SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Study: When employees don't have to commute, they work:
When employees are allowed to work remotely, they most often use the time they would have spent commuting to the office working.
On average, employees save 72 minutes in commute time every day when they're allowed to work from home rather than in the office, according to the Global Survey of Working Arrangements (G-SWA) study performed by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).
"That's a large time savings, especially when multiplied by hundreds of millions of workers around the world," the study said. "These results suggest that much of the time savings flow back to employers, and that children and other caregiving recipients also benefit."
On average, those who work from home devote 40% of their commute time savings to primary and secondary job tasks, 34% to leisure, and 11% to caregiving.
[...] The data was collected from a survey of about 19,000 to 35,000 employees based on two survey periods. The G-SWA survey took place in 15 countries in late July and early August 2021 and in an overlapping set of 25 countries in late January and early February 2022. The workers surveyed were 20 to 59 years of age, and all had finished primary school. In addition to basic questions on demographics and labor market outcomes, the survey asked about current and planned work-from-home levels, commute time, and more.
Other recent studies have arrived at similar conclusions.
[...] Over the past year, some organizations have demanded employees return to the office at least some number of days a week, while others have required a full-time return to office. A recent survey by Resume Builder found that 90% of companies will require employees to get back into the office at least part of the week this year. And a fifth of those companies said they would fire workers who refuse.
Other studies, however, have found there is no measurable performance improvement when a worker is in office versus working from home. According to Owl Labs, a maker of videoconferencing devices, 62% of workers feel more productive when working remotely, and 51% say working from home was most productive for thinking creatively. Only 30% view working in the office as most effective for the same type of work.
"As recession fears loom, many leaders feel an instinct to take more control over work — including by mandating a rigid return to the office. That would be a big mistake," Duffy said.
While most organizations were forced to transition to remote work out of necessity for worker health and safety and business continuity during the COVID-19 pandemic, the shift uncovered numerous employee and organizational benefits of hybrid-work models — including improved productivity and worker flexibility, Duffy said.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday January 31, @09:27PM (5 children)
For about a year had a weekly call with a difficult colleague 1000 miles away: 1 hour of extreme patience, calm reply to insane ranting, etc.
After said call was over, I would take a shower, wash my hair, go for a walk, and remind myself: "one hour a week, that's all it is." It made the hour itself much easier to deal with, too.
Luckily Mr. government injected microchips control my thoughts wasn't big on action items or followup, that too made things much easier.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Tuesday January 31, @10:00PM (4 children)
So, behavioral therapy reward, much like giving a dog a doggy treat for holding up his paw when I say "shake!".
Good boy, gooooddddd boyyyyyyy! :)
... which sounds good about right now. [trundles off to the shower...]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday January 31, @10:22PM (3 children)
After they hired me to work with Mr. Impossible, they also hired 2 minions who lived in town with him, sat in the same room with him, and instead of being "equal" in the reporting chain they reported "to" him... they employed 2 different coping mechanisms: 1) tried his best to do the right and good things and ignore the noise from across the room - he quit within 6 months, the other "joined him" in his insanity, backed up his crazy rants and generally took his side on all issues... he lasted quite a bit longer, but at what price to his soul?
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Tuesday January 31, @11:27PM (2 children)
Oh gosh. Sometimes I wish I could fake my way into upper management (the non-technical jerks) somewhere and try to observe and understand their way of "thinking". I doubt I'd get it though, as I perceive it to be largely logic-leaps built on fantasy all interconnected by ego. Like when they can't explain their irrational decisions and edicts, they explain it by "business decision".
You're bringing back some memories of some brilliant but difficult people. I guess I'm too optimistic for my own good, but I've always thought there must be some way to work with those types, steer them, calm them down, etc. It seems most people have no tolerance. I tend to tolerate difficult people better than most do, as I like to look for the useful / good. That said, if the person is not just irascible, but attacking / aggressive, I'm one of the first to see them as the "bad apple", seeding too much negativity and loss of morale, and they need to either be very insulated (as in your situation) or let go. If I had been the manager, I would have talked to everyone involved and tried to figure out who might have been the best at dealing with Mr. Impossible. Sadly, and it's just plain wrong to do, you being a new employee, coming in all optimistic, "bright-eyed and bushy-tailed", need to prove yourself somewhat, you got stuck with it. If it didn't work out and you left, no great harm. I hate to say, but maybe the thinking was that you'd fail at the Impossible task, you'd leave, and company would have reasons to fire the guy?
Very good insight. All experiences influence us. Hopefully it strengthened him, and at least hopefully he learned that there are a wide variety of personalities out there, and sometimes we have to learn to deal with them? Or it poisoned him and made him (more) difficult.
I guess most management types don't care though. As above, workers are fungible.
Was Mr. Impossible actually brilliant?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday February 01, @08:13AM (1 child)
> I perceive it to be largely logic-leaps built on fantasy all interconnected by ego.
For perhaps half of management, this perception is largely correct. Many smart people who might be good at it grasp that management is a lot of stress and responsibility, and don't want it for those reasons. So, for filling those shoes, that leaves the less intelligent people who think the power is sweet. The muddled thinking that perceives leadership as something to aspire to (Everyone Wants to Rule the World), because it comes with all kinds of privileges and perks (and it often does), is not going to excel at reasoning. Lot of them are bozos who think it's so good to be the king that they'll hustle and elbow and trample each other trying to get that top position, like a bunch of boys playing King of the Mountain on a pile of trash. Among the worst are the severely Dunning-Kruger afflicted narcissistic loudmouths with a streak of vengefulness and sadism, eager to hog the spotlight, wanting to be the center of attention, and who are completely oblivious to having revealed themselves as incompetent idiots, daily, shamelessly jumping right back into the spotlight the next day to do it again, telling everyone what hot stuff they are.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Wednesday February 01, @09:10AM
Wow, did you do a Vulcan mind-meld to me? I try not to rant that much, but I totally agree.
I will say there are many great bosses / managers. As so often in life, the problem ones "stick out like a sore thumb" and we tend to remember them.
For me the deeper frustration is: how do they get and keep that position? If anyone polled the workers under them, confidentially, upper management would see the problem. But, too often the problem is at the very top, and pretty much not fixable, unless there's a good board of directors / stockholders who could know what's going on.
I admit that management is a fairly natural progression. One boss was a really nice guy, but totally passive. He never hid the fact that he didn't want to be in management, but they offered it to him, and the general rule is you have to take such promotions, or look for another job (which likely would have been my choice).
Overall it's best if there's a general good morale and the attending good communication. Place I worked recently had some great people, great upper management (awesome really), but they trusted some of the lower middle people too much. They loved talking about and to the "Team!" but many mid-level people operated as feudal kings. I tried to discuss it with upper management without sounding like a complainer, problem person, etc.
I don't know. I'm a bit too direct and need clear direct communication. Too many less technical people seem to like communicating in riddles, assumptions, cryptic / code / insider language.
I miss those few really great people. I feel bad for the owner. There's hope for the world, as information and communication are increasing. It's available if people want to use it correctly...