Get over yourself, dude. We’ve all been working in the office at least 5 days a week for 200 years. Now all of a sudden, 3 days in/2 out you can’t handle? Loser. I’d fire his ass and find someone who actually wanted to work. This is a huge problem with America today. Lazy ass people want to get paid to sit at home.
How is working 40 hrs from home lazy but working from an office doing the exact same job for 40 hrs not? Seems you have an issue with people working from home and may need to get over yourself because of that issue? Sheesh... These aren't warehouse employees or dishwashers where you just toss them and grab someone that "Wants to work" as you put it.
I have been working from home 45-50hrs a week since March 2020. My team and I have hit our #'s every month without a hitch since we have been fully WFH. I am also not a kid who expects to be paid for sitting at home and not working... Which seems to be the idea that you have with people who are wanting to continue to WFH. I would imagine a large # of folks wanting to stay home fall in the same category as me and aren't looking to be lazy and do less work by staying home.
Imagination... it's a wonderful thing!
My imagination? I am not sure I follow your response?
My guess is that much of this guy's disgruntlement comes from his particular rank in the management chain.
He's a director. It is well accepted in Silicon Valley that this rank (particularly in large organizations) contributes the least. He's not an individual contributor as he was when he was an engineer. Even first-level engineering managers need to roll up their sleeves sometimes even though their primary job is to manage engineers. In fact, when you leave an engineering position (individual contributor) to manage it is said that your engineering career is over because your primary responsibility isn't engineering: it's managing.
Directors manage other managers but not the line level employees fighting in the trenches. Yet they don't have enough authority to make decisions on their own. In a large organization like Apple, that really happens at the SVP level. Apple probably has hundreds of people at the VP level and most of them don't have the broad authority to make major decisions on their own. Worse, Apple has an EVP level above SVP. The operative adjective/word is Executive. It's really at the EVP level where a person has authority to make mission critical decisions and execute for a large organization.
This guy is a middle manager, passing status reports up and orders down.
I've seen people like this regret their jump to management. There are fewer VP positions than Director positions. There are more entry-level manager positions than Director positions. There are very few who make it up through the ranks to a senior management position in the way that not every aspiring ballet dancer will end up being prima ballerina at the Bolshoi or American Ballet Theater.
The big tell will be his next position. He's around that age where he has to figure out whether he has what it takes to be a senior manager at a Fortune 100 corporation.
Spot on. Directors are typically purely execution focused and are by-default the designated scapegoats to take the blame when the engineering teams they are supposed to be driving don’t deliver as senior management expects. I’ve seen two directors in a row, both of whom had stellar engineering credentials that culminated in them being recognized across the industry for their innovative approaches to engineering and architecture take on the engineering director role - only to be ground up and fired in less than 2 years.
It wasn’t anything personal, it was simply that they didn’t recognize what they were being graded on. They both tried to keep expanding on their prior areas of technical and architectural influence and got too involved in technical decisions and approaches rather than cracking the whip and making sure the delivery commitments from their teams were hitting the dates. Their immediate predecessor also came from a senior technical role but understood the director’s role, kept the deliverables on-track, and was promoted to VP in the same time frame. It does seem a bit harsh that missteps at that level have zero tolerance, but I suppose it’s because the ones who are giving them the boot are those same VPs who made the cut as directors and want to be seen as viable SVP candidates.
I would have thought a company like Apple would have lots of parallel titles so they could promote people without making them "process" management. Things like Engineering Director or Design Director who are responsible for creative direction but have another director in the same team who looks after process and people. For the very reason they what to promote talented people and not take them away from their skills.
Good teams need both kinds of leadership and it's very rare to see one person who can do both.
It doesn't make a lot of sense to us who aren't Apple employees, but I am aware that most of the appealing jobs are at the Cupertino headquarters, where the cost of living is absolutely insane. It would be great to work at Apple while being able to live in an area with more reasonable rent and living expenses, which would only be possible if most work was done remotely.
The solution is simple. Offer rent-free condos and homes close to the office, owned by Apple.
Surprised they haven’t done this.
A very intriguing idea, although it doesn't need to be that extreme (free). Even so, I will admit that my employer here in Japan has an affiliation with a factory in Taiwan who offers on-site living areas for low income employees (mostly from Vietnam). In the US, it would probably make more sense to offer the Apple housing at substantially reduced rent -- 1/5th of the average rate for that area.
And as to the fellow that blasted your idea mercilessly (Mpantone), he seems the type who blasts the ideas of others while having no proposals of his own.
Fact is, something must be done that makes sense for Apple and its employees. Goodness knows Apple is conscious of others and the environment as per the fact they spent all that money on solar panels atop their building to take it off-grid. So going another step further would be to help employees focus on the job and less on paying outrageous rent or fighting traffic every day to get to the office. Making it easier and more comfortable to work at Apple is in the best interest of Apple and its employees. And as an AAPL shareholder since 1999 who has never sold a single share, and as someone who has loved Apple since the 128K Mac in 1984, I have a vested interest in seeing Apple stay on the cutting edge of goodwill toward others and the planet.
Comments
Good teams need both kinds of leadership and it's very rare to see one person who can do both.
And as to the fellow that blasted your idea mercilessly (Mpantone), he seems the type who blasts the ideas of others while having no proposals of his own.
Fact is, something must be done that makes sense for Apple and its employees. Goodness knows Apple is conscious of others and the environment as per the fact they spent all that money on solar panels atop their building to take it off-grid. So going another step further would be to help employees focus on the job and less on paying outrageous rent or fighting traffic every day to get to the office. Making it easier and more comfortable to work at Apple is in the best interest of Apple and its employees. And as an AAPL shareholder since 1999 who has never sold a single share, and as someone who has loved Apple since the 128K Mac in 1984, I have a vested interest in seeing Apple stay on the cutting edge of goodwill toward others and the planet.