Some things really can't be changed on the local level. Take forced arbitration in contracts for example. This was made possible by a federal law passed in the 1920's, and further cemented by a series of supreme court rulings in the past couple of decades. No amount of desire or political will by individual states can ban the practice. The federal law trumps all, and this must be changed at the national level.
Sure. There are a large number of items that are national law that can have great change. But the average persons ability to impact those things is very very very small. The average persons ability to impact their own local politics and make change is much much much larger than many think.
Not my experience at all. I've been having trouble finding remote jobs, much less remote jobs offering anything in the same universe as the 20 year Silicon Valley career I left behind.
Ha. I said I was moving to another city, can I work remote from there? No. So I handed in my notice and moved. And this was at a company that proudly trumpeted to the press that they were "virtual first" and has been remote since Covid started last spring.
Even when talking about the negative effects of commuting on you and your kids, you frame it in terms of the productivity impact on your employer. Man, talk about Stockholm syndrome.
Productivity is not the end all be all. It's ok to look out for yourself.
Agreed. Too many companies are bragging about how much $ they raised in their last round. Too few are sharing the $ they plan to offer for the job they're trying so hard to fill.
Regarding the advice in your link, how can an employee trust their manager when they're trying to get them to open up like a therapist, while at the same time gathering notes to use as "evidence" in an annual review? This is an inherent conflict of interests, and I've always regretted revealing any difficulties to managers. It usually comes back to bite me, as in "doesn't work well with others," or getting passed over for tech lead because I expressed doubts about my leadership abilities.
Speaking as another engineering manager, the advice in that link is pretty shallow. I think it encourages a rapport that feels efficient for the manager but is plain insubstantial for the report.
> I have found 30 minutes is the ideal length of time. Longer meetings tend to lead to us talking about normal day-to-day work, or going off topic altogether.
Compare this bit of advice to Andy Groves's, the former CEO of Intel and big evangelist of 1:1's:
> "I feel that a one-on-one should last an hour at minimum. Anything less, in my experience, tends to make the subordinate confine himself to simple things that can be handled quickly.” [1]
People need time to express themselves; to air their resentments, frustrations, disappointments, disillusionments. Cutting a report off before they can tell you what's really on their minds or in their hearts, does not seem like "quality 1:1 time" to me. Or at least not in the context of managing high performing knowledge workers.
