114
‘Grand Theft Auto’ Maker Rockstar Games Asks Workers to Return to Office Five Days a Week
(www.bloomberg.com)
this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2024
114 points (96.0% liked)
Games
16689 readers
354 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
IDK, I value in office work for ~2 days/week, in person collaboration just generally works better for certain things. But I also get less of my own work done when in the office, so a mix is usually best.
And that's what my company's policy is: soft two-days in office, hard three days remote. We have four remote team members out of 20 or so, and we fly them out every few months for a week at a time for project kickoffs and whatnot.
But five days in office mandatory makes no sense. The only explanation imo is a lack of trust from management of their employees, and that's not a productive environment to be in. If you don't trust your employee, why do you keep paying them? Build a team based on trust and let the team decide their office schedule.
You can value it, but that doesn't mean it should be mandatory for everyone. When I have to go to the office my day is lost, not just because I'm not productive in the office, but also because I can't do anything for myself. Also half of my team works 8 timezones away, our manager lives 4 timezones away, unless half the team gets on a transatlantic plane the more tram won't be in the same office, how is making people go to two different offices in three different timezones twice a week going to help collaboration?
That's why I said this:
It seems your team was not put together with the intention of working in an office, so it would not make sense to require your team to come to the office.
My team has decided that in-office work is valuable, so we only hire locally or pay to relocate people. We do have four full remote team members, and those exist because of extenuating circumstances (two need to work with customers in their region, and two have legal/family obligations), and we fly them out every few months at company expense (e.g. for project kickoff meetings). But the rest of our 20-ish people live locally.
We have two other teams in two different time zones (one in Europe, one in Asia; we're in the US) that are part of the overall team, and they meet in their respective regions. We do remote sync calls with them, but otherwise they are independent.
If your work doesn't benefit from in-office collaboration, there's no reason to come into an office. Ours does, so we do. But at the end of the day, it should be the team that decides, not management.
I absolutely appreciate that schedule works for you and can see the personal benefits. However, we have such a diversified work force thanks to things like complete remote, I still would like for companies to error on the side of what provides the best performance and quality of life.
I understand that's a utopian ideal and don't expect it to ever be reality, just wish that it would be manifested better before I once again see amazing talent lost to middle managements inability to evolve. Especially in markets that this type of action should be entirely voluntary.
The thing is, our office work policy comes from our team, not management. In fact, our company policy is 3 days in office, but we, as a team, decided we're less productive with that policy (we tried it for a month) and our VP overrode company policy for us.
Some people come in every day, some work full remote (due to extenuating circumstances), but most come in 2 days/week. If we're sick, need to be home (e.g. having a handyman come fix stuff), or need to be out of town for an extended time, we stay home. In fact, one coworker has been full remote for a few months because her dog is prone to having seizures and she needs to be present to help reduce harm until she can find a treatment that helps. It's a non-issue.
The expectation is just that, as much as possible, come in on the two days the team has agreed on so collaboration can happen. Most of the team does that most of the time, and when we can't, we just leave a note. Likewise, if we need to go to an appointment, leave a note that you'll be out for an hour or two and take care of it.
It's a super flexible and bottom-up policy, and it works really well. The important thing is that it's a team decision. I think it has resulted in us liking spending time together, so we periodically do team activities outside of work (funded by the company of course), and nobody is obligated to attend (but most do).
Wrong. Enjoy the downvotes
I don't get it, how is my personal opinion wrong? I'm talking about my preferences...
Your opinion is wrong
You'll get downvoted here but I agree with you, personally I get value out of 2 days a week in office. Otherwise I become antisocial and a bit of a hermit.
However, that's just me, and anymore and I wouldn't be productive. The important thing is that it should be a team level decision (NOT a top down decision) and hopefully a personal one. How people find that they're most productive should be up to them.
I've never understood any arguments against that. It always boils down to "But how do we know they're working" which means "I am an incapable manager who doesn't know how to manage"
Exactly. The main difference between my office and Rockstar in the article is that ours was a bottom up decision, whereas Rockstar's was a top down one.
In fact, our company policy is 3 days in office, but our team tried it and decided we're less productive that way, so our VP overrode company policy to go back to 2 days. We're not expected to come in if we need to stay for some reason (e.g. waiting on furniture delivery or the car isn't working). In fact, one coworker hasn't come to the office for months because her dog is prone to seizures and she needs to be there to intervene so he doesn't hurt himself. Several of my coworkers are immigrants and work remotely for a month or more at a time when they go back to their home country. I've done the same when I visit family out of state. Some coworkers come in every day because they get distracted at home.
It's a totally nontoxic atmosphere where everyone is treated like adults. Our current policy came from a team vote where most voted for 2 days in office, so that's what we do. And as long as people don't abuse the flexibility, there's no reason for it to change, and in my 3-ish years working here, I've only had to have one conversation about the in-office policy (my coworker was working from home due to their car being in the shop, but after a month it was becoming abuse of the policy; a gentle reminder later and it hasn't been a problem since).
Nail on the head with "abuse the flexibility". I see so many companies cancel wfh and flexible policies because "we had a person abuse it" or they're worried about it. So correct them if they abuse it! That's Management's job. If the rule is 2 days in office and they don't do that, then you revoke wfh for them. If they aren't getting work done on time then talk with them and come up with a corrective plan. If they still don't then you let them go. You don't remove the policy company wide and destroy morale because one person abused it. You let them go and codify your rules about it.
Exactly! We expect each team member to be responsible for their own work and not be micromanaged.
I'm a manager, and if I have to micromanage someone, I'd rather just fire them and hire someone more responsible. It's not fair to the team to keep someone like that around, and fortunately we've only had to do it twice in the three years I've been here (they had plenty of warning). The rest are incredibly responsible and need practically no oversight, just a confidential reminder once or twice a year (if that) if they're not following team expectations.
I spend half my time working with my team, and the other half keeping them out of meetings. I personally prefer remote work and try to eliminate useless meetings so in-office time is actually worthwhile. Most of our meetings end early, and I'm trying to get them even shorter.
A great attitude. A manager should micromanage only as a last resort, and only for a set duration to see if the employee improves or not. Micromanagement is not a long term strategy, it's a waste of everyone's time. Kudos to you, it sounds like you're head is right where it should be.
I certainly hope those who work under me see it the same way.
I have no "business" experience or special training, so I just try to be the kind of manager that I wanted earlier in my career. I honestly don't like managing people, I just do it because I don't want someone who enjoys that kind of thing to take that job (those are the micro-managing types IMO).