nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

If Work From Home becomes a thing...

bilbot79

I'd be tempted to buy a little apartment in the Canaries and spend my winters there, in fact I'd probably

1/ Sell my Dublin gaff

2/ By a cheaper Irish gaff in the countryside

3/ Buy a place in the Canaries

4/ Buy another place somewhere in Europe, Hvar or somewhere like that

And just spend weeks and months in each place.

How would the rest of you exploit work from home if you had it permanently?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Blanco100

WFH purely works for me as usually its a 4 hour daily roundtrip to work.

If my office was 10 minute drive id have different opinion.

But being up at 8am (instead of 5.30am) and logged off at 5.30/6pm (instead of back home at 7.45pm) makes a huge difference to my life.

Not paying for the train is another massive perk. Cannot stress enough how this has benefited me and my young family.

Id say it would give me another 10 years of my life.

beauf

This seems to have gone off topic from WFH. Seemed to have stemmed from this...

https://www.theladders.com/career-advice/this-billionaire-investor-says-white-collar-workers-jobs-are-in-jeopardy

He probably made these comments to light a fire under a couple of people. But seems to have touch a nerve far and wide.

ELM327

Technocentral wrote: »

If you employ competent people who know their job you do not need so called "managers", its as simple as that.

Now I'm the last one to encourage multi layered middle management but saying you don't need a manager is like saying if you have a good builder you don't need an architect

[Deleted User]

Technocentral wrote: »

If you employ competent people who know their job you do not need so called "managers", its as simple as that.

So you are saying there is no need whatsoever for people in management positions? Even when a person is just a manager by default due to being more senior etc which is the case of most managers in my area of work?

Technocentral

beauf wrote: »

Really the only point I'm making is not all manager are good managers.

You might think people get prompted on ability. But thats not always true either.

I think if someone was able to coast in the office, they will have no problem doing it WFH either.
So its irrelevant if they are working from home or in the office.

If you employ competent people who know their job you do not need so called "managers", its as simple as that.

Cyrus

beauf wrote: »

Then it would seem then you don't have to be manager to have understanding or vision. Since you have to have it, to be promoted to be a manager.

your ability to miscomprehend is almost laudible.

beauf

Longest cycling bridge in the world...

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-tuesday-edition-1.5492490/why-the-netherlands-is-building-a-10m-bridge-for-cyclists-pedestrians-and-bats-1.5488474

s8n

Ultimanemo wrote: »

Don't worry about that, the greens will find a solution: build a bridge between Ireland and France wide enough for two cycle lanes and two pedestrian paths.

ridiculous suggestion

beauf

Really the only point I'm making is not all manager are good managers.

You might think people get prompted on ability. But thats not always true either.

I think if someone was able to coast in the office, they will have no problem doing it WFH either.
So its irrelevant if they are working from home or in the office.

beauf

Cyrus wrote: »

...
thats part of why they were made managers obviously, or at least id have thought that was obvious.

Then it would seem then you don't have to be manager to have understanding or vision. Since you have to have it, to be promoted to be a manager.

Cyrus wrote: »

...that doesnt mean you dont need a manager to drive a team towards that vision, the chances of them full understanding it without management or leadership, or even caring, is small.

Cyrus

beauf wrote: »

So someone who isn't a manager couldn't do any of this before they were a manager. The moment they opened their promotion to manager there was a blinding flash of light and suddenly they had vision and understanding.

I see.

im not sure if you are trying to be smart, if you are try harder.

thats part of why they were made managers obviously, or at least id have thought that was obvious.

beauf

Jaziel Unkempt Photographer wrote: »

Sharing the vision and actually getting it implemented are very different things. Also of you have 10 or 15 different projects running in parallel there is only so much you can practically share as you would spend more time explaining things than it would take people to get the work done.

Who coordinates all the work of different people working on something, you need an overall picture of what's happening so you can manage a build as it moves though the development cycle. Having 6 or 7 people in a room trying to do this for a load of projects would be a waste of time you need someone with the overall picture and understanding, prioritising tasks, looking externally to where delays might happen that will impact internal progress etc etc (i'm just picking tiny snippets here of what is actually needed).

I can only infer you think I said you don't need managers. I didn't.

Someone brought up an example that was clearly silo's. I don't find them efficient, YMMV.

beauf

Cyrus wrote: »

i didnt say that at all, what i am saying is you can share a vision all you want, that doesnt mean you dont need a manager to drive a team towards that vision, the chances of them full understanding it without management or leadership, or even caring, is small.

So someone who isn't a manager couldn't do any of this before they were a manager. The moment they opened their promotion to manager there was a blinding flash of light and suddenly they had vision and understanding.

I see.

[Deleted User]

beauf wrote: »

In some places this vision is shared with the whole team.

In others its data silo'd within management layers. Everyone effectively works with blinkers on.

Sharing the vision and actually getting it implemented are very different things. Also of you have 10 or 15 different projects running in parallel there is only so much you can practically share as you would spend more time explaining things than it would take people to get the work done.

Who coordinates all the work of different people working on something, you need an overall picture of what's happening so you can manage a build as it moves though the development cycle. Having 6 or 7 people in a room trying to do this for a load of projects would be a waste of time you need someone with the overall picture and understanding, prioritising tasks, looking externally to where delays might happen that will impact internal progress etc etc (i'm just picking tiny snippets here of what is actually needed).

beauf

jonnny68 wrote: »

couldnt be dealing with wfh from all full time, half and half suits me fine

My opinion has changed the longer it goes on. I have always worked from home now and then. This is longest continuous time though.

Cyrus

beauf wrote: »

Not sure where you are going with this. I have one guy on the team who never listens, therefore I should never share anything with the entire team. This is useful how?

i didnt say that at all, what i am saying is you can share a vision all you want, that doesnt mean you dont need a manager to drive a team towards that vision, the chances of them full understanding it without management or leadership, or even caring, is small.

beauf

Cyrus wrote: »

you can share a vision all you want, not everyone will grasp it, or want to grasp it or care about it.

Not sure where you are going with this. I have one guy on the team who never listens, therefore I should never share anything with the entire team. This is useful how?

jonnny68

couldnt be dealing with wfh from all full time, half and half suits me fine

beauf

Cyrus wrote: »

yes agreed, from what you are saying then you believe some of the managers in your organisation are expendable?

I don't believe that most organisations or processes are 100% efficient.

Do I believe that every manager I've worked with was a good manager. No.
Some were excellent, some were bad, some were ok.

I could give loads of anecdotal examples. But you shouldn't need any. Most people have run into to people who were bad at their job and causes more problems than they solve. They exist at all levels.

Cyrus

beauf wrote: »

In some places this vision is shared with the whole team.

In others its data silo'd within management layers. Everyone effectively works with blinkers on.

you can share a vision all you want, not everyone will grasp it, or want to grasp it or care about it.

beauf

Jaziel Unkempt Photographer wrote: »

and who is going to have overall vision of the projects, the developments, how everything fits together from different staff, solve issues that arise that needs the experience a more senior person has etc etc.

In some places this vision is shared with the whole team.

In others its data silo'd within management layers. Everyone effectively works with blinkers on.

Cyrus

beauf wrote: »

Not every place is structured the same.

yes agreed, from what you are saying then you believe some of the managers in your organisation are expendable?

Cyrus

Jim2007 wrote: »

And why would You then need the management? Have them do the tasks the staff did? Replace a cheap resource with a more expensive one... when a company has got its back to the wall the only thing the owner/shareholder wants to hear about is cost. I spent some time in corporate restructuring back in the 80s and I cannot remember a single case where quality won over cost.

i have spent time in restructuring aswell, and it was about creating a leaner more efficient organisation, which normally means fewer higher calibre people with systems and processes or offshoring. the 80s was a long time ago.

beauf

Cyrus wrote: »

i suppose it depends on the structures and size of organisations, but if i was cutting staff it wouldnt be the layer of middle management who are my best people, it would be staff below them.

Not every place is structured the same.

In ours about 30-40% of the managers manage people with a specialized skillset that the managers don't have. If you cut the staff below them, half the projects would grind to a half. Even where they do have the skill set they may not be current. Since many skill sets have to actively maintained.

[Deleted User]

Jim2007 wrote: »

And why would You then need the management?

and who is going to have overall vision of the projects, the developments, how everything fits together from different staff, solve issues that arise that needs the experience a more senior person has etc etc.

Jim2007

Cyrus wrote: »

i suppose it depends on the structures and size of organisations, but if i was cutting staff it wouldnt be the layer of middle management who are my best people, it would be staff below them.

And why would You then need the management? Have them do the tasks the staff did? Replace a cheap resource with a more expensive one... when a company has got its back to the wall the only thing the owner/shareholder wants to hear about is cost. I spent some time in corporate restructuring back in the 80s and I cannot remember a single case where quality won over cost.

[Deleted User]

Jim2007 wrote: »

But it is not a question of doing something, it a question of if it is necessary and if it cannot be done at another level. Middle management is always at risk in a financial crisis because tasks and responsibilities can be pushed upwards or downwards to cut costs and even more so as WFH becomes the adapted model.

If your in middle management right now, you need to ensure you are adding significant value and don’t make waves, because in most cases there are alternatives to you being around and WFH will make it a bit more obvious in some cases.

The type of setup really doesn't make sense to me, it almost looks like you are suggesting managers are there to just be managers and got to their position via a different route to the people below them. Its not a concept I have ever come acrosss.

A manager to me is someone who is more experienced (both technically and in management) than those in their team and has more responsibility and is responsible for guiding, directing and also working on aspects of projects along with a massive amount of reporting etc both internal and external that takes a lot of time and then there is approvals etc which need a more experienced person to give an ok to.

To be honest places I've worked we wouldn't even use terms like "manager" people have more senior job titles and this would by default make them a manager as some would see it but the reality is very little of this hierarchy stuff is really evident day to day. That being said we have a quite a flat hierarchy anyway with not many levels between the least senior and most senior people.

Jim2007 wrote: »

Ah but don’t confuse the need for management with the for managers. When it comes to cost cutting, responsibility gets pushed up, tasks get pushed down to the next potential generation of management and managers get pushed out.

This just wouldn't be possible to do in the area of tech I work in as you would be losing vital experience in doing this and often experts in the area their team.

Jim2007

Jaziel Unkempt Photographer wrote: »

Was going to post the same, the amount of comments in the thread about managers “getting found out” or “doing nothing” is quite bizarre. Are people totally clueless to the need for management?

Ah but don’t confuse the need for management with the for managers. When it comes to cost cutting, responsibility gets pushed up, tasks get pushed down to the next potential generation of management and managers get pushed out.

Cyrus

Jim2007 wrote: »

But it is not a question of doing something, it a question of if it is necessary and if it cannot be done at another level. Middle management is always at risk in a financial crisis because tasks and responsibilities can be pushed upwards or downwards to cut costs and even more so as WFH becomes the adapted model.

If your in middle management right now, you need to ensure you are adding significant value and don’t make waves, because in most cases there are alternatives to you being around and WFH will make it a bit more obvious in some cases.

i suppose it depends on the structures and size of organisations, but if i was cutting staff it wouldnt be the layer of middle management who are my best people, it would be staff below them.

Jim2007

Cyrus wrote: »

are people that naive that they think managers dont do anything?

But it is not a question of doing something, it a question of if it is necessary and if it cannot be done at another level. Middle management is always at risk in a financial crisis because tasks and responsibilities can be pushed upwards or downwards to cut costs and even more so as WFH becomes the adapted model.

If your in middle management right now, you need to ensure you are adding significant value and don’t make waves, because in most cases there are alternatives to you being around and WFH will make it a bit more obvious in some cases.