No, that's watered down to the point that you are almost not saying anything.
The takeaway from the article, stated more bluntly, is that if you can be flexible on the hours, then you can have (1)-(3) for cheap by hiring artists or other people who need or want flexible hours.
To bad managers, it's only about money, but it has been very well documented for a long time that beyond a certain point, salary is not particularly important to a lot of people.
It is also well documented that most employees do value things like flexible working hours, a few extra days of annual leave, and real support for training in new tools and skills to keep up to date. We also tend to get offended when companies try to take over life outside work in one way or another. Much of this comes down to maintaining a healthy work-life balance, so employees can enjoy the lifestyle they prefer without work interfering unnecessarily.
Smart managers recognise this reality, set their working conditions accordingly, and reap the rewards. It's just a shame there are so few smart managers around.
But I think that so often the 'options' management offer to work/life balance are barely more than token concessions. This guy talks about accepting weeks on end of leave at only 24 hours' notice.
It's a world away from "come in after 9:30am" or "here's a laptop and a phone, now ur never not at work"
Bad managers actually think they're being generous with allowing staff to move their day forward or backward by a half-hour to avoid the worst of the traffic. This demonstrates such a staggering lack of perspective that it could be a Dunning-Kruger case study.
Good managers, meanwhile, start from the premise that as long as the employee is making a reasonable effort, getting the job done, and not putting any other aspect of the business at unnecessary risk of harm, working arrangements can be whatever everyone is comfortable with.
Basically, bad managers default to saying "no" on work-life balance issues, while good managers default to saying "yes" and will say "no" only when they have a clear business reason for refusing.
Comments
No, that's watered down to the point that you are almost not saying anything.
The takeaway from the article, stated more bluntly, is that if you can be flexible on the hours, then you can have (1)-(3) for cheap by hiring artists or other people who need or want flexible hours.
Indeed, the company offering 80k per year likely thought it was hitting all of the above points.
Yeah, to a corporation (and many - or most - business minds,) money is just about all there is in terms of "looking after" someone.
I think that's an unfair generalisation.
To bad managers, it's only about money, but it has been very well documented for a long time that beyond a certain point, salary is not particularly important to a lot of people.
It is also well documented that most employees do value things like flexible working hours, a few extra days of annual leave, and real support for training in new tools and skills to keep up to date. We also tend to get offended when companies try to take over life outside work in one way or another. Much of this comes down to maintaining a healthy work-life balance, so employees can enjoy the lifestyle they prefer without work interfering unnecessarily.
Smart managers recognise this reality, set their working conditions accordingly, and reap the rewards. It's just a shame there are so few smart managers around.
But I think that so often the 'options' management offer to work/life balance are barely more than token concessions. This guy talks about accepting weeks on end of leave at only 24 hours' notice.
It's a world away from "come in after 9:30am" or "here's a laptop and a phone, now ur never not at work"
Exactly.
Bad managers actually think they're being generous with allowing staff to move their day forward or backward by a half-hour to avoid the worst of the traffic. This demonstrates such a staggering lack of perspective that it could be a Dunning-Kruger case study.
Good managers, meanwhile, start from the premise that as long as the employee is making a reasonable effort, getting the job done, and not putting any other aspect of the business at unnecessary risk of harm, working arrangements can be whatever everyone is comfortable with.
Basically, bad managers default to saying "no" on work-life balance issues, while good managers default to saying "yes" and will say "no" only when they have a clear business reason for refusing.
You are saying then that corporations are missing (quote):
And all you have to do, is not destroy the whole reason you want to hire them.
Thanks. I like your summary better. :)