldn't be reached (he was nice about it).
Turns out, 'chmod 777 /' is the dumbest way of breaking your workstation I've ever seen. We all hear about 'rm -rf /' but let's be real, no one has ever done it, not outside of school at least. Chmod 777 / because you couldn't manage to understand a Java stacktrace has 100% been done in a professional environment: I had to fix it.
Luckily you can copy the permissions of filesystem A onto filesystem B (can't remember how, but it was easy) so the fix didn't involve any reinstallation and Hadoop wizardry.
For the next manager, perhaps, but the first guy gets a promotion for cost cutting and leaves for greener pastures before the shit hits the fan.
From what I've heard, you aren't getting anywhere near the same quality in Bangalore for 1/10th the price these days. Maybe 1/3rd and that gap is shrinking.
At that price you might as well hire in Western Europe and have better timezone overlaps.
At that price you might as well hire in Western Europe and have better timezone overlaps.
Have you ever dealt with outsourced workers? They might cost 1/10th the price, but they will provide 1/20th the value. Every single time I deal with teams in India it's all about quantity, not quality. Some businesses might be fine with that, but for many it will destroy your business.
Silicon Valley compensation in India and LatAm is broadly in line with US median for all software developers ($120k ish). It's not dramatically cheaper in absolute terms than the US low/medium cost of living markets. The idea is that it gets you the best of the best in India, vs. middle of the road in the US.
Really depends on your org structure.
If you already had a global org, then it was already running poorly due to bad VC hardware and inability to book conference leading to lots of drive-by chats. Great for the office which has >40% of the staff in it, bad for the 3 other offices with 20%.
Hybrid/remote/zoom leveled the playing field so that our non-primary-HQ devs were able to fully contribute whereas in many cases they were bodies in seat for follow-the-sun coverage who would do rote Jiras assigned to them.
If you already had a global org, then it was already running poorly due to bad VC hardware and inability to book conference leading to lots of drive-by chats. Great for the office which has >40% of the staff in it, bad for the 3 other offices with 20%.
Hybrid/remote/zoom leveled the playing field so that our non-primary-HQ devs were able to fully contribute whereas in many cases they were bodies in seat for follow-the-sun coverage who would do rote Jiras assigned to them.
> a group of the top level execs are all in the office on a particular day when the office 'feels empty'
> internal deadline being missed
What indicators would justify a change in WFH policy?
> internal deadline being missed
What indicators would justify a change in WFH policy?
I think they were talking about internal deadlines being missed at about baseline levels, but the timing coincides with when the execs happen to feel like the office is empty so they make a mental association.
A measurable increase in missed deadlines is not what I think they meant.
A measurable increase in missed deadlines is not what I think they meant.
No worthwhile indicators, other than the gut feelings of the decision makers in that moment.
yeah, I meant "fun" perhaps in a more open sense of "people are not just annoyed at everything all the time", perhaps "relaxed" is the right word.
I am not a superfan of actual closet office given, like, CO2 and friends, but having at least semi-closed spaces with some degree of privacy for groups of people feels totally reasonable. I always think about how some grad students at my university (paired 4 off to an office) had a nicer-feeling office space than any tech office I've been to short of a handful
I am not a superfan of actual closet office given, like, CO2 and friends, but having at least semi-closed spaces with some degree of privacy for groups of people feels totally reasonable. I always think about how some grad students at my university (paired 4 off to an office) had a nicer-feeling office space than any tech office I've been to short of a handful
We just send out an email when the boss is in town and ask folks to come in, and enough people do to make the office seem full - and that works, we will even fly people in sometimes.
It’s a shame you can’t hire extras for the day to make the office lively.
Edit: Maybe you can? Check with someone who does local casting?
Edit: Maybe you can? Check with someone who does local casting?
> Edit: Maybe you can? Check with someone who does local casting?
And start an office pool on whether or not the boss even notices that they’re not real employees.
And start an office pool on whether or not the boss even notices that they’re not real employees.
Give them good plot lines like: i dont think ive seen you here before? Do you normally work remote?
It's probably just enough to dress them in business casual, and have them walk around the office looking very serious and busy, talking on their cellphones about business-y stuff. All that matters is the "buzz" and "hum" and "pop" of SeriousBusiness getting done.
> It's probably just enough to dress them in business casual…
Bonus points for how little effort you can get the actors to put in while still getting away with it. Just have them wear shorts, some tech vendor t-shirts, and put most of them in a conference room, while two people talk about the last “feature” release.
If it’s not a tech related portion of the business, do the same, but say something about making casual “insert-day-of-the-week” and have said business group talk about how the last “feature” release impacted their section.
Triple bonus points if you get the boss to join in on the discussion with no one knowing what the actual “feature” released was, without the boss figuring the whole thing out.
Bonus points for how little effort you can get the actors to put in while still getting away with it. Just have them wear shorts, some tech vendor t-shirts, and put most of them in a conference room, while two people talk about the last “feature” release.
If it’s not a tech related portion of the business, do the same, but say something about making casual “insert-day-of-the-week” and have said business group talk about how the last “feature” release impacted their section.
Triple bonus points if you get the boss to join in on the discussion with no one knowing what the actual “feature” released was, without the boss figuring the whole thing out.
shouting the following into a phone: "YES, FRAN. I KNOW WHAT TIME IT IS, BUT I'M LOOKING AT THE WENUS, AND I'M NOT HAPPY." will be good, but what happens if the management says "I like that guy! What's his name?"
later on "Hey Chandler, Did you get that WENUS problem sorted out? Chandler, I'd like you to come to the main office and give a presentation, we need your kind of can-do attitude"
later on "Hey Chandler, Did you get that WENUS problem sorted out? Chandler, I'd like you to come to the main office and give a presentation, we need your kind of can-do attitude"
Walk fast and look worried.
Best startup idea of the week. Unfamiliar buts in seats. UBIS! the guilt of not knowing anyone
BISAAS?
Share an office with a completely different type of company, for fun?
You could have shared employees. It reminds me of many strange hybrid company ideas I use to ponder.
A lauromat can have big machines that produce steam and hot water. You can power an indoor troppical garden with a swinming pool and an interesting lunchroom. Desk work can be done laying in the grass etc etc
Thats the general formula.
The office can be a showroom for a vintage motorcycle shop.
A lauromat can have big machines that produce steam and hot water. You can power an indoor troppical garden with a swinming pool and an interesting lunchroom. Desk work can be done laying in the grass etc etc
Thats the general formula.
The office can be a showroom for a vintage motorcycle shop.
I had the idea for a bookstore/pizza place/laundromat/bar years ago.
Maybe an llm can go over all the possible combinations. Start with just 2 then look for ingredient 3 etc using the best results.
Just rent your office out as a co-working space. That way you can even run a profit off it.
And keep an eye out how long it takes the board to realize that the assistant to the CEO is no longer a pure cost, but actually returning a profit for the company. /s
And keep an eye out how long it takes the board to realize that the assistant to the CEO is no longer a pure cost, but actually returning a profit for the company. /s
> Just rent your office out as a co-working space. That way you can even run a profit off it.
That’s a great idea, we could create a web portal and basically make a techy office management rental interface. Let’s pitch the idea to YComb together, we can call the venture OurWork.
That’s a great idea, we could create a web portal and basically make a techy office management rental interface. Let’s pitch the idea to YComb together, we can call the venture OurWork.
I am available on short notice. Available in formal, business casual, dont care and hipster attire. Skills include annoyingly fast typing and a full pallet of emotions; Anger, Sadness, Fear, Surprise, Disgust, Contempt, Happiness and Working all included in the standard rate*.
* I charge extra for so-called "high-fives" on a per-five basis due to the added physical danger.
* I charge extra for so-called "high-fives" on a per-five basis due to the added physical danger.
> A proper theory of the mind can often be quite absent.
+1 spicy!
> Make a fun space, and make people's work schedules be loose enough to where they can actually relax in the space, and some people will show up!
I've tried to tell this to a couple of places that wanted me to work in a office. The conversations didn't go anywhere - perhaps because of your prior quote? :)
+1 spicy!
> Make a fun space, and make people's work schedules be loose enough to where they can actually relax in the space, and some people will show up!
I've tried to tell this to a couple of places that wanted me to work in a office. The conversations didn't go anywhere - perhaps because of your prior quote? :)
I found the solution one time but it is hard to reproduce: I make an angry face and shout from up close "It is important that people enjoy working here. Do you understand?" Then I laugh at my own joke.
[deleted]
IMO theory of mind fails at scale and distance due to the sheer diversity of humanity and disconnection from local signals. No human can accomplish this, which is why we need population-level studies.
> And to a lesser extent other executives who have decided that their job is their life.
This is key. CEO is one individual, maybe you luck out with someone thats self aware and doesn’t have their head up their behind. But with the exec team, almost certainly there will be one motherfucker that needs their ego stroked by having minions around when they’re in an office, taking calls or meetings.
This is key. CEO is one individual, maybe you luck out with someone thats self aware and doesn’t have their head up their behind. But with the exec team, almost certainly there will be one motherfucker that needs their ego stroked by having minions around when they’re in an office, taking calls or meetings.
> pyramind
this word fits in there perfectly
this word fits in there perfectly
This sort of CEO behavior is simply not so thinly veiled classism.
Or… the ceo has a job where they need to be out meeting people. For sales, recruiting, etc
They generally expect people who can work from the office are working from the office. For example they wouldn’t expect to see forward deployed engineers sitting at the office twiddling their thumbs…
They generally expect people who can work from the office are working from the office. For example they wouldn’t expect to see forward deployed engineers sitting at the office twiddling their thumbs…
[deleted]
Anyone surprised by this? I remember my first programming job it was FREQUENT that the execs would fly to other offices ~12+ weeks a year. Of course our office was in Orlando so every exec would also magically have their family flown in as well to go to Disney World.
5 jobs later, its been the same at any company that isn't a startup. Execs have never been in the office, they have "offsite" meetings.
5 jobs later, its been the same at any company that isn't a startup. Execs have never been in the office, they have "offsite" meetings.
Not only are directors and above immune to the RTO directives in most companies, they are also immune to location specific pay ranges in most companies. And for the few times they do require to go to the office, they can expense the entire trip, including airfare, dinners, hotels and more. The class asymmetry is ridiculous, but unfortunately most workers don’t know this fact.
Edit: In case it wasn’t clear, this is not just about CEOs and “executives”. A director level can sometimes be just “manager of managers”. I’m talking about upper middle management here.
Edit: In case it wasn’t clear, this is not just about CEOs and “executives”. A director level can sometimes be just “manager of managers”. I’m talking about upper middle management here.
> immune to location specific pay ranges in most companies
The next version of the equal-pay-for-equal-work fight is going to be pretty interesting, and will probably start to boil over sometime in the next 5-10 years.
More telecommuting is going to be generally unstoppable despite a few fits and starts, but since NYC and SF can't afford to just get completely hollowed out in the space of a few years, they need Kansas City to help out with the rent. And it will work too, since some places are more politically important than others. But it won't work forever.
The next version of the equal-pay-for-equal-work fight is going to be pretty interesting, and will probably start to boil over sometime in the next 5-10 years.
More telecommuting is going to be generally unstoppable despite a few fits and starts, but since NYC and SF can't afford to just get completely hollowed out in the space of a few years, they need Kansas City to help out with the rent. And it will work too, since some places are more politically important than others. But it won't work forever.
No, they know. They can't do anything about it under the current legal framework, though.
I don’t see why you should be able to do anything about this legally as an employee. As a shareholder you have more of a claim.
In the Netherlands there is work from home legislation. Legally requiring it to be allowed, where possible and reasonable.
The reasoning is that it reduces traffic and reduces stress.
This existed since 2000 ish. It has expanded since covid. I now only go to the office once every two weeks. Used to be two times a week.
The reasoning is that it reduces traffic and reduces stress.
This existed since 2000 ish. It has expanded since covid. I now only go to the office once every two weeks. Used to be two times a week.
It’s been really interesting how quickly we’ve forgotten how much air quality and greenhouse emissions slowed during the pandemic. If you’re looking for a quick climate change mitigation it’s hard to beat not requiring people to commute when the job doesn’t require it.
An ethically aligned company goes to reasonable lengths to allow employees to become shareholders.
Never at a level that would influence company direction, though, even if all the employees banded together.
Which just sounds like a union, anyway. So why not just unionize instead...
Which just sounds like a union, anyway. So why not just unionize instead...
It sounds just like a co-op or an employee-owned business.
Now, I love me a good union - and there’s something to be said about a healthy tension between management and labour in terms of keeping management a bit more honest, just like management and capital - but in smaller orgs, a co-op will probably do the job.
Now, I love me a good union - and there’s something to be said about a healthy tension between management and labour in terms of keeping management a bit more honest, just like management and capital - but in smaller orgs, a co-op will probably do the job.
This implies that employee and owner goals can’t ever align.
Ethically they’d return all profits to all employees regardless of ownership instead of leaching off the value of their labor
That isn't ethical, that is a magical fairy realm where everyone else has 0% profit margins and you get 100% of the profit.
It’s only a fairy realm because the capitalists have won. There is no reason the world couldn’t work like this beyond human nature being what it is
Legally, no. Ethically, probably. Socially, yes. A group of employees who feel they are being exploited by an inequitable treatment of their their management would have a lot more options than take your pittance or leave.
[deleted]
There is a very easy way to do something about it, don't work for those companies.
> The class asymmetry is ridiculous, but unfortunately most workers don’t know this fact.
Class asymmetry exists by design.
Class asymmetry exists by design.
Everybody knows. We all have the same Internet as you
You’d be surprised how many people don’t, despite having the same Internet as me.
For now.
While I agree that it can be annoying to see C-levels jetting around the globe while you're sitting in front of the same computer every day, likely feeling underpaid - what is the "asymmetry"? Or the remedy? Do you think that if they tighten their budget of perks, or reduce their compensation, some of that money will somehow flow to you? Because no, it won't.
Mostly I feel sorry for people whose lives are so empty that they feel the need to fly across the world to have a conversation about work. Stay home! Zoom works great and you can go for a walk with your spouse after you log off instead of drinking alone in a hotel bar.
The crucial conversations occur between human beings who have met or worked often enough to have created a social connection.
Think about how absurd it is to argue that Zoom is enough to sustain family or intimate relationships over the long haul.
Zoom isn’t enough. Having that walk with a potential client, that colleague or that supplier might well be.
Think about how absurd it is to argue that Zoom is enough to sustain family or intimate relationships over the long haul.
Zoom isn’t enough. Having that walk with a potential client, that colleague or that supplier might well be.
"Zoom works great" - not for cultivating real relationships (friends, business, family, etc) it doesn't
How is this an argument for leaving your family behind to go work in an identical office across the country?
if you truly believe Zoom works great then you should be perfectly happy Zoom calling your family from whatever workplace you choose to go visit
Well, you got me. No way to weasel out of that logic. No hard feelings, and have a lucrative life!
Well it has to go somewhere. I’m personally against hoarding in general. Less concentration means more equality.
Executives work insane hours. The jobs are there if you want to gun for them. Yes there are lazy executives, but successful companies focused on shareholder value tend to weed them out.
> Executives work insane hours.
Often quite a bit less than it looks on-paper when you remove the "working lunch" and "client dinner" and "meeting (at the country club)" and "reading emails while lounging on the private jet" bits.
Often quite a bit less than it looks on-paper when you remove the "working lunch" and "client dinner" and "meeting (at the country club)" and "reading emails while lounging on the private jet" bits.
The amount of executives that play golf and include golf as working meetings blows this argument out of the sand trap.
The amount of golf that are work meeting blows this argument out of the sand trap.
Hypothetically, if all the CEO did was, once a quarter, take a private jet to meet a potential client in person for lunch - and just one of those 4 meetings actually landed a customer - but a $1 billion revenue customer - is that a problem for you? CEOs shouldn't be measured by hours clocked in, like a factory worker.
You're absolutely right. CEOs (and other execs) need measurable workload, just like the rest of their staff. If you're not measuring it, is the CEO landing deals, or are they just playing golf with other members of the managerial class? The inquiring mind wants to know.
Get over it. Until you earn yourself a seat on the board, your inquiring mind will likely remain inquiring. Not sure why you expect that the CEO needs to justify his/her schedule to rank-and-file employees.
This whole discussion is about double standards.
Hypothetically, if all a programmer did was, once a quarter, come in in person to maintain some piece of software that created $300k of value per year for the company, is that a problem for you?
Hypothetically, if all a programmer did was, once a quarter, come in in person to maintain some piece of software that created $300k of value per year for the company, is that a problem for you?
Plenty of companies have consultants on call to do exactly that.
Unsolicited career advice: cultivating a reputation and a network within your industry, such that you're the one regularly receiving those calls, can be highly lucrative - look into it
Unsolicited career advice: cultivating a reputation and a network within your industry, such that you're the one regularly receiving those calls, can be highly lucrative - look into it
It’s a hypothetical- so no, of course not.
I will ask: why is it your CEO doing this, not your sales team?
And if your CEO is doing only 4 meetings a year, why can’t they do more ?
If you have a billion dollars in revenue per client, how many potential clients can you have ?
Won’t they run out of work in a few years?
At that point what value does the CEO add ? Will they still be going on trips for meetings which will never result in billion dollar revenues ?
I get the spirit of your point. To use it further, to understand it, we should scrutinize even the CEO role.
Assuming im a shareholder, why should we ‘subsidize’ a useless CEO at any point ?
The CEO is also an employee in the end.
I will ask: why is it your CEO doing this, not your sales team?
And if your CEO is doing only 4 meetings a year, why can’t they do more ?
If you have a billion dollars in revenue per client, how many potential clients can you have ?
Won’t they run out of work in a few years?
At that point what value does the CEO add ? Will they still be going on trips for meetings which will never result in billion dollar revenues ?
I get the spirit of your point. To use it further, to understand it, we should scrutinize even the CEO role.
Assuming im a shareholder, why should we ‘subsidize’ a useless CEO at any point ?
The CEO is also an employee in the end.
The CEO does it because he's the equal of the other CEO. It shows respect. In huge deals between mega-corps, the sales team has already pitched - likely a lengthy, multi-faceted process over the course of a few months - and the CEO-to-CEO meeting is the final step to close the deal.
I'm sorry but this concept should be immediately clear, if not, you really shouldn't be discussing what a CEO should or shouldn't be doing with his time.
I'm sorry but this concept should be immediately clear, if not, you really shouldn't be discussing what a CEO should or shouldn't be doing with his time.
I’ll address the argument, before I address the dismissal.
This additional information added narrows the options.
As stated, the CEO is simply a source of prestige, who satisfies the other party’s ego.
None of this, information changes my questions or makes them irrelevant.
If anything, it is clear that the CEO is completely fungible. They are only needed 4 times a year, to satisfy the ego of 4 potential revenue sources.
The core ‘work’ is done by the rest of the firm.
That means, of the 1 bn dollars in revenue that you ascribed to the CEO, they represent a very small part of the actual effort.
What shareholder value do they bring the rest of the year?
In essence - CEO positions are not immune to economic logic. They, like the firm, work for shareholders.
Based on the added data, it would seem that there is reason to take umbrage with CEO privileges - such as their ability to work remotely.
After all, if they are doing nothing the rest of the year, they can be paid less for it.
————
For me, communication is at its core, problem solving.
Stating that someone shouldn’t problem solve, while being oblivious to your own thin hypothetical, is perilously close to ignorance and close mindedness.
It is a certainly a form of gatekeeping, and blindness to one’s own biases.
Why not check our assumptions? They are obvious to you, but
1) Will anyone else come up with those same assumptions given a short 1 para of text?
2) How do yours assumption hold up to scrutiny unless they are exposed and discussed?
TLDR: Providing a hypothetical isn’t a full stop in a discussion. It’s the opposite.
This additional information added narrows the options.
As stated, the CEO is simply a source of prestige, who satisfies the other party’s ego.
None of this, information changes my questions or makes them irrelevant.
If anything, it is clear that the CEO is completely fungible. They are only needed 4 times a year, to satisfy the ego of 4 potential revenue sources.
The core ‘work’ is done by the rest of the firm.
That means, of the 1 bn dollars in revenue that you ascribed to the CEO, they represent a very small part of the actual effort.
What shareholder value do they bring the rest of the year?
In essence - CEO positions are not immune to economic logic. They, like the firm, work for shareholders.
Based on the added data, it would seem that there is reason to take umbrage with CEO privileges - such as their ability to work remotely.
After all, if they are doing nothing the rest of the year, they can be paid less for it.
————
For me, communication is at its core, problem solving.
Stating that someone shouldn’t problem solve, while being oblivious to your own thin hypothetical, is perilously close to ignorance and close mindedness.
It is a certainly a form of gatekeeping, and blindness to one’s own biases.
Why not check our assumptions? They are obvious to you, but
1) Will anyone else come up with those same assumptions given a short 1 para of text?
2) How do yours assumption hold up to scrutiny unless they are exposed and discussed?
TLDR: Providing a hypothetical isn’t a full stop in a discussion. It’s the opposite.
Most of the people on this site are not measured like that either; they're salaried employees. Nobody here is falsely claiming they work insane hours when they're spending all their time on recreation though.
What you don't seem to comprehend is that to a CEO, golf (or dinners with clients, etc) is business, not recreation.
What you don't seem to comprehend is that to a CEO; when their employees play golf or go to dinners with clients, etc it is recreation, not business.
A friend of mine is an attorney and during the pandemic as soon as in-office work was allowed again the entire firm was ordered to return immediately to their Manhattan office only to find that the managing partners were still calling in from their homes in Long Island or Connecticut.
Not surprised in the slightest. Rules for thee, not for me.
One company I worked for expanded to an Europe office that consisted of just 1 employee. A coworker tried to get the office address, but could never get a straight answer.
When layoffs came around the COO was so out of touch at that point he literally complained about having to fly his family back from Europe.
When layoffs came around the COO was so out of touch at that point he literally complained about having to fly his family back from Europe.
Wait, can you explain this? I don't understand it at all.
Executives used a Europe Office, that was really just one employee with no actual physical office, as an excuse to take europe vacations with their families, and expense it to the company.
A few executives were over there when they got word that mass layoffs needed to happen and were called back to HQ in the states. The COO complained in the office that these layoffs ruined his families Europe trip. Confirming what we all suspected.
A few executives were over there when they got word that mass layoffs needed to happen and were called back to HQ in the states. The COO complained in the office that these layoffs ruined his families Europe trip. Confirming what we all suspected.
Yes? To counter your anecdote, I have never worked for a company (6) where the CEO wasn’t local.
My team and I are fully remote but our execs are not and are not permitted to be.
My team and I are fully remote but our execs are not and are not permitted to be.
The use of the word "permitted" makes me think about how working for individual investors is a lot more like a normal job than heading a public company.
[deleted]
I second this, everywhere I have worked the executives have been local, but I’ve also never worked anywhere with more than 200 employees. I wouldn’t be surprised if execs at big companies need to travel to different offices all the time, and frankly that sounds worse than just staying in one place
[deleted]
zooq_ai(2)
I think it's more important for CEOs to be located in the same city as the company HQ than it is for any randomly selected employee to be. When VIPs visit the company, they expect the CEO to be present, not on Zoom. Plus, there used to be this thing where leadership had a more than tenuous connection to the legacy and culture of the businesses they ran, and even to the cities their companies were a part of. That's harder to pass off if you can't be bothered to go there. Imagine hearing a CEO say something like "I care about Company X" but they're saying it from a thousand miles away, over a Zoom call, while all their employees are on site and hating being there. That says something about work today.
> Imagine hearing a CEO say something like "I care about Company X" but they're saying it from a thousand miles away, over a Zoom call, while all their employees are on site and hating being there. That says something about work today.
Wow, it's like you've been in our company Zoom calls.
Wow, it's like you've been in our company Zoom calls.
They'll be there when the VIPs are.
> Both executives have agreed to commute frequently for their role. Starbucks will allow Niccol to use its corporate plane, and Victoria’s Secret will cover Super’s travel expenses.
They'll probably be ferrying the VIPs on said jet, making a brief appearance, then golf and a fancy dinner.
> Both executives have agreed to commute frequently for their role. Starbucks will allow Niccol to use its corporate plane, and Victoria’s Secret will cover Super’s travel expenses.
They'll probably be ferrying the VIPs on said jet, making a brief appearance, then golf and a fancy dinner.
[deleted]
‘Commuting’ on a private plane or with all expenses paid.
That is not commuting.
That is not commuting.
Guaranteed the time spent doing that is considered work.
They checked their email, after all.
A company I once worked for hired a new CEO who lived literally on the other side of the country. He didn't want to move, so they moved the whole company with a couple hundred employees to a new office near his house.
How did it go?
I don't know; it was after I left. I don't think they have the same CEO anymore, but they're still at the new location. Maybe they hired local.
> Imagine hearing a CEO say something like "I care about Company X" but they're saying it from a thousand miles away, over a Zoom call, while all their employees are on site and hating being there.
And they're so insulated from what it's like to be a normal non-Ivy-League rank-and-file worker that they probably don't even know how tone deaf it is. Either they don't know or they know and don't care. They get off the Zoom call and call their chauffeur to drive them to their jet to fly to their third home, thinking just how wonderful a leader they are.
And they're so insulated from what it's like to be a normal non-Ivy-League rank-and-file worker that they probably don't even know how tone deaf it is. Either they don't know or they know and don't care. They get off the Zoom call and call their chauffeur to drive them to their jet to fly to their third home, thinking just how wonderful a leader they are.
[deleted]
CEOs of medium/large companies are the face of the company which means making a couple key decisions per week (a few work hours) and meeting with current/prospective clients (leisure activities). Coupled with making far more $ than the rest of the employees, I suspect they're both bored at the office and feel downgraded to a regular employee. Thus, out-of-office with nothing to show.
But if the company is _coincidentally_ doing great, then the CEO gets credit. If it's tanking, the CEO leaves for another CEO position because the main prerequisite of being a CEO is having been a CEO, regardless of performance.
But if the company is _coincidentally_ doing great, then the CEO gets credit. If it's tanking, the CEO leaves for another CEO position because the main prerequisite of being a CEO is having been a CEO, regardless of performance.
I’ve worked closely with the CEOs of a few big companies. People see a few moments of glamor and think that is the job but the vast majority of what they do is an astonishingly shitty and thankless job. You have to be a certain kind of masochist to do what is required in that role day after day. You are also never off the clock, so they never really get a proper break to recharge and prevent burnout. No one with any sense would do that job for a normal paycheck and perks, it isn’t worth it.
The reality is that few people have the mental and psychological constitution required to do the job of CEO at any decent sized company. You don’t need to look further than startups to empirically know that most people, even when self-selecting, can’t do the job of CEO even when playing the easy mode of a small company.
The reality is that few people have the mental and psychological constitution required to do the job of CEO at any decent sized company. You don’t need to look further than startups to empirically know that most people, even when self-selecting, can’t do the job of CEO even when playing the easy mode of a small company.
I did a period of two years as the CEO of a smallish tech-company (~ 100 employees, turnover of 15M€) and it was stressful as hell even if we were doing OK financially. The big thing is that you're the last defender, everything difficult or uncomfortable task ends with you having to pick it up, for everyone it's a choice to pass it on to the next level but for you it isn't. This combined with the monthly "grades" in terms of commercial result which was new to me coming from a tech background was tough. In the end I chose to go back to tech but it's not something that I want undone, it was a learning experience and these days I'm a lot more careful to let things slip through to the next layer.
Yep, a lot of black and white takes. And I'm not a CEO.
A big portion of the job is just being able to not crumble apart, over a long period of time. Another metric: How prone are you to making a horrible decision when under extreme stress, instead of an average one?
The depths at which the worst case scenarios can bottom out are deep. However, when the downside does not materialize, all that is left is an average decision. And average decisions are easy to critique in hindsight, for the CEOs themselves, as well as for most other people.
In that sense, programming is similar: When you steer clear of horrible code, consinstently and over a long period of time, the plain looking stuff that comes out the other end can look like a given to somebody who hasn't been through enough code filled with bad decisions to appreciate their absence.
A big portion of the job is just being able to not crumble apart, over a long period of time. Another metric: How prone are you to making a horrible decision when under extreme stress, instead of an average one?
The depths at which the worst case scenarios can bottom out are deep. However, when the downside does not materialize, all that is left is an average decision. And average decisions are easy to critique in hindsight, for the CEOs themselves, as well as for most other people.
In that sense, programming is similar: When you steer clear of horrible code, consinstently and over a long period of time, the plain looking stuff that comes out the other end can look like a given to somebody who hasn't been through enough code filled with bad decisions to appreciate their absence.
Everyone on this site is so anti-C-suite it's crazy. All the standard "big company CEO bad, me entry level employee good" talking points. You would think that a site based on entrepreneurship would have people on it that have more of an understanding of what running a business is actually like.
HN is fairly ideologically diverse. There is a lot of the stuff you're complaining about but there's plenty of the opposite too.
Where I work, the people higher than me (remote or not) work constantly, around the clock, to the point where I worry about their health.
I also like going into the office 3 days a week. It's a nice space, I like the separation between work and home, and there's good food nearby. As long as I'm allowed to WFH a couple days a week and when I have an appointment or something.
Where I work, the people higher than me (remote or not) work constantly, around the clock, to the point where I worry about their health.
I also like going into the office 3 days a week. It's a nice space, I like the separation between work and home, and there's good food nearby. As long as I'm allowed to WFH a couple days a week and when I have an appointment or something.
I'd love to shadow a CxO one day and see for myself how much hard work it is. I have a (likely flawed) picture in my mind of someone who's jetting around the world, constantly on their cell phone all day from Paris in the morning and Tokyo in the evening, saying yes and no to people but not really doing any actual hard labor or much complex cognitive thought-work. But who knows, they live in this parallel universe, physically separated from commoners like me. I've never even seen anyone in my company with a CxO title or even any of their direct reports in the SVP layer. They might as well live in the North Pole.
You can't measure a CEO's value by their hours or even effort. Their ability to recruit, raise money, sell, and how well they make important decisions are critical. Most of them are in meetings all day, everyday.
You can't shadow a CEO but you can read books written by those who have. Try reading the biographies of Jobs or Musk by Walter Isaacson. He had long term access to them and shadows them throughout their day for years.
You can argue that these two aren't representative and put in more effort than the average CEO, but you can't argue that their experience of being CEO isn't extremely intense.
Good CEOs are constantly juggling all kinds of complex thought-work, to a much greater extent than the average line worker would be happy doing. Programmers in particular get stressed and unhappy if you ask them to context switch between unrelated tasks, deal with interruptions and regularly make decisions that are completely ambiguous. They also probably won't be happy if they have to spend a lot of time on relationship building, performance evaluations or managing the performance of people under them.
A good CEO's typical day will easily switch between a dozen different things - a product review in the morning where they're expected to give immediate and ideally insightful feedback to a team that's been preparing for months (remembering to manage their own expectations and happyness, you wouldn't want your star designer quitting on you), then immediately after a meeting with the finance team about some complicated tax issue, and then a recruiting call with someone to replace the head of sales who you just had to fire because they {missed their targets, leaked confidential info to the press, insulted a key customer, got targeted by a woke mob} and then you move on to lunch, briefly, which you probably eat alone because none of your immediate reports particularly want to hang out with the boss and anyway you need to read a report on your competitor's new product launch. Oh and then it's time to go to the airport because {a key customer the other side of the country is upset, the government is demanding to question you, your PR team set up a speaking event at a conference and only told you yesterday}, so hopefully your spouse isn't too upset that you won't be home for dinner tonight. On the way to the airport you'll have to be on the phone with a lawyer because your company is getting sued, again, and so you need to know the status of the case but couldn't find time to fit an in-person meeting (which you'd have much preferred). You'll probably also need to plan for how to pay if you lose that case, which realistically means who you'll have to lay off or break comp promises to.
And then dawn breaks, and it all begins again. That's a good day, when you didn't have to do layoffs or explain to the board why the new product you'd hoped would turn things around is now subject to a recall.
I've seen how this stuff affects people up close. You do need to be very tough, and even then it can grind people down pretty catastrophically. There's nobody to blame at that level and you can't just quit because you don't like it anymore. If it starts going wrong you're sort of trapped.
You can argue that these two aren't representative and put in more effort than the average CEO, but you can't argue that their experience of being CEO isn't extremely intense.
Good CEOs are constantly juggling all kinds of complex thought-work, to a much greater extent than the average line worker would be happy doing. Programmers in particular get stressed and unhappy if you ask them to context switch between unrelated tasks, deal with interruptions and regularly make decisions that are completely ambiguous. They also probably won't be happy if they have to spend a lot of time on relationship building, performance evaluations or managing the performance of people under them.
A good CEO's typical day will easily switch between a dozen different things - a product review in the morning where they're expected to give immediate and ideally insightful feedback to a team that's been preparing for months (remembering to manage their own expectations and happyness, you wouldn't want your star designer quitting on you), then immediately after a meeting with the finance team about some complicated tax issue, and then a recruiting call with someone to replace the head of sales who you just had to fire because they {missed their targets, leaked confidential info to the press, insulted a key customer, got targeted by a woke mob} and then you move on to lunch, briefly, which you probably eat alone because none of your immediate reports particularly want to hang out with the boss and anyway you need to read a report on your competitor's new product launch. Oh and then it's time to go to the airport because {a key customer the other side of the country is upset, the government is demanding to question you, your PR team set up a speaking event at a conference and only told you yesterday}, so hopefully your spouse isn't too upset that you won't be home for dinner tonight. On the way to the airport you'll have to be on the phone with a lawyer because your company is getting sued, again, and so you need to know the status of the case but couldn't find time to fit an in-person meeting (which you'd have much preferred). You'll probably also need to plan for how to pay if you lose that case, which realistically means who you'll have to lay off or break comp promises to.
And then dawn breaks, and it all begins again. That's a good day, when you didn't have to do layoffs or explain to the board why the new product you'd hoped would turn things around is now subject to a recall.
I've seen how this stuff affects people up close. You do need to be very tough, and even then it can grind people down pretty catastrophically. There's nobody to blame at that level and you can't just quit because you don't like it anymore. If it starts going wrong you're sort of trapped.
There's running a business with under 50 employees, running a business with under 100, and then there's running a coorporation with several thousand and more employees.
The FAANG (and other letter group) global mega corp survivors have one or two valid grievances.
The FAANG (and other letter group) global mega corp survivors have one or two valid grievances.
This 100 times, especially because a large portion of HN is former FAANG. We’ve seen the secret sauce at the top, it’s not special.
> We’ve seen the secret sauce at the top, it’s not special.
I'm not at all saying all FAANG bosses are great, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone argue that all they do is "make a couple decisions a week and then play golf." Anyone that says that is just showing how clueless they are as to what goes in to running a large company.
I'm not at all saying all FAANG bosses are great, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone argue that all they do is "make a couple decisions a week and then play golf." Anyone that says that is just showing how clueless they are as to what goes in to running a large company.
> Everyone on this site is so anti-C-suite it's crazy. All the standard "big company CEO bad, me entry level employee good" talking points.
This condescending "entry level employee good" thing is total nonsense. It's absolutely common for many 30 year career stretches to never actually see a decent hard-working executive out in the wild. And if you do actually encounter one, then there's a decent chance that you also got to watch that person get dethroned and replaced with someone worse by political machinations of the rest of the executive suite!
What is crazy is dismissing thousands of man-years of lived experience with completely broken "leadership" as.. what exactly, jealousy? But most of the people that hate the C-suite probably don't want to work there, and probably don't even really expect fair compensation at this point, they just want a little more accountability, and a little less hypocrisy.
And just in case you actually want to understand the angst and the zeitgeist around this stuff, I'll add this more subtle point. Engineers that work in tech today are increasingly seen by outsiders as roughly equivalent to, IDK, blood-diamond tycoons. But the fact is that lots of engineers are struggling too, and anyway we didn't ruin the world, the MBAs did while they told us (and everyone else) they were building something different. There's a strong reluctance to shoulder all this blame for the executive class, because at the end of the day or the end of our careers, most engineers actually still have to live next to normal people and won't get to fuck off to the Hamptons or whatever monied enclaves executives use to insulate themselves from the world.
This condescending "entry level employee good" thing is total nonsense. It's absolutely common for many 30 year career stretches to never actually see a decent hard-working executive out in the wild. And if you do actually encounter one, then there's a decent chance that you also got to watch that person get dethroned and replaced with someone worse by political machinations of the rest of the executive suite!
What is crazy is dismissing thousands of man-years of lived experience with completely broken "leadership" as.. what exactly, jealousy? But most of the people that hate the C-suite probably don't want to work there, and probably don't even really expect fair compensation at this point, they just want a little more accountability, and a little less hypocrisy.
And just in case you actually want to understand the angst and the zeitgeist around this stuff, I'll add this more subtle point. Engineers that work in tech today are increasingly seen by outsiders as roughly equivalent to, IDK, blood-diamond tycoons. But the fact is that lots of engineers are struggling too, and anyway we didn't ruin the world, the MBAs did while they told us (and everyone else) they were building something different. There's a strong reluctance to shoulder all this blame for the executive class, because at the end of the day or the end of our careers, most engineers actually still have to live next to normal people and won't get to fuck off to the Hamptons or whatever monied enclaves executives use to insulate themselves from the world.
> It's absolutely common for many 30 year career stretches to never actually see a decent hard-working executive out in the wild.
Really? In my bubble this is far from common and more likely ignorance to what executives are doing. Execs tend to become so because they are highly motivated people willing to dedicate themself to their jobs.
I had an employee once would would constantly complain about their old bosses, all of them as far as I could see. He was a really smart guy with potential but so negative about anyhting leadership. One day I decided to roll the dice and said something like "you always talk about how bad your bosses are, and no doubt you'll add me to the list when you move to the next company. Have you ever considered we all get a bad boss or two, but when every boss is bad maybe you're the problem not them". I knew this was a risky move but it worked. He took it on board and became a much better contributor and dropped this 'all bosses are bad' type approach.
Really? In my bubble this is far from common and more likely ignorance to what executives are doing. Execs tend to become so because they are highly motivated people willing to dedicate themself to their jobs.
I had an employee once would would constantly complain about their old bosses, all of them as far as I could see. He was a really smart guy with potential but so negative about anyhting leadership. One day I decided to roll the dice and said something like "you always talk about how bad your bosses are, and no doubt you'll add me to the list when you move to the next company. Have you ever considered we all get a bad boss or two, but when every boss is bad maybe you're the problem not them". I knew this was a risky move but it worked. He took it on board and became a much better contributor and dropped this 'all bosses are bad' type approach.
I bet your bubble congratulated you when you used your soft skills to encourage a problem employee to become a better contributor. Just curious though, could you actually do the job of this contributor? And if that employee had your own job in leadership, do you think they could maybe also come up with the creative idea that for solving personnel problems, one need only loom threateningly, and declare quietly "Maybe You're the Problem"? Very subtle. It's almost like a power difference solved the problem all by itself, without needing any problem solving skills.
I've had great bosses, but that's not what we're discussing. This is about executives. And while I agree that executives are certainly highly motivated, I just think that at a certain level mostly that is motivation to lie, misdirect, deflect, and steal. This also isn't about small businesses, which are much more likely to have legitimate entrepreneurs or merit-based processes, even at the top. For most medium-sized businesses and certainly for large ones, everything is different and anyone can see that pedigree, nepotism, and failing upwards all become more dominant factors. Take an honest look at yourself and your bubble and the line workers. Who can do who's job, really? Which work is more skilled?
I've had great bosses, but that's not what we're discussing. This is about executives. And while I agree that executives are certainly highly motivated, I just think that at a certain level mostly that is motivation to lie, misdirect, deflect, and steal. This also isn't about small businesses, which are much more likely to have legitimate entrepreneurs or merit-based processes, even at the top. For most medium-sized businesses and certainly for large ones, everything is different and anyone can see that pedigree, nepotism, and failing upwards all become more dominant factors. Take an honest look at yourself and your bubble and the line workers. Who can do who's job, really? Which work is more skilled?
[deleted]
People are just responding to the article which points out the hypocrisy from C-suite level execs.
>You would think that a site based on entrepreneurship
Hacker News isn't that though, it's just an orange Reddit.
Hacker News isn't that though, it's just an orange Reddit.
It's difficult to explain to people how much it sucks to be on call 24/7 forever.
Yeah, I've done less than two hours of work, but that doesn't mean I had 22 hours of free time.
Yeah, I've done less than two hours of work, but that doesn't mean I had 22 hours of free time.
Are you actually on call? Like, do you have a beeper next to you? Will you suffer consequences if you don't respond? There is "oh things aren't going great I guess I need to cut my vacation to Austria short" and then there is "I cannot go out for drinks, I cannot take a nap, I must have my company laptop with me and with good Wi-Fi" on-call. Oh, and for the latter you're getting paid a few hundred an hour at best. Just putting that out there.
> Oh, and for the latter you're getting paid a few hundred an hour at best. Just putting that out there.
Some may receive compensation of this nature, many more may not. You are making wild assumptions. Just putting that out there.
Some may receive compensation of this nature, many more may not. You are making wild assumptions. Just putting that out there.
You think people are being paid more than this?
I know people are paid less.
Hence why I said “at best”?
Oh, my apologies, this caused me to re-read your post and I now realised I have misunderstood the point you were trying to make.
My bad :(
My bad :(
No worries :)
Are you serious?
Doctors are often on call 24/7 and do significantly more work than the average C-suite, yet you're complaining about a two hour work day?
The lack of self awareness is astounding.
Doctors are often on call 24/7 and do significantly more work than the average C-suite, yet you're complaining about a two hour work day?
The lack of self awareness is astounding.
I think executive pay has gotten out of control as much as the next guy, but "CEOs only do a few hours of work per week, plus playing golf with clients" has to be the least informed take I've ever heard. And that's putting it the nice way.
These comical caricatures of CEOs "making a couple decisions a week intermixed with 'leisure activities '" bear no resemblance to any CEO/senior exec I've ever worked with.
Yes, I can imagine in some odd situations (say family businesses) you might have "figurehead" CEOs, but every CEO I've ever worked with put in a huge number of hours. I think there is plenty to honestly debate regarding CEO compensation, especially when it comes to egregious wealth inequality, but this idea that CEOs are just a bunch of lazy schmoozers sounds like an r/antiwork fever dream to me.
Yes, I can imagine in some odd situations (say family businesses) you might have "figurehead" CEOs, but every CEO I've ever worked with put in a huge number of hours. I think there is plenty to honestly debate regarding CEO compensation, especially when it comes to egregious wealth inequality, but this idea that CEOs are just a bunch of lazy schmoozers sounds like an r/antiwork fever dream to me.
I work for a medium (~$10B) public company and when I check the CEOs calendar he's booked 12 hours a day, and it's a lot of hard staff meeting with complex outcome. Not sure where this idea that CEOs don't work come from
You, too, can have a busy calendar!
https://github.com/zylai/ical-fake-meetings-generator
https://github.com/zylai/ical-fake-meetings-generator
This might be hard to believe, but yet another steak dinner at the expense of time with your family/house/hobbies/whatever gets old fast for some, and some of those key decisions can affect the livelihoods of hundreds of people as well as your company's value, if publicly traded.
If this were true, you’d never see CEOs retiring.
Meeting with current and prospective clients is not leisure, it's stressful as fuck even if it's over dinner.
Is it 39x more stressful than destroying your body on a factory floor so you can feed your kids?
I've never been a CEO of a big company, but I've been the CEO of a company that did $5m a year in business. I've also worked for $6 an hour sweeping, busked on the subway, and been the lowest paid person at a few companies besides. The CEO role had by far the most stress, to the point it caused me debilitating health issues.
I would take the physical job any day over the leadership type manager roles if pay was the same. Way less stress and conflict. I volunteered for a sports club for the last decade plus, was president for half that. Did amazing things, hired tens of coaches etc. I have way more fun now that I've passed the torch and just help out at events. I got PTSD and burnout one particularly bad season while prez.
> I would take the physical job any day over the leadership type manager roles if pay was the same.
Nobody is suggesting this but you. It’s understandable that leadership would make more money. But 39x more money is harder to justify, especially with historical context.
Nobody is suggesting this but you. It’s understandable that leadership would make more money. But 39x more money is harder to justify, especially with historical context.
When some of the meetings and decisions execs make affects the livelihood of huge groups of those people, I'd say "it can be sometimes"
I'm sure it isn't so stressful that they're quitting in large numbers for less stressful roles.
I honestly wonder if the secret to quality of life is just to save up money and buy a profitable small or medium sized business mostly financed against the business. If you want to grow it, you can. Otherwise, you can get relatively passive income out of it and experience as a CEO that allows you to apply to other CEO jobs if it fails.
If you're serious about it, there is an entire cottage industry dedicated to precisely this (especially popular amongst new MBAs): https://hbr.org/2017/02/you-should-consider-buying-a-small-b...
The "saving up money" part is the bottleneck for me right now because of the state of the tech job market but I was originally planning to save up money and launch a self-funded startup once I had enough runway. After discovering the "buy an already profitable business" route though, I have been thinking about it. I know I don't want to spend the rest of my life constantly competing in the interview Olympics for the privilege of writing code to make somebody else rich.
I don't know about that. Everyone and their mom is Founder/CEO of some business now days.
Almost everyone in my network that can't get a job is running a "company".
Almost everyone in my network that can't get a job is running a "company".
That's not the same thing. Those aren't real companies. This is buying existing, profitable companies with real employees and customers.
"Passive". Ha ha. Most of those businesses will fall apart within a few years if the owner isn't constantly on top of things.
IBM entered the personal computing market on the basis of non-proprietary duplication of existing tech - part of the reason for the company's success was its name. Nobody ever got fired for buying an IBM. Once the name is established, officers can remotely defy the FUD factor.
Rules for thee, but not for me.
Alas, how could we?
We specialize in strategy.
Not possible in a seat.
Alas, how could we?
We specialize in strategy.
Not possible in a seat.
This is engagement bait unless it has stats. What proportion of days are CEOs working remotely, what proportion are professional staff?
As someone who has done shift work before, it seems to me that the real dividing line is between professionals and non-progressional, not CEOs vs professionals.
As someone who has done shift work before, it seems to me that the real dividing line is between professionals and non-progressional, not CEOs vs professionals.
> This is engagement bait unless it has stats
This is correct, and unfortunately describes a nontrivial fraction of articles submitted to HN from traditional media outlets. Use that flag button!
This is correct, and unfortunately describes a nontrivial fraction of articles submitted to HN from traditional media outlets. Use that flag button!
Done.
How do you define "professional"? I would expect doctors to be in that group, but they're mostly still pretty tied to a seat. The really highly paid ones like surgeons especially so.
That’s the exception that proves the rule. I think people know what I mean here…
What I don't understand is why tech companies don't believe that they can enforce a high-performance culture without return-to-office. With or without remote work, the way we evaluate one's performance has not changed, right? Then, why can't we enforce the same expectation of engineers and teams? We break down a project into milestones, and we hold teams accountable to delivering the milestones on time and on budget. The process is orthogonal to return-to-office vs WFH. If a company can't enforce the same standard just because its teams work remotely, would it say a lot about the incompetency of the company's leadership?
You let "hold teams accountable" do a lot of lifting.
I think whats happening is that non-technical leaders can't assess why projects aren't being delivered. No engineer is going to say "sorry I wasn't really working that hard, thats why we missed". Instead there will be some rationale as to why the project couldn't ship on time - not enough resources, incomplete spec, tech debt, whatever. Non-technical leaders want to be able to remove one variable from the equation - the cause being the team didn't put in the effort. With return to office, they can see with their own eyes if people are putting in the "time".
I think whats happening is that non-technical leaders can't assess why projects aren't being delivered. No engineer is going to say "sorry I wasn't really working that hard, thats why we missed". Instead there will be some rationale as to why the project couldn't ship on time - not enough resources, incomplete spec, tech debt, whatever. Non-technical leaders want to be able to remove one variable from the equation - the cause being the team didn't put in the effort. With return to office, they can see with their own eyes if people are putting in the "time".
> I think whats happening is that non-technical leaders can't assess why projects aren't being delivered
Which says a lot about the leadership. :-)
Which says a lot about the leadership. :-)
What exactly?
Their job is to manage their teams and initiatives. If they are unable to determine why an initiative fails or how their teams are performing, it means they are incapable of doing their job.
One argument I heard is that junior team members benefit from others being in the office.
So there might be a long term benefit to the team, even if individual productivity of high performers goes down slightly.
So there might be a long term benefit to the team, even if individual productivity of high performers goes down slightly.
The breakdown of a project into milestones of predictable difficulty generally has high error bars. If something has been built before then you can predict it but why are you building it again?
The only way I've found of doing this accurately is to reassign a task, IE if something is taking dev1 what you perceive as too long, assign it to less experienced dev2 and see if they can complete it from scratch in less time. If so, you know dev1 is subpar or slacking and should be RIF'd.
The only way I've found of doing this accurately is to reassign a task, IE if something is taking dev1 what you perceive as too long, assign it to less experienced dev2 and see if they can complete it from scratch in less time. If so, you know dev1 is subpar or slacking and should be RIF'd.
The milestones can iteratively evolve, so can the timeline. Breaking a project into milestones is a highly simplified example. The idea is that each step of the way we should be able to hold engineers to the same bar with or without return-to-office.
Until people start leaving (and not joining) these companies en masse that have poor and hypocritical leadership, none of this will change.
We had a choice for about half a second, and then the tech industry collapsed and all of our leverage went away again. Makes the tech union concept more attractive.
> We had a choice for about half a second, and then the tech industry collapsed and all of our leverage went away again. Makes the tech union concept more attractive.
To be fair, there was a bunch of people saying that the 10's were the best time to unionize, precisely because tech employees did have leverage.
To be fair, there was a bunch of people saying that the 10's were the best time to unionize, precisely because tech employees did have leverage.
People don't always have a choice. The remote only jobs appear to be getting more applicants, so workers are "voting with their feet".
Many large corporations are just structured on modern feudalism with minor changes. They have a privileged nobility, an internal belief system (with attached clergy to match), and by definition a large majority "working the land".
If you're talking about a small company, to some extent this makes sense. I mean, if Alice or Bob starts a company, they're risking more than you are; of course they get to decide. When you're talking about a multi-national corporation with an employee count similar to that of a medium sized city in Europe, I'd argue that logic breaks down, because most people in positions of power are just men-at-arms brought in by the bureaucracy.
The CEOs are no longer the "founders", they're just exotic strangers from far-off lands that happen to know other CEOs and marry other CEOs. They dress differently, they talk differently, they act differently, and finally, just like the nobility, they often have personal agendas that may or may not align with the interest of the "company" (I'm referring here to the employees, not the shareholders).
There's a quote I really like said by a frenchman (can't remember the name, so sources are welcome) that goes something like: "You cannot manifest the republic in society as long as monarchy reigns in the factory". And sure, I realize for many readers this is just commie gobbledygook, but I'd encourage everyone to at least think about the area inbetween extremes, and alternate ways we could structure "work", because the older I get the more absurd this culture becomes, which is weird because I was kind of expecting my political skepticism to start wearing off with age.
If you're talking about a small company, to some extent this makes sense. I mean, if Alice or Bob starts a company, they're risking more than you are; of course they get to decide. When you're talking about a multi-national corporation with an employee count similar to that of a medium sized city in Europe, I'd argue that logic breaks down, because most people in positions of power are just men-at-arms brought in by the bureaucracy.
The CEOs are no longer the "founders", they're just exotic strangers from far-off lands that happen to know other CEOs and marry other CEOs. They dress differently, they talk differently, they act differently, and finally, just like the nobility, they often have personal agendas that may or may not align with the interest of the "company" (I'm referring here to the employees, not the shareholders).
There's a quote I really like said by a frenchman (can't remember the name, so sources are welcome) that goes something like: "You cannot manifest the republic in society as long as monarchy reigns in the factory". And sure, I realize for many readers this is just commie gobbledygook, but I'd encourage everyone to at least think about the area inbetween extremes, and alternate ways we could structure "work", because the older I get the more absurd this culture becomes, which is weird because I was kind of expecting my political skepticism to start wearing off with age.
Disagree strongly. Modern work dynamics are vastly better than feudalism. You are focused on the hierarchical structure within (some) companies but the key feature of modern capitalism is the fierce competition between companies. There is now a highly competitive labor market; employees have extreme flexibility to move to a new employer at the drop of a hat or start a competing business if they believe that any other company would possibly treat them better.
It is the intense competition between companies (for the same customers, the same employees) that puts constant pressure on companies to develop better products, treat employees well and pay them well.
The main problem with feudalism was that nobles had family titles to the land, and serfs were effectively their property. Therefore competitive pressure to treat people well was entirely absent, and peasants were completely exploited. There is really no analogy to modern companies that compete with each other to shower perks on their employees.
It is the intense competition between companies (for the same customers, the same employees) that puts constant pressure on companies to develop better products, treat employees well and pay them well.
The main problem with feudalism was that nobles had family titles to the land, and serfs were effectively their property. Therefore competitive pressure to treat people well was entirely absent, and peasants were completely exploited. There is really no analogy to modern companies that compete with each other to shower perks on their employees.
RTO has always been about social hierarchy, not economics.
This isn't an article about WFH. It's an article about long commutes to the office -- in the case of the Starbucks CEO, about 1000 miles.
My comment did not mention WFH. What are you on about?
RTO implies WFH. What are you returning from if not remote work?
Here's a pro tip to CEOs and wannabe CEOs; get a fucking executive coach and work on not being a bubble-dwelling turd.
I swear to god American business has its head up its own ass, from the VPs to the ELT, and it's the easiest thing in the world to have some goddamn self awareness and empathy.
I swear to god American business has its head up its own ass, from the VPs to the ELT, and it's the easiest thing in the world to have some goddamn self awareness and empathy.
+1. The entitlement and elitism is out of control. No Dave you’re not Steve Jobs 2.0 sit the fuck down and listen to our customers please!
I misread the title as "CEOs are ruining companies from afar...", and found myself agreeing.
I sense that, CEOs are often ignorant of day-to-day (and even month-to-month) realities of what's going on in their own company (probably unavoidable at large corps).
Basically, they have an "astronaut's eye view", so their decisions/strategy are essentially just them operating while untethered to Reality, just going off of intuition. Sometimes, that guides them well, and they do a good job of "running things". Other times, they're just "ruining things"
When they do the former, the public valorizes them, and when they fail... well, they get to try again ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I sense that, CEOs are often ignorant of day-to-day (and even month-to-month) realities of what's going on in their own company (probably unavoidable at large corps).
Basically, they have an "astronaut's eye view", so their decisions/strategy are essentially just them operating while untethered to Reality, just going off of intuition. Sometimes, that guides them well, and they do a good job of "running things". Other times, they're just "ruining things"
When they do the former, the public valorizes them, and when they fail... well, they get to try again ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Gotta wonder how much of the compensation and investment portfolios of those CEOs is in commercial real estate.
Unlikely that’s what drives peoples’ decisions on a grand scale.
Being in an office is a exclusive lock that prevents you from having multiple remote jobs. Other than that is serves no useful purpose.
And what the "face to face conversations" narrative really means is: 1) I don't want to put things in writing, 2) I want to tell if you are lying.
RTO sucks
And what the "face to face conversations" narrative really means is: 1) I don't want to put things in writing, 2) I want to tell if you are lying.
RTO sucks
Where is my AI CEO?
You mean we could save $32 million a year just by replacing this one guy with AI?
I do.
CEOs are just picking lanes. Lanes defined by their crew. (The Captain doesn't determine the answer, they pick the answer from options provided by the crew).
And AI can factor in much more than any human.
So...feed the workers data into the AI CEO.
I'm building on lots of Adam Smith ideas - let the worker pick the optimum path.
CEOs are just picking lanes. Lanes defined by their crew. (The Captain doesn't determine the answer, they pick the answer from options provided by the crew).
And AI can factor in much more than any human.
So...feed the workers data into the AI CEO.
I'm building on lots of Adam Smith ideas - let the worker pick the optimum path.
When I worked at Veeva Systems (VEEV) my team sat right between Peter Gassner’s office and the SVP for our product org. PG was on-site at least 75% of the time from what I could tell. It was great to see, especially as a fresh grad.
My previous companies CEO was barely in but decided to link bonuses to office attendance 3 days a week, and made his secretary secretly take a register of when people were in the office or not.
What bothers me personally when I read quotes from CEOs describing how often they work in the office or how productive they are is the lack of perspective that their "day in the office" is vastly different for them compared to the rank and file.
A CEO has much more autonomy to set their daily schedule as they see fit, which one day might be showing up at 6am if they're in that grind mindset, and the next day might be showing up at 11am after a tee time and casual breakfast with colleagues or friends. They may have a schedule full of internal meetings but can choose to skip whichever they feel like isn't a good use of time at their own discretion. They don't ask permission from their supervisor or get passive aggressive texts asking if they're planning to come in if they don't show up by 9:30AM.
Psychologically speaking having that much freedom to direct one's own schedule fundamentally changes one's relationship with work. Obviously they have their own non-negotiable obligations so it isn't completely in their control but the typical office worker at most companies is rarely entrusted to manage their own schedule to that degree even if they're keeping up with their tasks and a high performer.
It doesn't bother me that the nature of the CEO job is much different than a lowly software dev but instead it's the lack of awareness or deliberate dishonesty that I find grating in the RTO debate.
A CEO has much more autonomy to set their daily schedule as they see fit, which one day might be showing up at 6am if they're in that grind mindset, and the next day might be showing up at 11am after a tee time and casual breakfast with colleagues or friends. They may have a schedule full of internal meetings but can choose to skip whichever they feel like isn't a good use of time at their own discretion. They don't ask permission from their supervisor or get passive aggressive texts asking if they're planning to come in if they don't show up by 9:30AM.
Psychologically speaking having that much freedom to direct one's own schedule fundamentally changes one's relationship with work. Obviously they have their own non-negotiable obligations so it isn't completely in their control but the typical office worker at most companies is rarely entrusted to manage their own schedule to that degree even if they're keeping up with their tasks and a high performer.
It doesn't bother me that the nature of the CEO job is much different than a lowly software dev but instead it's the lack of awareness or deliberate dishonesty that I find grating in the RTO debate.
Most CEOs that I've worked under do most of their work outside of the office. That's why they have COOs to run the day-to-day stuff.
Do as I say, not as I do!
laying off 10,000 people is hard work
you definitely dont want to be in the same building as the people you're laying off
you definitely dont want to be in the same building as the people you're laying off
Make those employees wfh on that day and then lay them off.
So the new Starbucks CEO gets $150 million up front. That's about $4,000 per retail outlet, which is probably not too bad.
If anybody sees him in a Starbucks retail location, post that to social media. Let's see if he gets out much to check on things.
If anybody sees him in a Starbucks retail location, post that to social media. Let's see if he gets out much to check on things.
Sure, especially in leadership you will often find sociopaths, but there's plenty of people leading by example as well. The company I'm working at comes to mind, where every level of the hierarchy, including leadership, is on a an employment contract that pays a regular salary, allows WFH/remote, and has just regular paid vacation days. Despite everyone having the option of being fully remote, it is the leadership who is generally in the office, while I'm typing this from another country. They have to be in our home country - where we make most of our sales - while I'm free to travel the other side of the globe. I haven't heard a peep of complaint.
Almost all of my previous employers have been some variation of the above for the past 10 years. If instead I chased the highest paying jobs without thinking about quality of life, becoming a small cog in some behemoth of a company that doesn't care if I wear down, then that'd be on me.
If you're in tech, nobody forces you to work for a company that may pay you 200k/year, but asks you to work and commute 60 hours a week. There's plenty of other choices once you realize that beyond a certain point, salary matters much less than everything else for your quality of life.
Almost all of my previous employers have been some variation of the above for the past 10 years. If instead I chased the highest paying jobs without thinking about quality of life, becoming a small cog in some behemoth of a company that doesn't care if I wear down, then that'd be on me.
If you're in tech, nobody forces you to work for a company that may pay you 200k/year, but asks you to work and commute 60 hours a week. There's plenty of other choices once you realize that beyond a certain point, salary matters much less than everything else for your quality of life.
How do you find those other companies? I'm in the middle of a job hunt now and all I'm seeing are the $200K+ jobs and jobs that don't pay enough to live comfortably (e.g. $50-60K in NYC).
I'm not sure I'm able to help since I'm not from the US.
My current job pays 90k when converted to USD, but my employer is based in Germany. Most employees live all over Europe, and nobody is forced to live in any particular expensive city we have an office at.
You probably should be able to negotiate a better wage in those 60k jobs based on experience.
My current job pays 90k when converted to USD, but my employer is based in Germany. Most employees live all over Europe, and nobody is forced to live in any particular expensive city we have an office at.
You probably should be able to negotiate a better wage in those 60k jobs based on experience.
Rules for thee but not for me
Rules for thee. None for me.
Expecting CEOs to live by the same rules and expectations as the line workers is like expecting generals to live by the same rules and expectations as privates. It's just stupid. It will lose you the war in the military; what do you think it will do to a business?
Makes sense to me if the execs who do this are in the air all of the time.
Workers should not return to the office.
WFH or remote work should be permanent for all -- CEOs and low level staffers.
WFH or remote work should be permanent for all -- CEOs and low level staffers.
This article isn't about WFH. The CEOs are in office, but commute from another city during the workweek.
fourseventy(5)
Should workers also not return to the farm, the factory, the mine, the hospital? Flexible work arrangements are great but it's only a tiny fraction of the privileged laptop class who even potentially have the option of remote work.
> it's only a tiny fraction of the privileged laptop class who even potentially have the option of remote work.
I have friends who are doctors. They chose their specialties not out of passion, but because of the lifestyle perks that come with them—benefits unique to their profession. Their entire education and career choices were driven by a desire for those perks. Similarly, I transitioned to an IT career to pursue the lifestyle advantages it offers. Which was not the same perks or lifestyle advantages they were looking for.
Regarding farming: I was a farmer myself, working our own farm (pork and stud cattle) as well as a farmhand on others. Farming is an incredibly flexible role, and for many, it involves working from home because the farm is the home. I’ve been doing "WFH" since childhood.
Many people choose farming or stay on family farms because they enjoy the unique perks it offers—just like those who pursue "laptop class" work for its lifestyle benefits.
I have friends who are doctors. They chose their specialties not out of passion, but because of the lifestyle perks that come with them—benefits unique to their profession. Their entire education and career choices were driven by a desire for those perks. Similarly, I transitioned to an IT career to pursue the lifestyle advantages it offers. Which was not the same perks or lifestyle advantages they were looking for.
Regarding farming: I was a farmer myself, working our own farm (pork and stud cattle) as well as a farmhand on others. Farming is an incredibly flexible role, and for many, it involves working from home because the farm is the home. I’ve been doing "WFH" since childhood.
Many people choose farming or stay on family farms because they enjoy the unique perks it offers—just like those who pursue "laptop class" work for its lifestyle benefits.
A lot of my farming buddies ski all winter. Every job has its good and bad aspects, to call someone who chose and attained a spot in a particular field priveleged is ridiculous. (not directed at parent comment)
In my country all those workers regularly strike or protest to defend their interests.
Only in IT are we supposed to just accept our fate, because some guy on HN called us "the laptop class" or something.
Only in IT are we supposed to just accept our fate, because some guy on HN called us "the laptop class" or something.
ok, and?
Why can't both segments of workers have better conditions? Maybe pay should be higher for those that HAVE to be in person, or hours lower?
Why can't both segments of workers have better conditions? Maybe pay should be higher for those that HAVE to be in person, or hours lower?
Quod licet Iovi non licet bovi.
Stunning how out of touch CEOs are with their own employees.
If there is one thing that would significantly improve the quality of living of all employees, it would be remote work. The fact that leadership wont give that (which costs nothing) I believe demonstrates some personality characteristic that is arguably sociopathic, and I do not throw that word around lightly.
If employees had a say in who gets to be leadership - which is how most of nature works - then CEOs would be be acting drastically different.
If there is one thing that would significantly improve the quality of living of all employees, it would be remote work. The fact that leadership wont give that (which costs nothing) I believe demonstrates some personality characteristic that is arguably sociopathic, and I do not throw that word around lightly.
If employees had a say in who gets to be leadership - which is how most of nature works - then CEOs would be be acting drastically different.
I mean, I do go to the Orlando office 4 days out of the 14 that my family and I stay at a 5 star resort .. ok maybe 3 and a half days with the 3rd afternoon spend at twin peaks
And while we’re on the topic, does anyone appreciate how difficult it is to get my 4 bed 2 bath 3200 sf accommodation for 14 consecutive nights with less than 3 months notice? And when you get there the service has really declined. In 2013 the maids would load the dirty dishes from anywhere around the unit into the dishwasher and run it for me every single day as well as a full cleaning. Now they never even load the dishwasher for me anymore and sometimes don’t even wash the balcony floor everyday!
Rules for thee but not for me!
Nothing new here at all.
Rules for thee but not for me... Now if you'll excuse me, you interrupted my golf game. /s
uhtred(3)
So what? CEOs also get paid more. Where is this crying coming from? Create a company, become a CEO, do whatever you want.
Most people don't have the capital to create a company and become a CEO.
You can create a software company with 0 capital. Stop making excuses.
Not everyone can simply start a software company. It takes either a lot of capital, a lot of time, or both. Even if you have those, not everyone's aptitude is in business. That's particularly the case in software where there's not the, for lack of a better term, inherent value embodied in a physical product.
Give me some examples of people doing this without friends/family giving them loans, or the founders spending thousands of their own money.
Not arguing, just want to see how it's done so I have examples for myself.
Not arguing, just want to see how it's done so I have examples for myself.
Like, not even with a computer?
Yet somehow it's the ones with computers, earning significantly above average income, writing and reading this now.
You can start a company on a library computer...
You can start a company on a library computer...
Starting a company is easy. Just a few short forms and a small fee…
Developing and selling a product (at a profit) that someone actually buys — not so easy.
Developing and selling a product (at a profit) that someone actually buys — not so easy.
Yet in this thread the ones who do actually make something people want to buy are villainized because they aren't giving it all away to employees (who are compensated for their time and expertise along the way).
If most people lack certain things and other people do not, it doesn't give them the right to complain just because of that.
Companies can dictate how workers work, and it's up to the worker to decide whether they agree to these conditions or not.
It may not seem fair, but you have to look at the bigger picture, and understand how the situation came to be in the first place.
Companies can dictate how workers work, and it's up to the worker to decide whether they agree to these conditions or not.
It may not seem fair, but you have to look at the bigger picture, and understand how the situation came to be in the first place.
Fortunately the "good" ones are able to disassociate how much of that emotion is just them being lonely vs how much of it is actual synergy-seeking or whatever. The worst cases are people who get real tyranical, on top of just like... outright not showing up to do the actual day-to-day work that they are blockers on. A proper theory of the mind can often be quite absent.
My really glib take on this phenomenom is that a not-insignificant chunk of decision making for HR stuff is "make the CEO fill the tip-top of their Maslovian pyramind". And to a lesser extent other executives who have decided that their job is their life.
Very annoying to listen to post-facto RTO arguments when you can feel the loneliness as the driving factor. Make a fun space, and make people's work schedules be loose enough to where they can actually relax in the space, and some people will show up! Or at the very least, give the CEO a fun side project to work on or something.