[charanreddy]

Originally Posted by Jaguar

This is not just due to contracts or the nature of the IT services industry. .

.

I see this a lot from Indian managers, especially the ones sitting abroad. They seem oblivious to the issues like traffic and bureaucracy that the average Indian endures on a day-to-day basis which can affect the mental state and the productivity of an employee. Never will you see them asking even a junior "white" person to stretch or be flexible. More often than not, they themselves will not be available outside of their regular working hours. All this flexibility is expected only from Asians.

PS: Sorry for the rant.

Though I agree with your observations on a few Indian managers based out of US, by and large I differ from your views.

As long as sufficient notice is given professionals from any part of the world are equally likely to stretch. I have worked for MNCs all my life, primarily with people in US and Europe. I have had managers based out of US, Europe and reportees as well. There is no expectation difference between a US employees and an Indian one which is not fundamental to the role. I.e. if one works for a Bay Area tech company, one needs to be available till 11 PM for overlap. If you are not OK with this then don’t take up the role. All over Indian professionals are regarded highly as we have a culture of getting things done despite unfavourable circumstances. More recently folks are making a noise on WFH / relaxed working. There are profiles for that but don’t expect big money. One can’t have a cake and eat it too.

Person to person, I some times compare ourselves to our house hold helps who do their house hold chores and for a small salary (compared to ours ) do the same in multiple households as well. Puts our shenanigans in perspective. I understand from an amplification plot of view knowledge workers are higher the value chain, but we don’t extend the same logic to senior management .

Originally Posted by Theyota

This thread is disproportionately tilted towards almost 100% WFH seekers. I do not see many arguments from folks who are against it, either because there aren’t many or they think it’s not worth to argue it here. I am one of those who does not support anything more than 20% WFH for majority of the jobs in my industry. I support limited WFH as a “perk/benefit” and not as a “right”.
.

Thank you for saying this. It had to be said.

The attitude of a few software professionals is that company is eternal with a never ending revenue streams and some how top management pinches the lower level employees and makes their life difficult on purpose. At an individual level , a bad performance may not affect the company but when this becomes a practice, companies fall into a downward spiral they can’t recover from. Hence the need to set acceptable work place practices before it is too late.

I know many people who do intelligent moon lighting, open up companies on the name of their spouses / parents and make sure they don’t get caught with double PF entries. The ones who do get caught are the laziest of the lot who don’t know or don’t bother to cover their tracks.

Several large companies are on their way to oblivion as execution is a key concern vs companies like Tesla or Amazon led by founders with tunnel vision, where customer is king and employees focus fiercely on customer centricity.

Originally Posted by Arun Varma

Another perspective!

The biggest encumbrance for a consistent and effective WFH / Hybrid practice is when you have to do it "at scale". It is very difficult to eke out the margins of performance at scale when you cannot ensure a consistent environment which is very difficult to do WFO.

At an individual level, yes it is easy to make a powerful case for WFH. Small groups of like-minded people, yes, the model holds good. But as you scale up, and add more variables into the mix, the model falls apart. During the pandemic, when everyone was impacted the same way, and against the primary duality of life and death, it was an easy choice in a more level playing field. But now, the scenario is changing. The pandemic is now BAU, attrition is rampant, client demands are skyrocketing and so are the shareholders'. Many parts of the world are staring at a major recession. Under these circumstances, many companies cannot leave anything to chance and revert to tried, tested and proven methods that revolve around WFO.

+1. Sometimes we have short term memory as far as life experiences are concerned. Remember the dot com bubble or the credit crisis where jobs were getting eliminated on a large scale ? Or more recently if you were in the hospitality or travel industry during covid crisis. The macro trends are not favourable and hence one would do well to remember

[nareshov]

To counter argue a few points that have come up the recent posts:

1. Moonlighting is sort of how some of the open source software projects out there get volunteers to work or contribute.
Personally, I simply do not have the energy for it because my work day is almost always satiating. But I’ve seen certain other Indian diaspora who seem to have a lot more energy (not from same company) who’re able to run an india-workforce based consultancy in their “spare” time.

2. Customer-centrism is a huge factor for the success of a business, sure. But that’s not the only factor. Even a shrewd one like Amazon realises it: https://archive.ph/f1jTt
As stalwarts in the capitalist arena, some might hold a labour union and its demands in a less favourable light but labour or employees are also important.

3. On that one company where “flexibility” of employees is being highlighted. It’s one thing when flexibility is relied upon on serious occasions that warrant it and another when it happens as if it’s a regular thing.
When workforce is treated like they can me made to sprint every single week rather than run a sustainable marathon - would that not keep employees from burning out and actually allow them to grow and become bigger assets in the long run?
Also, if an employer expects to hold the employee accountable for what he does out of work hours, then they better be consistent and pay for the overtime during exhibitions of such “flexibility”. Honestly, that post reeked of entitlement: “We have enough manpower in the country. Won’t be flexible to our terms? We’ll find another who will”
In places like “socialist” Europe, duty rosters are a thing. People sign up (those who are flexible) to be part of a rotating duty roster and they’re around with laptops wherever they are for that entire week on-call to attend to unforeseen emergencies who’re then fairly compensated additionally to their regular salary: https://blog.pragmaticengineer.com/oncall-compensation/

4. Rather than resort to dealing with absolutes: nuances matter. Let’s argue in good faith and accept that those who’re supporting WfH are not absolutists in this thread and are also very aware that:
a. Not all jobs can be WfH
b. There’s a middle path to be had

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by Arun Varma

The biggest encumbrance for a consistent and effective WFH / Hybrid practice is when you have to do it "at scale". It is very difficult to eke out the margins of performance at scale when you cannot ensure a consistent environment which is very difficult to do WFO.

Very valid point. Scale invalidates most models that are perfectly valid at small scale. This is something I frequently point out to startups I work with. They would have done a prototype and works brilliantly at low volume. Then they are surprised it doesn't work at 10x or 100x volume. Band-aid solutions don't work when it must be scaled. That requires lots of ground work, training, and complete change in how work is done and how it is measured.

There is no point discussing roles where WFH is not suited, like manufacturing or sales. Let's stick to jobs/roles where WFH can work.

I had described a year ago why bosses want their teams back in the office. For roles where WFH is practical, the team members and the managers must know the rules of the game, and follow it.

The culture described in the following article is a must for WFH to work well.

https://for-managers.com/result-oriented/

WFH can be made to work well with a small team below 10. It is easier to identify slackers, and high performers. Even in small teams, those who can't work effectively in WFH, should not be allowed to do WFH. And managers who can't manage WFH team members, should not be allowed to manage WFH teams. The WFH team should only contain those who can do WFH effectively.

The only way to scale this is to slowly build a collection of such highly effective small teams. You can't wave a wand at the top of a 1000+ people company and say we shall do WFH. That is why I was very surprised at the TCS declaration 2 years ago, and said this as my first post in this thread:

Originally Posted by Samurai

Well said... I didn't comment on this thread for a long time despite being ex-TCSer, because TCS headcount was 3300 when I joined and 11000 when I left. I have no idea how make any comments on a 450000 size transition.

I never really believed a process oriented company like TCS with many lakhs employees can turn into a result oriented company. And finally they are admitting it themself.

I started a new company at the beginning of the pandemic, and therefore was unable to establish an office where employees could come. As I hired and grew the team, everyone had to work from home for over a year. However, since I hired very carefully and since my team is very small, I could make the WFH really effective. Going WFO will be less beneficial to the company, let alone the employees. Since the benefits to employees is well known, I will only address the benefits to the company.

1. Cost of maintaining an office is eliminated. No rent, no reception, no security guards, no facility management (generator/ups/cafe/restrooms), etc. I ran a bigger company with a good campus prior to this, so I know the pain points.
2. Customers can be in different timezones. Since all the staff are at home, I can ask them to work at different times to suit customer needs. US based customers need frequent overlap at late nights. So some prefer to work late night, while working less during day. In a WFO scenario, most would leave by 6-7pm and they have already done their 8 hours.
3. Talent pool not limited to local area, state or even the country. I have people doing WFH from all over. And I can hire from anywhere. Since I measure based on output, I don't care if they moonlight or not.
4. Much lower attrition, I lost only one employee in the last two years.
5. WFH employees are willing to work for lesser salary since they really value the perk of WFH and their cost of living is lower by staying in smaller towns. After all salary is based on cost of living. Both employee and employer get what they want.

Even bigger companies can take advantage of the above benefits, provided they approach it systematically and in a phased manner. Build the culture, train the people to work in a result oriented way, do it at small team level, then build a collection of such teams.

However, culture is one of the hardest thing to change in a big company. That is like asking an oil super tanker to take a U-turn. Everyone has to work towards it, and it will take a long time.

[nareshov]

> There is no expectation difference between a US employees and an Indian one which is not fundamental to the role. I.e. if one works for a Bay Area tech company, one needs to be available till 11 PM for overlap. If you are not OK with this then don’t take up the role.

Having had the misfortune of dealing with such shenanigans in the past: the thing I didn’t understand at that time was
- what made the 11pm of the North American more important than that of the Indian worker? Isn’t the time difference 12 hours?
- North American offices tended to have the management layer (especially worse, in my biased opinion when that management is Indian who tends to give off that label that “Indian employees are super flexible”) and a handful of senior / MVP engineering employees (including a few indian ones)

> All over Indian professionals are regarded highly as we have a culture of getting things done despite unfavourable circumstances.

This is a rebranding exercise of exploitation for cases that have sadly become the norm for india because management likely sucks at keeping work during work hours. Plus the fact that labour in India is oh so ever abundant that we expect this to be the rule than the exception and display amazement when countries in Europe exhibit the opposite attitude.

> More recently folks are making a noise on WFH / relaxed working. There are profiles for that but don’t expect big money. One can’t have a cake and eat it too.

I see a lot of examples above about lazy or inconsiderate or inefficient WfH preferring employees. Have we considered the other end of the spectrum? Those who’re not burnt out and have actually gotten better at their skills because they’re not always called for “flexible” work (overtime) and can actually dictate their demands against a supply of businesses who’re happy to offer WfH (and those who’ve been WfH-first businesses - albeit in the minority - way before covid)?

[landmaster18]

Thank God I don't work for IT. Reading most of this was very difficult to wrap my head around!

I work in research & analysis. Policies I help shape inform the global narrative since they go directly to the highest level of decision making and there is a specific kind of thrill and satisfaction to it.

WFH by default is avoided in my line of work and we do not have any provisions for it. I am glad for it though because I've seen the lines blurring far too much during the COVID induced ones. So there you go, an alternate view from a different sector

[avira_tk]

Originally Posted by nareshov

>

> More recently folks are making a noise on WFH / relaxed working. There are profiles for that but don’t expect big money. One can’t have a cake and eat it too.

You're going around in circles on this, the small(er) money is enough for those who chose to work remote. The cake here is quality of life, not the big money, which comes with strings attached. In the 90s they used to say 50 lakhs per year and a heart attack at 50, update the numbers adjusting for inflation and lifestyle diseases and you get why people might value not wasting 4 hours a day in traffic or half their lives paying for a flat in some godforsaken suburb in a strange city.

There is no shortage of half baked garbage from journos who've never worked in IT services lecturing us on the importance collaboration, innovation and ideation, they've never heard of specifications or an SLA. The real advantage with wfh is that there is ethnic day or project party where you have to pony up twice the allowed budget personally to get off work a little early and eat at some grubby restaurant.

[charanreddy]

Originally Posted by nareshov

>
Having had the misfortune of dealing with such shenanigans in the past: the thing I didn’t understand at that time was
- what made the 11pm of the North American more important than that of the Indian worker? Isn’t the time difference 12 hours?
- North American offices tended to have the management layer (especially worse, in my biased opinion when that management is Indian who tends to give off that label that “Indian employees are super flexible”) and a handful of senior / MVP engineering employees (including a few indian ones)

I am surprised I have to spell it out. Its because an Indian IT guy works for an American company and not the vice-versa. American companies who pay the bills, choose to work with Indian IT companies as they get talent at significant savings (Not necessarily cheap, but much better than what they pay a US worker). If you value your evenings, aspire for roles from APAC or Europe or better Indian companies like Flipkart, Phonepe, Bharatpe. However these come with their own challenges. I have a few ex-colleagues who joined Indian companies only to be shouted at by their managers in filthiest language..

Like I said I have been at the receiving end of NRI managers who think they are superior to us Indian employees. But I have also worked with some brilliant Indian managers / partners who I look up to as role models. But on a average, you have more Indian managers showing their insecurities by being more obnoxious.

Originally Posted by nareshov

This is a rebranding exercise of exploitation for cases that have sadly become the norm for india because management likely sucks at keeping work during work hours. Plus the fact that labour in India is oh so ever abundant that we expect this to be the rule than the exception and display amazement when countries in Europe exhibit the opposite attitude.

We can't escape market realities due to a misplaced sense of idealism or entitlement. It is true that work force in India is abundant in non-specialized roles. If one belongs to the role, it is better to bite the humble pie and try to stay relevant. If you belong to a sought after skill / role, then the circumstances are more in your favor and you can negotiate your work hours to an extent. IMHO, the catch is that we think by taking a certain stand (work only from 9 - 5 ?), everything will fall into place. It won't. Companies that pay the big bucks will find alternatives that work for them.

Originally Posted by nareshov

I see a lot of examples above about lazy or inconsiderate or inefficient WfH preferring employees. Have we considered the other end of the spectrum? Those who’re not burnt out and have actually gotten better at their skills because they’re not always called for “flexible” work (overtime) and can actually dictate their demands against a supply of businesses who’re happy to offer WfH (and those who’ve been WfH-first businesses - albeit in the minority - way before covid)?

Fair enough. For each his own, but the above scenario may work only for a small set of people. I currently manage a small team who are primarily WFH based out of multiple EU countries. It currently works well due to the professionalism displayed and as in the past these folks had a good working relationship with partners. I can't / don't see this working at a larger scale in steady state by default.

In my personal case, I believe I have done much better during Covid where I was WFH. But in the current scenario where offices have opened up, I believe continued WFH will hamper my ability to adapt to the new realities of my field / limit impact I can generate (I work in Analytics / Data science BTW). By extension, my team suffers as well.

Some other fields / companies may be more open to a permanent WFH. For eg. I know Dell continues to be primarily WFH.

Originally Posted by landmaster18

Thank God I don't work for IT. Reading most of this was very difficult to wrap my head around!

I work in research & analysis. Policies I help shape inform the global narrative since they go directly to the highest level of decision making and there is a specific kind of thrill and satisfaction to it.

Do you work in the Research & Analysis "Wing" (RAW)? That'd be so cool

If I understand your job right, you may be working in 'IT' already..

Originally Posted by avira_tk

You're going around in circles on this, the small(er) money is enough for those who chose to work remote. The cake here is quality of life, not the big money, which comes with strings attached. In the 90s they used to say 50 lakhs per year and a heart attack at 50, update the numbers adjusting for inflation and lifestyle diseases and you get why people might value not wasting 4 hours a day in traffic or half their lives paying for a flat in some godforsaken suburb in a strange city.

No I am not. It depends on personal situation and personal choices. And those choices have consequences. All I am saying is don't bank on the status-quo and be prepared for some volatility, especially if you go against the tide.

IMHO, If I was 50+ years old, settled in my life with retirement finances mostly accounted for, I will take what you proposed : that less paying job and optimize for peace of mind Vs earning ability. Infact god willing I intend to do it.

But I believe we have not evolved to a point where one can do what you proposed, if you are just starting in your career or have not made your pile..

Another way to think of it is this : For a person to live a good quality life (not extravagant) in India, a certain level of income is needed which cannot come from part-time or contract jobs. In US or EU countries, this is not the case. In EU especially, the govt. virtually guarantees a basic quality of life even if one doesnt work. Won't fly in India with the ever rising cost of living and inflation which discourages or devalues 'old' money. I expect this trend will become more visible and have greater effect in the future.

[avira_tk]

Originally Posted by charanreddy

No I am not. It depends on personal situation and personal choices. And those choices have consequences. All I am saying is don't bank on the status-quo and be prepared for some volatility, especially if you go against the tide.

IMHO, If I was 50+ years old, settled in my life with retirement finances mostly accounted for, I will take what you proposed : that less paying job and optimize for peace of mind Vs earning ability. Infact god willing I intend to do it.

But I believe we have not evolved to a point where one can do what you proposed, if you are just starting in your career or have not made your pile..

Another way to think of it is this : For a person to live a good quality life (not extravagant) in India, a certain level of income is needed which cannot come from part-time or contract jobs. In US or EU countries, this is not the case. In EU especially, the govt. virtually guarantees a basic quality of life even if one doesnt work. Won't fly in India with the ever rising cost of living and inflation which discourages or devalues 'old' money. I expect this trend will become more visible and have greater effect in the future.

A good quality of life is possible with a not so good IT job if your home is paid for, this is mostly achieved with savings from onsite opportunities. The chances of getting anywhere near that level of income in India is non existent.

I'm not pushing for contract /gig jobs, just saying that steady income outside a metro isn't a nightmare scenario. Everyone doesn't enjoy the loneliness and lack of a social network that comes from being away from home. I'm not proposing getting a pay cut and choosing peace of mind. I'm saying that you can stay in your native place, take care of your responsibilities and keep a regular job. This is not a new phenomenon, it existed a decade ago, people have lives outside their jobs and choose to keep their jobs as a source of income.

Those who have a great career won't bother with this, they can afford the big city and freshers need to be at work as they have zero leverage and when you're young, the big city life is appealing.

[Jaguar]

Originally Posted by charanreddy

Though I agree with your observations on a few Indian managers based out of US, by and large I differ from your views.

As long as sufficient notice is given professionals from any part of the world are equally likely to stretch. I have worked for MNCs all my life, primarily with people in US and Europe. I have had managers based out of US, Europe and reportees as well. There is no expectation difference between a US employees and an Indian one which is not fundamental to the role. I.e. if one works for a Bay Area tech company, one needs to be available till 11 PM for overlap. If you are not OK with this then don’t take up the role. All over Indian professionals are regarded highly as we have a culture of getting things done despite unfavourable circumstances. More recently folks are making a noise on WFH / relaxed working. There are profiles for that but don’t expect big money. One can’t have a cake and eat it too.

nareshov has already answered these very well, I am just adding a couple of my points.

The narrative of being available till midnight is set by Indian managers and IT Services companies. Yes, there needs to be some overlap, but the stretch has to come from both sides. I have had the fortune of working with some good companies and leaders who have shown how this can be managed effectively.

While I agree that foreigners too stretch but you yourself have pointed out that is "if given sufficient notice" whereas we are expected to be available always. In my experience mainly with US people, the techies are generally more willing to work with our time zones compared to the business folks. The Indian managers in the US, especially the ones who migrated from services companies, are the least flexible.

Originally Posted by avira_tk

A good quality of life is possible with a not so good IT job if your home is paid for, this is mostly achieved with savings from onsite opportunities. The chances of getting anywhere near that level of income in India is non existent.

Originally Posted by avira_tk

the small(er) money is enough for those who chose to work remote. The cake here is quality of life, not the big money, which comes with strings attached.

You answered yourself earlier

Good quality of life is very much possible here. It is easier if one lives in smaller cities where they already have their homes/land, etc and the cost of living is lower. But I believe it is still possible in bigger cities with a decent IT job and no onsite savings.

[V.Narayan]

Microsoft survey suggests bosses think workers do less from home, but employees disagree

https://www.wionews.com/world/micros...isagree-519040

Excerpts...

While 87 per cent of employees said that working from home increased their productivity, 80 per cent of supervisors didn't concur. In 11 different nations, the poll questioned more than 20,000 employees.

Satya Nadella, the CEO of Microsoft, told the BBC that this tension needed to be handled because it was unlikely that companies would ever revert to their pre-pandemic working practices.

"We have to get past what we describe as 'productivity paranoia' because all of the data we have shows that 80 per cent plus of the individual people feel they're very productive — except their management thinks that they're not productive. That means there is a real disconnect in terms of the expectations and what they feel," says Nadella.

We are witnessing the biggest change in work practices in a very long time all driven by technology. The generation that was born in the 1990s and later who are recent entrants to the work force all grew up with internet and mobile devices as a given. The impact of this on their thinking and attitudes is yet unfolding. Like it or loathe it it is happening and you can't put the genie back into the bottle. Add to that the gig work force, especially the high end gig professional armed with a powerful computer in his/her hand eternally connected to the whole world and boy we have change coming. IT security & work force discipline remain the two big issues amongst others with no easy answers.

The multiple workable options that will emerge will have to be ones that reasonably meet the needs of the employee, the employer {entrepreneur} and most importantly the customer. I suspect many on this forum will vehemently disagree with Satya.

[androdev]

Survey outcome depends on how questions are worded. They should have started the manager survey with something like “with all the potential savings from avoiding expenses facilities lease, etc. our organisation will be able to afford better bonuses to managers” :-) Managers have no incentives to work from home - they tend be unwelcome at home and insecure without being in office. Engineers on the other hand are very happy to be left alone to focus on what they are building. Good ones are never insecure and get a great kick out of building stuff. Most of my productive hours used to be during non-office hours when I was an individual contributor.

[Samurai]

https://www.dailydot.com/irl/worker-...ffice-culture/

Looks like culture days are not working as expected...

[comfortablynumb]

Originally Posted by androdev

Survey outcome depends on how questions are worded.....

OT:

Very true, as proved by the irrepressible Sir Humphrey Appleby in this hilarious chapter/episode of Yes Prime Minister.

https://youtu.be/ahgjEjJkZks

[am1m]

A lot of people have complained about employees slacking off when working remotely. I don't doubt that happens in some cases, but just occurred to me the reverse can happen often as well. Yes, the point has already been made several times that work hours get extended a lot more when working remotely than when logging off at an office, but what I'm referring to is the anxiety to deliver something everyday to show that you're still relevant and contributing.

When I used to go in to the office pre-covid, there were days and even the odd week when I admit all I did was attend a few useless meetings in person. Everyone in those meetings knew they were useless meetings, but the boss was there, so all good. They saw you, they knew you were clued-in. Past two and a half years working remote, I've become aware of an anxiety that I need to be delivering/completing something at least once in a few days. Which has translated into even taking extra tasks I would not have felt the need to do while going in to an office to work. Otherwise how do I show I'm still plugged-in. Thankfully it hasn't come to sending unnecessary mails at odd-hours just to show I'm online (and the day that happens, I should stop working!), but you get the gist. Can cut both ways.

[roy_libran]

Ministry of Commerce & Industry Notification Dt. 9th Dec '22
https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1882070


Salient points:

• WFH can be provided to upto 100% of all employees of the SEZ unit.
• WFH permitted upto 31.12.2023.

Let's now see what happens with archaic (people) management mindsets plaguing many industries.