Sure, the headline of the article that's summarizing the study is obvious
Is this obvious?
> The study finds that when managers at a national retail chain failed to deliver birthday greetings on time, it resulted in a 50% increase in absenteeism and a reduction of more than two working hours per month.
Unfortunately it seems like it costs $20 to access the actual paper but I'm guessing it's more interesting than your snark warrants. I mean, maybe. Maybe it's a bad study too, who knows.
If only it were Surprisingly Obvious. IME there are a large number of emotionally stunted middle and upper managers that could use a pedigreed reminder that being a jerk at work is not good for anything in the end.
When I was in university I took a lot of courses in management science, which is basically a lot of applied psychology, and learned a lot of stuff like this.
Then I went out into industry and watched as all these principles about managing employees effectively were ignored, or at best received lip service.
It led me to the conclusion that actually effectively managing employees to motivate better performance wasn't a priority. Not in the top ten anyway.
Most corporations and therefore managers operate using resource extraction principles. How do I extract maximum labour from this resource at lowest cost?
The 'R' in HR always bothered me, and others judging by the companies that used nomenclature like 'talent' or 'people'.
However that was whitewash. Underneath the nomenclature resource extraction continued unimpeded.
The irony being that treating people like resources is counterproductive and hurts performance.
Companies extracted the illusion of more resources, more hours, while productivity largely plateaued or decreased.
Somehow corporations expected to hire smart people, smart enough to do an intellectually challenging and technical job, and not have them do the math that the additional pay for performance generally amortized lower than the hourly rate, and that by doing more employees were actually lowering their effective hourly rate -- i.e. discounting labour for the employer.
The wag in me would observe the reason companies were so eager to portray everyone as family is that's the only model where this is marginally acceptable. Family taking advantage of family, like a family farm. Working more hours to get paid less certainly doesn't work as a business model for the employees. They'd be better off with a second salaried job -- and there were apocryphal stories about employees doing actually that, hanging up a coat on the door hook, throwing a newspaper on their desk, then leaving to go to their other job.
This is all observational and anecdotal however, but over a three decade career with a dozen plus companies, some of them Fortune N (where 20 <= N <= 500) in both contractor, IC, senior leadership and C-level roles.
> Would the people who need such a reminder actually accept the research, and change their behavior?
No. They will give you formal discipline for raising such concerns regardless of your professionalism in doing so and ultimately lay you off for being a squeaky wheel. Ask me how I know.
> Are they even aware of the effects of their behavior?
This is the better question to be asking, IMO. Many are aware of the effect and either don’t care or find enjoyment from it, while many more have no clue why their star worker has dropped the ball after being denied a raise or promotion three years running. There are a few who know the effects and are sympathetic, but they’re often in the position of facing similar retribution if they stand up for their workers, and so they don’t.
Sure, the headline of the article that's summarizing the study is obvious
Is this obvious?
> The study finds that when managers at a national retail chain failed to deliver birthday greetings on time, it resulted in a 50% increase in absenteeism and a reduction of more than two working hours per month.
Unfortunately it seems like it costs $20 to access the actual paper but I'm guessing it's more interesting than your snark warrants.
Justworks | Hybrid (US: New York City, Canada: Toronto) | Full-time | Multiple roles | https://justworks.com/careers
Justworks is helping businesses get off the ground by enabling them to focus on running their business. We solve HR issues. We’re data-driven and never stop iterating. And, we are hiring across the board! If you’d like to work in a supportive and entrepreneurial environment, are interested in building something meaningful, and having fun while doing it, we’d love to hear from you!
Justworks | Hybrid (US: New York City, Canada: Toronto) | Full-time | Multiple roles | https://justworks.com/careers
Justworks is helping businesses get off the ground by enabling them to focus on running their business. We solve HR issues. We’re data-driven and never stop iterating. And, we are hiring across the board! If you’d like to work in a supportive, entrepreneurial environment, are interested in building something meaningful and having fun while doing it, we’d love to hear from you!
I’ve worked with programmers in Spain and have limited salary information. They are definitely much lower compared to, say, New York. However, cost of living in Madrid was nowhere near New York. For example, I could get a beer and ham sandwich at Museo del Jamon for about 2€. Compare that to paying $15 for a salad.
Sure, the cost of living is way lower, but given the ability of working remotely for companies abroad, there shouldn't be such a large gap. I think (and hope) it's a matter of time for most developers to realize how many opportunities there are for working remotely with better economical conditions, and along with that local businesses will have to up their game as well.
“worst choice of career” rings of hyperbole. For many it’s a ticket out of their current career. For all their flaws, boot camps and Lambda School are popular for a reason.
“ AstraZeneca, which has pledged it won’t make a profit on the vaccine during the pandemic, has reached agreements with governments and international health organizations that put its price at about $2.50 a dose. Pfizer’s vaccine costs about $20 a dose, while Moderna’s is $15 to $25, based on agreements the companies have struck to supply their vaccines to the U.S. government.”
And:
“ The vaccine can be transported under “normal refrigerated conditions” of 2 to 8 degrees Celsius (36 to 46 degrees Fahrenheit), AstraZeneca said. By comparison, Pfizer plans to distribute its vaccine using specially designed “thermal shippers” that use dry ice to maintain temperatures of minus-70 degrees Celsius (minus-94 degrees Fahrenheit).”
Important differentiating factor from Pfizer’s vaccine:
“... Moderna said researchers had found that its vaccine had a longer shelf life in the refrigerator than previously thought: 30 days, not seven. And it will last 12 hours at room temperature, the company said.”
This will be key I think. When I saw the details of the cold chain required for the Pfizer vaccine I was fairly certain it was only going to be for front-line workers and those with direct access to a hospital, not something distributed at schools and pharmacies.
reply