The year before last we achieved 1% test error rate in an area, and the bosses were seriously considering having the following year’s goal be 0%. Someone had to point out that if anyone had 1 error on Jan 1, we literally couldn’t do anything to achieve the goal the rest of the year and may as well give up entirely.
It’s even better when these metrics explicitly become your yearly goals. Or department-wide metrics you have very little influence over. I sure hope all these people I don’t manage happen to achieve a specific error rate this year so I get a good bonus.
A higher up at my company recently derisively said one of the major reasons people didn’t want to return to office was because they saved money working from home… as if that’s a ridiculous reason. Some of these executives are so out of touch with their inflated salaries.
I always raise an eyebrow when people generally claim remote “just does not work.” This seems to imply they’ve only tried one or two ways to set up a remote workforce because there simply hasn’t been enough time to honestly try several permutations.
I agree that some jobs cannot do it (those where physically it can’t be done, like manufacturing or lab work). But with such a service-based economy, the number of jobs that can be remote is only increasing.
I think it’s ultimately more a reflection of an unwillingness or inability to fundamentally restructure the way teams complete work and collaborate. It assumes the way offices work is objectively correct and must be maintained.
The managing challenges of remote work are just different than in-office; they are not more numerous. In-office environments are littered with ineffective, overbearing, and/or intrusive management styles. Management is always squawking that their workers need to be agile and adapt, but they are rarely willing to do the same.
