[vj_torqueaddict]

We have been WFH from 2020. Our founders are committed to it even now. Infact it's a selling point for our company. 83 percent of work force is remote, meaning they don't go to office. Our head count is 10k. You know why it works for us. TRUST! Our company culture is built on strong values and trust. For example - if I skip a meeting nobody asks me or pings me if I am joining. Very few who are new into this system do that, but then they eventually realise not to do it, because we always assume good intent. I can go on and on. Point is WFH works for true blue knowledge workers if Leadership is taught right. It trickles down from the top.

Peace!

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by vj_torqueaddict

We have been WFH from 2020. Our founders are committed to it even now.

As a founder who has done 50% WFH since 2010 and 100% WFH since 2020, I can say that the commitment is never towards WFH or WFO. At the level of the founders, it is always about what works for you, and what doesn't.

Few posts ago RiderZone questioned whether top management knows if WFH is productive or not. At project level, it is impossible to know. I have seen enough attempt over 30+ years to know there is no standard way to measure it. Last year I was talking to an ex-colleague who had joined TCS, only to quit after an year. I asked why he left TCS, he said they measured performance using Jira tickets.

My recent musings on measuring productivity can be seen here:

https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/shift...ml#post5594398 (Work From Home (WFH): Is this the future for many?)
https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/shift...ml#post5640769 (Jobs, Attrition & Layoffs in IT companies)

But the founders or top management have access to balance sheet. We usually have a bird's eye view of if something is working or not, by looking at the ebb and flood of revenue. That is followed by SWOT analysis, which happens on an informal basis very regularly.

Service companies often are forced to do unproductive stuff just to appease the customers, thereby improve revenue. That would often make the employees assume that their management is stupid. For example, a senior manager at a services MNC admitted to me that Scaled Agile Framework is simply a waste of time. But they make all their staff certified in SAFe. When I asked why, he said it is a common customer requirement, barring that they can't even bid for the projects. Unfortunately, some of those trained staff start believing in it, which spreads the practice even further.

This is similar to the enforcement of DEI requirements by customers. The vendor management is aware it doesn't necessarily improve productivity. But it enables the vendor to bid for projects, which brings revenue. Easy to measure that.

[saubi2299]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

I will confess some of the very large IT companies in India and in USA are not well organized when compared to a manufacturing company..

Work culture in India in general is not very organised. In government sector, WFH during COVID was interpreted as a holiday by most of our staff. Now there is a new normal, wherein the sincere ones are working from office during day time and working from home on weekends and late evenings, whereas bosses do not bother with chasing the mediocre ones for work at all. This has proven to be a disaster for sincere ones.
During the G20 meetings in India, we all worked with hardly 3-4 hours daily sleep for almost a week and were drained out. But when we look at other countries hosting these meetings, they are very much organised, roles clearly defined, and day ends well before evening. Only in Indian presidency of G20, meetings went continuously for 36 hours. Somehow, we start taking pride in working more without realising that the reason is our inefficiency.

[AirbusCapt]

Productivity will work only where it can be measured. Now what can be a measurable metric for say programming is left to be discussed. In the pre Y2K days it would be lines of code. With AI and machine learning is there a new concept to measure productivity?

If one needs to solve the WFH/WFO issue one must start the concept of productivity linked pay. In essense the more one works, the more he earns. This sort of system is now in place in airlines for crew salaries. Earlier pilots and crew used to get a fixed pay for 70 hours of flying. This used to result in frivolous report sick (since pay was protected). Today airlines have a small basic pay and a large variable (flying pay). So it costs heavily to report sick. For a productive crew his takehome has substantially increased, and most of the crew now dont report sick unless it is really needed.

If programmers start getting productivity linked salaries, it wouldnt matter if they work out of an office or a beach.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by AirbusCapt

Productivity will work only where it can be measured. Now what can be a measurable metric for say programming is left to be discussed. In the pre Y2K days it would be lines of code. With AI and machine learning is there a new concept to measure productivity?

No, there is no silver bullet for measuring productivity objectively. This is a mirage management has been chasing forever.

There are only subjective methods, which highly depends on the intuition of the person measuring. For example, good programmers can deliver code with least bugs, on schedule, most of the time. How to know someone is a good programmer? It takes other good programmers to know one. Like it takes a good musician to truly judge another good musician. Others can judge to some extent, if a programmer delivers least buggy code, on time, consistently. But even good programmers can run into design issues and bugs they cannot solve on time. That doesn't make them bad programmers or less productive. It takes another good programmer to understand the nuance of it.

However, the people usually in-charge of productivity measurements are non-techie managers, who think they can find holy grail. Programmers know it is a futile exercise.

[d.w.w.]

Originally Posted by AirbusCapt

If programmers start getting productivity linked salaries, it wouldnt matter if they work out of an office or a beach.

Unfortunately there is no fool proof way to measure productivity in IT. In most cases if you use your tongue more or write lengthy emails, managers(except a very few) tend to think you are more productive over others. And then comes 'credit-stealing' where you claim the credit of someone else's work.

Originally Posted by Samurai

For example, good programmers can deliver code with least bugs, on schedule, most of the time. How to know someone is a good programmer? It takes other good programmers to know one.

This is the truth. When most managers(who evaluate the programmer) come from non programming background, you can imagine what happens to those good programmers. There has been scenarios where the complexity of the work was measured by the number of bugs reported; the more bugs you create, the more benefits(hike/promotion) you get

[sridharj77]

All productivity, WFH/WFO and other issues will get solved if employers give stock options to their employees. Make everyone *owners* and then see the magic!

[m8002?]

Originally Posted by Samurai

No, there is no silver bullet for measuring productivity objectively. This is a mirage management has been chasing forever.

There are only subjective methods, which highly depends on the intuition of the person measuring. For example, good programmers can deliver code with least bugs, on schedule, most of the time. How to know someone is a good programmer? It takes other good programmers to know one. Like it takes a good musician to truly judge another good musician. Others can judge to some extent, if a programmer delivers least buggy code, on time, consistently. But even good programmers can run into design issues and bugs they cannot solve on time. That doesn't make them bad programmers or less productive. It takes another good programmer to understand the nuance of it.

However, the people usually in-charge of productivity measurements are non-techie managers, who think they can find holy grail. Programmers know it is a futile exercise.

Well said. I consider programming as part art part science and like all art/creative endeavors, its very difficult to come up with simple measuring scale. Judging programmers by Jira tickets/lines of code/defects is like judging an artist by number of drawings churned out.

Originally Posted by sridharj77

All productivity, WFH/WFO and other issues will get solved if employers give stock options to their employees. Make everyone *owners* and then see the magic!

This is another point that I have never understood especially in startups. It makes a lot of more sense to give shares to new joiners than 100-200% increments. You will then get people who really believe in your vision than the opportunists who are there just for the money.

[WhiteKnight]

Originally Posted by d.w.w.

This is the truth. When most managers(who evaluate the programmer) come from non programming background, you can imagine what happens to those good programmers. There has been scenarios where the complexity of the work was measured by the number of bugs reported; the more bugs you create, the more benefits(hike/promotion)

Well, that is a shocking statement! Are you saying most IT managers as born as managers, and did not come through the ranks? If that is the case, they should be the first to be fired before we discuss WFH/WFO.

I've not worked with IT service companies, but has worked over two decades with IT product organisations on various roles, mostly leading product teams. I ensure, me and my product managers can go deep tech, if needed.

Without deviating, my take is that in IT product sector majority understands tech, even the accountant does. Lack of understanding is an exception, not a norm. If it is no so with IT service sector, then that is the root cause for most of the issues we're discussing here.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by m8002?

This is another point that I have never understood especially in startups. It makes a lot of more sense to give shares to new joiners than 100-200% increments. You will then get people who really believe in your vision than the opportunists who are there just for the money.

Well, 90% of the startups fail in the first 5 years. Those ESOPs will be worthless. In the 10% remaining, a small fraction would go IPO, maybe in 10-15 years, how many employees can wait that long? It is simply not worth the risk for an employee, unless he/she is part of management.

Originally Posted by WhiteKnight

Well, that is a shocking statement! Are you saying most IT managers as born as managers, and did not come through the ranks? If that is the case, they should be the first to be fired before we discuss WFH/WFO.

Welcome to IT services 101.

In my stint in TCS, they thankfully rented me out to other companies over 80% time. I recall one incident from 1997 when I was in HP, I had 15 engineers in my team, few of them were rented from TCS. One such engineer with just 1.5 years experience was very cocky, he would argue on many technical aspects until he was proven wrong. While I don't mind such technical debates, it was getting tedious after a while. Few weeks later I overheard him talking on a phone at a cubicle far from his own. No mobile phones then, this was a desk phone. He was talking about his current assignment, to a friend. He didn't see me passing since his back was towards me. Then he says "for the first time in my career (just 1.5 years, duh) I have a boss who is more technical than me". He sounded puzzled, to have a team leader who was more technical than him. Knowing TCS, I was not puzzled at all. Most of them stop coding between 3-5 years of experience, and start doing clerical things. Few years later, they will start thinking of ways to measure productivity.

[am1m]

Originally Posted by sridharj77

All productivity, WFH/WFO and other issues will get solved if employers give stock options to their employees.

Was a good idea once. But with the number of startups these days, even relatively new employees are smart enough not to give up starting salaries in favor of stock options. I've had stock options in 2 startups so far and it's been worthless because both of those companies are still going nowhere. I'd never advise anyone to take stock in lieu of cash in hand. Stock can be a bonus.

Originally Posted by WhiteKnight

Without deviating, my take is that in IT product sector majority understands tech, even the accountant does.

Might have been the case a generation or so ago. But again, I've worked in product companies too and have encountered far too many "pure people managers" or people who have made their careers through agile or some such process/project management without being able to understand code or even tech. Mainly in the larger product companies. May not be a bad thing, because I've already said that the traits that make a good programmer are often diametrically opposite to what make a good people manager. But the problem arises when a manager who doesn't understand what their team does tries to measure productivity.

[d.w.w.]

Originally Posted by WhiteKnight

Well, that is a shocking statement! Are you saying most IT managers as born as managers, and did not come through the ranks?

I am referring to managers with non-programming background. Or if I rephrase the same to a question, it becomes "How many good programmers become managers?" The answer will be very few- most of them pick up architect roles and few become technical managers.

To understand more you need to know how people can raise through ranks in IT service industry. Let me give a personal example. While working for a WITCH company, there was this guy in the account who was into a mainframe project. He was never interested in tech job, so he straight away went to the PM and made a proposal - he is willing to do PM work. Those days the PMs delegate their work to designated juniors (and they say sharing of password is not allowed) and that guy was eyeing this role. The PM happily pulled him to PM jobs and his actual job was assigned to his teammates. People can happily stay in the same project for years if they are in the managers good books and no one is going to question the PMs decision. Once the time comes(read enough years of experience) they can easily move to PM roles as they are already doing the same job. Now when this guy becomes a manager of a development project, how is he going to measure the productivity or even identify a good programmer?

Originally Posted by WhiteKnight

Without deviating, my take is that in IT product sector majority understands tech, even the accountant does. Lack of understanding is an exception, not a norm.

I have worked in couple of product companies and the scenario is quite different. The organization culture demands that the manager is aware of the technical things going on in his team so that he can answer his bosses. You cant just answer I don't know or let me check with my team. But again going back to the same question - whether this guy can identify a good programmer? not always.

Lack of understanding was considered an exception, but now it has become a norm and people are shameless to accept it openly on high profile discussions. Last year we were evaluating options for migrating our applications and was on a RFP meeting with a technology top shot in a leading IT services company. This guys role is to understand the customers needs and suggest the appropriate product. We were referred a product, but we wanted to make sure it had all the capabilities we need. When we started asking the questions the answer was always the same -' I don't know, i have to ask the product expert'. I was literally shocked to hear this as he was supposed to be that technical expert. Made me wonder how he even managed to reach that spot he is in!

[V.Narayan]

No big achievement can come with work-life balance': CRED's Kunal Shah flags risk of Western concepts for India

https://www.msn.com/en-in/money/tops...94daf408&ei=30

Kunal Shah, the founder of fintech firm CRED, said he believes that India has imbibed the Western concepts of a 'chill life' before becoming a developed nation and said no big achievement can come from "work-life balance". "I am not saying it is not a choice you should not make - it is a personal choice. But as a country, we have to go a long way," he said in a podcast hosted by Myntra founder Mukesh Bansal.

"We see an extraordinary execution (in China). It's called 9-9-6 culture - 9 am to 9 pm, six days a week. And you see that progress. We cannot have the ambition of being a 10-20 trillion dollar economy and still expect that life should be chill," the CRED founder said, adding that India is a classic country that is confused.

In a podcast aired last week, Murthy said that India’s work productivity was among the lowest in the world and that in order to compete with countries like China, the country's youngsters must put in extra hours of work as Japan and Germany did after World War II. He said youngsters should work for 70 hours a week, which is 14 hours a day in a 5-day week.

Looks like NRN has company.

India’s productivity is low not because the young do not wish to work or do not put in long hours. Our productivity IMHO is low due to the extraordinary hurdles placed in our way by Govt agencies, by myriad rules, by supply chain bottlenecks, by Govt officials who hold things up for gratification or simply ego massaging, by law courts, by poor training at schools and colleges, shortage of competent vocational schools, feudal bosses and many more.

Because of high unemployment outside the Govt sector it is rare to find an Indian who will not bend backwards to retain his/her job. Poor productivity is due to this complex intermingling of factors and not just whipping the young to work 72 hours a week. And anyone, again IMHO who works 72 hours a day will soon be a case of “all work and no play makes Jitendra a dull boy”. This at least is my experience after having built/helped build two businesses of size in my career.

CRED by the way has a loss of 1047 crores on a revenue base of Rs 1484 crores!!!! Is CRED even a business or is it a cash guzzler chasing a paper valuation?

[NICHE]

All the entrepreneurs or the top executives will be happy if the regular employees sacrifice their personal time or entertainment and just keep on working to make the bosses richer. People should work to live, not live to work.

[Theyota]

I would personally take what is written about 70-hour work week from NRN and likes with a grain of salt. Primarily because I barely believe in what is interpreted by an incompetent journalist and what is written by a manipulative editorial staff of a media house to sensationalize a mundane story.

In all likelihood what NRN and the likes are saying is, we are far away from being developed country. Developed countries in the West or the East did not become developed by sitting and whining about work life balance all along. Previous generations in those countries have sweated out to rebuild their countries after whatever disasters they have had. The fruits of which are being borne by current generations. Therefore, we can only be expected to aim higher and work harder if we want to be anywhere near that level. I would think that the quoted number of hours in the news article is just a figurative way of saying the young should aim higher and work harder. I don’t think these guys would have been able to build the mammoth businesses they have built if they were to be the people they are being perceived to be in this thread.


Coming to the work culture even in Western Europe, in my experience it is only in the large unionized Companies there is a lot of talk about work life balance and all that. In the smaller companies and family owned businesses, most people work just as hard as anywhere else.