I'm just leaving a company which has been experiencing stagnated growth for a couple of years and everyone I talk to says that the 100% remote strategy has played a role. My company just couldn't figure out how to get momentum or rally the troops and "light the fire" again.
It wasn't just the remote, but the typical baggage people adopt with remote. For example, it made the mistake of adopting "work when you want" kind of attitude because that was always the norm with 100% companies, which is terrible for a VC funded startup. It set the tone of "what did you cook for lunch?", "oh wow, look at your view of the ocean in portugal" instead of kicking ass.
Obviously not the only problem, but remote was definitely an extra layer of hurdles. A lot of problems would have been easier to address in a physical office.
EDIT: the sibling post that says its a "path to mediocrity" is pretty spot on. But maybe you're fine with your company being a lifestyle company, a "good enough" company. That's fine for some people.
> It set the tone of "what did you cook for lunch?", "oh wow, look at your view of the ocean in portugal" instead of kicking ass.
Sounds wonderful. If a move towards remote work makes it harder for those with capital to extract maximum value from their employees, all the better for society imo. I've seen a lot of propaganda on social media about how people should be excited to work _more_ (to 'kick ass') now that they don't have a commute lmao.
The employer-employee relationship is inherently adversarial to some degree, and remote work clearly shifts power towards the employee and gives the employer less ability to monopolize people's lives.
If your company needs people to drown in kool-aid to be successful, sorry! People seem to be slowly but surely leaving that capitalist hypnosis BS in the last decade.
it sounds great, but I didn't mention why I'm leaving. Got laid off because the company is stagnating, been doing lay-offs since before the quarantine. Turns out a kick-ass culture is safer for job security since the market isn't going to give your company a break just because you want to chill.
But i think you can have a high-energy culture but still be healthy, its just incredibly hard to figure out.
Sounds like if the poster worked at a Rise and Grind company they may have not been laid off. I prefer to be in a powerhouse Rise and Grind company with growth potential. It's not for everyone though, some people like stagnation
There are plenty of jobs out there that are secure & don't require you to be grinding all the time. Any job requesting me to make its mission the main focus of my life gets a laugh and a pass. Why put so much effort into something where I have a minority stake?
why do people need to be consumed by the negative all the time? must everybody be an activist? what do you realistically expect people to do besides talk about it online? is this really the place to virtue signal?
Yeah, its just small drama compared to the real damage Google has caused. Its sort of tone deaf to include that in why Google is unethical. The SV bubble.
If this letter would have started with, "I stayed at Google for 15 years even though I knew it was unethical. I'm a piece of shit. BUT I'm going to try and redeem myself..." then it would have been much better. Some kind of redemption arc.
The damage has already been done, man. You don't magically earn the moral high-ground for "quitting" after 15 years with an angry letter.
As with all generalizations, it's a matter of ratio. I can only speak anecdotally when I say that I've seen this happen between male execs and female subordinates more often than other combinations.
The word "pathological", presumably, means "deviating from the normal". The word "normal", in its turn, has two distinct meanings: one that is about what is desirable, the other is about what is common. On these grounds, and according to the second meaning of the word "normal", I would argue that fear is not pathological, nor is the desire to escape blame. It's quite normal. Whether some people can control this desire is the question.
Originally owned by a “core” surfer, Bob Hurley, but was later sold to Nike. They still got a pass with some surfers because they made decent wetsuits and sponsored top surfers. Nike sold off the brand very recently and started cutting staff and sponsorships. The rumor is they’ll now start schilling their stuff in low budget retailers. Surfers have quickly jumped ship now that any semblance of being a “real” surf brand is gone.
I had a friend show me this when I was a kid and I did it for a while. That engineer was probably raised that way and thought it was as normal as buttering toast.
It wasn't just the remote, but the typical baggage people adopt with remote. For example, it made the mistake of adopting "work when you want" kind of attitude because that was always the norm with 100% companies, which is terrible for a VC funded startup. It set the tone of "what did you cook for lunch?", "oh wow, look at your view of the ocean in portugal" instead of kicking ass.
Obviously not the only problem, but remote was definitely an extra layer of hurdles. A lot of problems would have been easier to address in a physical office.
EDIT: the sibling post that says its a "path to mediocrity" is pretty spot on. But maybe you're fine with your company being a lifestyle company, a "good enough" company. That's fine for some people.