The Off Topic Topic

[garbon]

The Titan Submersible Disaster Shocked the World. The Exclusive Inside Story Is More Disturbing Than Anyone Imagined

Paywalled.  Executive summary?

Interesting. Was free for me in the UK. Basically how reckless CEO was as so much evidence sub was not ready. So many failed tests.

[grumbler]

Interesting. Was free for me in the UK. Basically how reckless CEO was as so much evidence sub was not ready. So many failed tests.

I don't think that the knowledge that Rush ignored even more tests than we already knew about is "More Disturbing Than Anyone Imagined."  Is there any new information that would cause this to be more disturbing than we have already imagined?

[garbon]

Interesting. Was free for me in the UK. Basically how reckless CEO was as so much evidence sub was not ready. So many failed tests.

I don't think that the knowledge that Rush ignored even more tests than we already knew about is "More Disturbing Than Anyone Imagined."  Is there any new information that would cause this to be more disturbing than we have already imagined?

I can't say as I had never read anything prior about what happened before the fatal adventure.

[grumbler]

I can't say as I had never read anything prior about what happened before the fatal adventure.

Fair enough.

[crazy canuck]

The new bit may the active misrepresentations (lying) in addition to the reckless conduct that came to light shortly after the tragedy.  But I don't know if that was reported before this article.  Wired is making it sound like they are breaking the story based on their dive into the documentary evidence. 

[grumbler]

The new bit may the active misrepresentations (lying) in addition to the reckless conduct that came to light shortly after the tragedy.  But I don't know if that was reported before this article.  Wired is making it sound like they are breaking the story based on their dive into the documentary evidence. 

We know about the active misrepresentations Rush engaged in.  What would be new is if he faked test results or otherwise engaged in active fraud.  He was clear to potential clients that his submersible had not been rated for human conveyance.

[Jacob]

Gartner on WFH & RTO:

The Data Is In: Return-to-Office Mandates Aren't Worth the Talent Risks

• Nearly three-quarters of executives say return-to-office (RTO) mandates are a source of leadership conflict.
• Lack of work-life balance ranks among the top five reasons employees quit.

Big Picture
Return-to-office mandates carry steep costs
Over the last 12 months, 63% of HR leaders report an increase in expectations for employees to return to the office. Many organizations who have encouraged onsite work, but see low compliance, are resorting to RTO mandates. But 74% of HR leaders cite these mandates as a source of conflict.

The benefits prove to be modest at best, and amid a rising well-being crisis, waning trust between employees and their employers, and a competitive talent market, it's high time to ask whether the benefits of RTO mandates are worth the risks.



Return-to-office mandates are high-risk

• Issues with work-life balance ranks among the top five reasons employees give for leaving a previous employer. And, on average, employees at organizations that implemented a RTO mandate report lower intent to stay compared to those whose organizations did not.
• High-performers, women and millennials, three groups that prize flexibility, are the biggest flight risks
• High-performers may feel especially resentful about mandates, particularly if they maintained performance or over-delivered during the pandemic. They may perceive  RTO mandates as a signal of mistrust from management.

Neither performance nor inclusion improve in-office

• Certain talent segments — women and millennials — whose organizations had implemented mandates were actually negatively impacted compared to those at organizations that had not.
• Nearly two-thirds of employees report they work best in a remote environment. They also report higher feelings of inclusion in a remote environment versus on-site.

High-performing employees report a 16% lower intent to stay in the face of on-site work requirements. (Source: Gartner)

Mandated RTO offers modest benefits

• RTO mandates carry some small, positive impacts:

•    Employees may put in more effort in the office, where they feel closely monitored.
•    Others may be more inclined to help colleagues with their workloads as their struggles are more visible, or because closer proximity makes it easier to ask for support.

• Managers, who have arguably experienced the most significant change in their day-to-day work with the shift to hybrid and remote work — and likely the most anxiety — saw the greatest benefits from RTO mandates.
• More time in the office likely provides managers with a sense of familiarity with their employees and gives them greater visibility into their direct report's workflows.

A flexible approach yields the best results

• The benefits of in-office time are real — after all, in-person connection can be energizing. However, flexible, human-centric hybrid models yield more positive results than a one-size-fits-all approach.
• Gartner recommends HR leaders co-develop policies, not mandates. Best practices include:

•    Consider focusing employees' on-site attendance around specific regular activities (e.g., brainstorming) and occasional events (e.g., offsites). Organizations that took this approach saw the best talent outcomes.
•    Allow employees to influence the policy. Employees who had an opportunity to shape their teams' hybrid work arrangements demonstrated higher engagement and effort.
•    Provide a clear "why" for requirements to work on-site. Companies that did saw positive impacts on engagement, effort and retention.

https://www.gartner.com/en/articles/the-data-is-in-return-to-office-mandates-aren-t-worth-the-talent-risks?source=BLD-200123&utm_medium=social&utm_source=bambu&utm_campaign=SM_GB_YOY_GTR_SOC_BU1_SM-BA-SWG-ART-GBS-HR[/list]

[Tamas]

So it confirms the only benefit from forcing RTO is management's false sense of control improves.

[Oexmelin]

So it confirms the only benefit from forcing RTO is management's false sense of control improves.

« Others may be more inclined to help colleagues with their workloads as their struggles are more visible, or because closer proximity makes it easier to ask for support. »

That's certainly my experience - and I hate how « flexibility » means that people who do remain in the office end up shouldering a disproportionate amount of work when problems arise quickly or spontaneously.

My vague sense of it, at least in the sort of bureaucratized environment I am in, is that WFH is good for the sort of bullshit jobs that bureaucratized environment thrive on (endless reports, form-filling, etc.) because you can do them without too much distraction - including bullshit distraction caused by meddling managers. It does, however, make solving organic problems that arise on the spot much more time consuming, where fifteen emails may have been avoided by a two-minute conversation. It also has quite the detrimental effect on what purports to be a collegial workplace. 

But my vague sense of it is also that our workplace conversations mirror those on Languish: people tend to take sides according to their own preferences and claim that their own preferences is objectively and measurably the one better suited to their workplace.

[Tamas]

IDK. I work in a fully WFH environment where we also have on-site engineers going to locations etc. You are right that often a 2 minutes conversation can replace a dozen-email one, that's why... we have conversations.

[Jacob]

... my vague sense of it is also that our workplace conversations mirror those on Languish: people tend to take sides according to their own preferences and claim that their own preferences is objectively and measurably the one better suited to their workplace.

What?!?!?! How can you say such a thing!?!?!

[frunk]

IDK. I work in a fully WFH environment where we also have on-site engineers going to locations etc. You are right that often a 2 minutes conversation can replace a dozen-email one, that's why... we have conversations.

Yeah, if issues are being resolved through email, particularly time sensitive ones, that's a bad WFH environment.

I pretty regularly reach out to people through Teams or getting directly on a call.  Email is for setting up meetings or non-time sensitive questions/information dumps.

[Sheilbh]

My vague sense of it, at least in the sort of bureaucratized environment I am in, is that WFH is good for the sort of bullshit jobs that bureaucratized environment thrive on (endless reports, form-filling, etc.) because you can do them without too much distraction - including bullshit distraction caused by meddling managers. It does, however, make solving organic problems that arise on the spot much more time consuming, where fifteen emails may have been avoided by a two-minute conversation. It also has quite the detrimental effect on what purports to be a collegial workplace.

I find there is a huge split (and it's one of the reasons we are broadly hybrid now) where I work. But it may be similar in some ways.

It's a media company with a newsroom and I think as soon as people were allowed to work from the office there's been quite a lot of journalists either in the office (or told to get back). The editors all wanted people as soon as they safely could. But I also think that is how lots of journalists work. There is a creativity, spontaneity and flexibility in that world which is a part of the job. The morning conference is a thing (and works better in person) which shapes the day's agenda.

On the other extreme are the engineers who are absolutely essential to running a digital media company but who hate coming into the office and love WFH. There engineers I've worked with for three years who I have never seen in person. And from my understanding some rash agreements were reached during the peak of covid that they now won't change - I think someone negotiated that they'd be in the office twice a year which I just don't think is a thing

I'm in the commercial world and sort of in the middle of those extremes but I think it is quite challenging - especially because media is pretty heavily unionised - to negotiate those different perspectives (we are back three days a week formally). Especially because I think the editorial maybe want to be in the newsroom more but also think it's unfair that they actually have to while other bits of the business are just WFH; while some of the engineering side don't really see an issue if they get the job done and clear their Trello boards.

I don't want to psychoanalyse it too much but I do think with those two, there are two quite different types of personalities at play and they're both kind of dependent on each other

[Josquius]

My GFs dad is on a motorbike voyage around the Nordics.
He stopped at Santa's home town in Finland the other week. The day before the summer tourist season begins- which apparently they have, I'd have thought they would be easter the other one, only.
Chatting to the owner of the small hotel he was in, they're fully booked for every day over the next 2 winters.
Struck me as impressive.
And scuppers my plans to go there when the kids are bigger. I can't be planning that far ahead.

[Tamas]

Bruce better cancels everything before Wembley so he can do a good show for me.    His voice sounds completely shot: https://youtu.be/dbDhyQziSso?t=22