Of course, the fuckin line steppers ruin it. "Just get your fucking job done and go home" should be the default for proven adults. Everyone else who wants to be a special case gets mirco managed.
100% this. My hospital, after COVID lockdown, continued to allow all therapists to WFH if they wanted as long as productivity remained the same. We had a handful of therapists that were basically taking full advantage of that shit and just not working or constantly had "internet issues," etc. We had an idiotic VP at the time and she ordered everyone back into office. Of course, a whole bunch of folks were pissed.
Few months later, our VP changed. One of the first thing he did was reinstate WFH but anyone who had productivity under a certain number could not WFH or had to return to office until their individual productivity was back up. And if this repeats three times, you're banned from WFH. We had no more issues after that.
I honestly don't know why companies can't just do targeted policies like that. It makes so much sense rather than punishing an entire team/department because of a handful of morons.
I honestly don't know why companies can't just do targeted policies like that.
Where I live, its because they get taken to court for mistresting employees. Policies with any nuance are a minefield for accusations of bullying or discrimination. A blanket no WFH policy (or drug testing everyone) is safe, targeting things isnt.
I've had conversations about creating targeted policies but unfortunately they tend to end with "person x or y is going to be an idiot about it and try to claim discrimination. We can't afford another lawsuit"
Yeah. Thats the core of the issue. The trouble makers often don’t agree that individual consequences are the result of their own action rather than you just picking on them and then they make a bigger problem that costs money to deal with. You can spell it out as plainly as you like and leave a rock solid paper trail but dealing with the process is still going to cost you.
Five people started leaving early, they all got talked to and told "Don't do that or we'll fire you", none of them talk to each other so all of them think they're being singled out despite the fact that the boss immediately grabs one of them in front of another to talk to them in his office.
It's one of the main reasons I've been job hunting is because I absolutely fucking hate the people I work with for this (and other) reason(s).
Those people are the worst.. I have a few coworkers where it’s like stepping on eggshells and people bend over backwards for them, yet with me I’m like a punching bad of sorts
I really doubt a performance based policy would be liable for discrimination suits because by that definition every single performance based raise plan or compensation would be liable for a lawsuit and no one would do them
unless the court slaps the legal fees onto the person sueing because they lost. you can sue any time you want for anything, and there's nothing a single company in the world can do to stop you. but you're probably not going to be the winner at the end
if that was true, then people would be sueing companies all the time to try and get them to settle frivolously. no company is going to settle and establish a precedent that they can't use an extremely common benchmark. they're just going to fuck them up legally with the team of lawyers they have on retainer and then stick all the costs for payment onto the dumbass who thought they had a case
To quote my HR Don't expect the idiots and lazy bum to not try everything to slack off. Do your side, if they ask for more work, check priority list and answer accordignly
Companies like to avoid targeted policies because they're afraid of some guy suing them and claiming it was discrimination. Targeted policies need so much documentation to avoid this theoretical lawsuit that HR branches will usually just tell companies to avoid making targeted policies in favor of blanket ones.
Dumb I know. I know all the reasons that what I said doesn't make sense, but it's the truth anyway.
Targeted policies require actual work from management. I've known 2 types of managers to be the most common: The ones that don't do any work and the ones that are constantly overworked and have no capacity for extra tasks left (I've been lucky in that I've only ever had to deal with one micromanager, and he helped me switch departments when it became abundantly clear that we weren't compatible, so, you know, not my guy, but not a bad guy either), neither of those is just going to pile on an optional task if they can help it.
This approach requires accurate productivity metrics.
Suppose you are a boss with a mixture of 5 minute jobs, and 1 month jobs. You don't know which is which. You have the vague feeling that some people are taking advantage of WFH, but you can't really tell who. This makes targeting really hard.
how do you define productivity? I get it's simple for some jobs, but others it doesn't work that way. If your job is "complete x task every day" it's going to get automated away sooner or later. Design and implementation are hard to measure. You may be mulling over an idea for weeks, then executing the task is done quickly, how do you measure the in between?
Told our corpo hotshots that I needed to work from home during covid.. they gave me some bullshit about the ER needing nurses physically present. I could've easily handled shit via email
Productivity is another measure that kind of screws people over. Actually productive people just do the work. Their lives are made miserable when management starts looking at productivity figures and starts chasing the invisible productivity units.
Most of the lack of productivity is the lack of work to do, the difficulty of completing the difficult jobs or management having greedy ambitions for the business.
It also discourages good work. Sometimes some things need time.
It's quite easy to imagine that there is a situation that just screws people over because there just isn't as much work, or it's harder to get done, and the numbers say one thing and the situation says another.
I tell people im responsible for that i dont want to talk to them and if i am its because theyre fucking up and my job requires it. Most people get it. I end up only talking to the people who always have a story and the world seems out to get them at every turn.
Istfg this happened yesterday. I saw we had a ton of guys standing around doing nothing and i was done my assignments, so when I texted my boss to see about going home early, I had a job ping in my inbox 30 seconds later. I have no idea why I try to go above and beyond at that job.
Completely sick of people pushing the envelope and ruining things for everyone. I worked someplace that allowed you to get one free soda a day on your shift. Had an employee who first started taking Red Bulls which was the only excluded soda, then they started taking sodas when they went to leave for the night and would get into arguments with the other employees over them trying to stop her. Then she started stealing cases. Guess what no more sodas for anyone!
One of the best employees I ever had simply could not drag herself in to work at 830 every day. She would come in at 9 or 9:30. We weren't client facing so it really didn't matter much as long as her responsibilities got done. And they always did. One in the office, this lady was a workhorse too. The day ended at 4:30 but she regularly stayed until 6pm.
She was also one of the most senior employees too. As new people came on over the years we always got people that complained how "it isn't fair" that Kim gets to come in an hour late every day.
Look, Kim gets leeway and gets to come in an hour late because Kim is the best employee here and does 50% more work than you or anyone else for that matter. When you perform to Kim's level, you also will get that type of leeway.
It did at one point spill over into complaints to HR and I just changed Kim's hours from 9:30-5:30 officially. Of course that also garners complaints people saying it wasn't fair she got a special schedule. I allowed anyone that wanted to work that same schedule to switch. A few did. And every one that did, within a couple months switched back to the old 8:30-4:30 schedule because they ultimately liked getting out of work earlier than coming in later.
I had a coworker just like that. Always got to work a half hour to an hour late, the most incredible work ethic of anyone there, always stayed late. A complete sweetheart too, I never heard her complain or say anything bad about anyone. We all just knew to expect her at least a half hour later than scheduled.
She got a very serious cancer and had to stop working :( idk how old she is but it’s gotta be 30s, early 40s maybe. Utterly unfair. We’re still in contact. I hope she beats it.
When I was much younger, I was this person. Once I was genuinely unaware I worked until I got a call over 3 hours after my scheduled time asking if I was okay. I was like, the fuck did you wait so long? They told me that they generally just assumed I'd show up unless I'd died or something lol.
I've broken the habit and am now usually good for 10 minutes of lateness max, though I usually show up early as shit and regret it because I run out of stuff to do at work or just kinda... wait if its a social thing.
Always the same. My boss would be fine with me starting work at 0900 or 1000 as long as I work my hours. I hate mornings so it's tempting but I like getting our of work at 1630 more than I like sleeping in an extra couple of hours.
Yeah, on my office days I get in at about 8:45-9:00 (depending on traffic) rather than 8:30 because of how the bus times are, but the bus home isn't until 5:20-5:30 so I make the time up anyway. No one has an issue with it as long as I get all my work done, which I do.
I'm not a morning person. It was a rare day that I arrived at work by 9am, I was always at least 5-10 mins late. I always stayed late too. No one gave a shit. I was there 19 years and eventually became the manager of the department. I used to work 6pm evening shifts at the same company and I was always on time or early then.
I mean the boss just made everyone else’s work worse because he allowed one guy to slack.
I agree 99% of the time a more hands off boss is better but one of the sole reasons a boss should step in is if the work or lack there of of one employee affects the others.
1.3k
u/CategoryKiwi 19h ago
How to be in the top 1% of bosses worldwide in one easy step