[waltherg]

I've heard two C-level guys with two separate German SMEs say that the only part of their workforce that hadn't handled remote work well was middle management.

The people doing the actual work were happy WFH and simply getting stuff done. Senior management / C-level types were content seeing sales figures and general output from afar.

Middle management struggled because they had a hard time judging work estimates for tasks and whether people had their butts in seats etc.

Just an anecdote but thought that was intriguing.

[delusional]

One of the execs of the bank I work at made a public statement that they actually saw the productive output of the IT organization shoot up during the WFH weeks here in Denmark.

But of course middle management didn't agree so now we are back in the office.

[WalterBright]

> the productive output of the IT organization shoot up during the WFH weeks

Should be careful about projecting that to the long term. During WW2, to increase production, the workweek was increased to 50 hours. Production went up substantially. But after 2 or 3 months, productivity dropped back below the 40 hour week. With subsequent experimentation, they found they could get sustained production increases by alternating between 40 and 50 hour weeks.

It's premature to declare victory for WFH. There can be long term deleterious effects:

1. the excitement and newness of WFH wears off, and the boredom and loneliness of it sets in

2. one loses connection with one's colleagues

3. one loses the serendipity of chance encounters and lunches with colleagues

4. you don't know your boss and he doesn't know you

We'll see.

[Loughla]

The issue is, all of your 4 points can be overcome with just one intervention - communication.

WFH relies on communication, in multiple modes, more times a day than working in an office. Failure to do that will lead to issues.

[WalterBright]

Out of sight, out of mind.

[donretag]

"they had a hard time judging work estimates"

They had a hard time justifying their existence.

[Havoc]

Yeah definitely. It's almost like an enforced maker schedule.

In workloads that are more collaborative it's less clear though.

>people doing the actual work were happy WFH and simply getting stuff done.

I felt the same effect in my personal productivity too (real or not). Not convinced it worked on a team level. More duplication, more teams doing incompatible work etc. Sure getting stuff done...just the wrong stuff half the time (and very proud of their productivity!). Ironically resulted in me micromanaging them more (remotely) because the organic/grassroots collaboration & coordination is just gone.

[nell]

No surprise here. This is because middle management is tasked with converting meeting room decisions to actionable work. Both ends of the chain - executives and ICs can operate independently. The intermediaries need twice the number of personal interactions to get work done.

[nautilus12]

Maybe more of a statement about the necessity of middle management..

[geomark]

Yeah. Eliminate middle management and just have the C-levels do all the hiring, work assignments, perfomance reviews, pay raises... you know, all that worthless stuff that middle managers do.

[findyoucef]

Guess we found a middle manager.

[geomark]

You guessed wrong. I was the owner of my business, and I'm glad I did not have 80 direct reports.

[qu4ku]

'face-to-face meetings are a justification for middle management to exist'

[rodgerd]

The frozen middle is real.