Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 40

Thread: Harvard Business Review: Women want to work from home too much, so don't let them.

  1. Top | #11
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    6,365
    Rep Power
    23
    Nick Bloom is a "Leftist"? Words have lost all meaning.
    "Banish me from Eden when you will, but first let me eat of the tree of knowledge."

  2. Top | #12
    Veteran Member prideandfall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    a drawer of inappropriate starches
    Posts
    1,821
    Archived
    2,715
    Total Posts
    4,536
    Rep Power
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    Employee autonomy is valuable to employees. In fact, low autonomy often correlates with low job satisfaction.

    I like working from home and I object to bullshit reasons for that choice to be taken away or reduced. That women want more days working from home is a bullshit reason to reduce employee autonomy and take away WFH choice.
    so, given that your posting history on this forum that isn't your gender-based hobby horse is notably pro-corporate and blindly in favor of the cultural worship of predatory capitalism, how do you square these two ideas?

    employee autonomy is directly in opposition to corporatethink, which staunchly demands total control over every second of an employee's life and only begrudgingly concedes a couple hours per day for sleep and biological needs.
    it seems like getting to tell you when and where you work, with or without a valid reason, would be entirely within the scope of what you support.

  3. Top | #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    7,597
    Archived
    10,974
    Total Posts
    18,571
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by prideandfall View Post
    so, given that your posting history on this forum that isn't your gender-based hobby horse is notably pro-corporate and blindly in favor of the cultural worship of predatory capitalism, how do you square these two ideas?
    Produce evidence of my 'notably pro-corporate' posts as well as my 'cultural worship of predatory capitalism'. I'll confess I don't quite know what you mean by the latter so I don't know if I've been guilty of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by prideandfall View Post
    employee autonomy is directly in opposition to corporatethink, which staunchly demands total control over every second of an employee's life and only begrudgingly concedes a couple hours per day for sleep and biological needs.
    it seems like getting to tell you when and where you work, with or without a valid reason, would be entirely within the scope of what you support.
    You appear to have a number of unevidenced and false beliefs about what I support. I support corporations making products and services for consumers. I oppose corporations doing bullshit things for bullshit reasons, like reducing employee autonomy in the name of equity, virtue-signalling Pride in safe, secular, Western nations and failing to do so in places that might actually benefit, and building unwanted, unfree, censored "safe spaces" for me that I did not ask for. Bullshit like that.

  4. Top | #14
    Contributor Arctish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    5,560
    Archived
    4,540
    Total Posts
    10,100
    Rep Power
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Arctish View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gospel View Post
    I'd rather eat boiled peanuts than admit this but I think Metaphor's take is correct.
    His take on the article in the OP, or his take on the issue of employees being the ones to decide when they work from home and when they come into the office?

    The only time I've ever had the 'autonomy' to decide when I would be at a workplace was when I was an Uber driver. Other than that, it was always my manager's decision when and whether I was physically present at the business. So I don't really get what's the big whoop about a business advisor advising businesses to have their managers make those decisions.
    Employee autonomy is valuable to employees. In fact, low autonomy often correlates with low job satisfaction.
    It would be nice if you cited a source for that claim but I'll accept at face value that people like autonomy if you accept at face value that they also like getting money, and most people will give up a bit of one in order to get a bit of the other

    I like working from home and I object to bullshit reasons for that choice to be taken away or reduced. That women want more days working from home is a bullshit reason to reduce employee autonomy and take away WFH choice.
    That is not the reason given in the article. That's your own bullshit you're looking at.

  5. Top | #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    7,597
    Archived
    10,974
    Total Posts
    18,571
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Arctish View Post
    It would be nice if you cited a source for that claim but I'll accept at face value that people like autonomy if you accept at face value that they also like getting money, and most people will give up a bit of one in order to get a bit of the other
    Sure? I didn't argue or imply otherwise.

    That is not the reason given in the article. That's your own bullshit you're looking at.
    The reasoning is in the article. The author spells out his disaster scenario in detail. Young men (but not young women, for some reason) would rock up in person five days a week, while others (particularly women) would choose more WFH days. Down the track, the people who did more office time are more likely to be promoted, and that would mean more men would be promoted.

    This would not be good for 'diversity', so we should not allow employees to choose the number or the timing of their days off.

    That men and women have different preferences on average for wanting to work from home, and this may lead to differential promotion, is a bullshit reason to reduce WFH choice.

  6. Top | #16
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    19,354
    Archived
    41,943
    Total Posts
    61,297
    Rep Power
    87
    I read the HBR article. The author is making the point that it may make business sense to require or expect in person work for two major reasons - managing personnel is easier in person, and that lack of attendance tends to reduce promotion chances.

    In this thread, there does not seem to be much (if any) dispute about the accuracy of those reasons. I think the advice the columnist says he will give is a little too strong. I think it would be better for him to advise businesses about these possibilities and their effects on productivity, promotions, etc.... because each business will have a different culture which may allow for more tailored policies.

    The concern about the reduction in promotion chances for women because they tend to choose to work more from home is not "woke". It has been around for at least 4 decades. It is reactionary claptrap to invoke "woke".

    The idea that mandating some in-person work is necessarily a "disbenefit" to everyone is wrong. There people who prefer to use rules to justify their choices - it gives them cover for the choices they would like to make.

    Moreover, restricting the possible choices to employees by requiring in-person work does have an expected benefit to the company (in terms of productivity) and a possible future benefit to those who would have chosen to stay home more (increased chance of promotion). So there are clearly benefits and costs to such policies. Criticizing them because one fears it may restrict one's choice while explicitly ignoring those benefitw seems, at a minimum, rather overly narrow-minded.

  7. Top | #17
    Aethiopian Gospel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,425
    Archived
    138
    Total Posts
    1,563
    Rep Power
    53
    Psshaw, No one on this thread claimed that "mandating some in-person work is necessarily a "disbenefit". Metaphor did however call the reason given in the article for making it a mandate; bullshit. That I agree with.

    So what if more women than men decide to work from home. Hows about you change your promotion triggers to something other than coffee machine talk. I don't get what the difference is between Working from home or in the office if the work is getting done. At that point, it's things like speed, efficiency, and the ability to problem-solve that matter. Ya know, results. Fuck basing it on who walked into the boss's office and kisses his/her ass every morning.

  8. Top | #18
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    32,522
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    129,274
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Arctish View Post
    The thread title is grossly misleading.

    The linked article's author argues against allowing employees to choose which days they will work from home, and in favor of businesses making that decision based on business needs and fairness in the workplace.
    It's in favor of not allowing people to choose when to work at home because that could result in a disparate impact. In other words, women are not to be allowed to choose a path that is better for them but which might hold back their career.

  9. Top | #19
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    19,354
    Archived
    41,943
    Total Posts
    61,297
    Rep Power
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Arctish View Post
    The thread title is grossly misleading.

    The linked article's author argues against allowing employees to choose which days they will work from home, and in favor of businesses making that decision based on business needs and fairness in the workplace.
    It's in favor of not allowing people to choose when to work at home because that could result in a disparate impact. In other words, women are not to be allowed to choose a path that is better for them but which might hold back their career.
    Did it occur to you that holding back a career might not be considered better?

  10. Top | #20
    Contributor Trausti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Northwest
    Posts
    8,364
    Archived
    372
    Total Posts
    8,736
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Arctish View Post
    The thread title is grossly misleading.

    The linked article's author argues against allowing employees to choose which days they will work from home, and in favor of businesses making that decision based on business needs and fairness in the workplace.
    It's in favor of not allowing people to choose when to work at home because that could result in a disparate impact. In other words, women are not to be allowed to choose a path that is better for them but which might hold back their career.
    Did it occur to you that holding back a career might not be considered better?
    Who gets to make that choice?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •