Activision Blizzard employees are being forced to return to the office soon, it’s claimed

Status
Not open for further replies.

TubzGaming

Admin | Mod
Moderating
21 Jun 2022
2,113
4,920
United Kingdom
icon-era.com
PSN ID
Tubz_Gaming
“Today, Activision and Blizzard announced a return to office plan to employees. It begins April/June, depending on the studio. The company will see a large reduction in force if this occurs.

“The majority of employees at ABK have no interest in returning to office either full or part time. This isn’t to say that nobody sees the value in an office environment, but we’ve overall decided the risks do not outweight those benefits.”

Activision-Call-of-Duty.jpg


 
  • Informative
Reactions: AniWeeb
D

Deleted member 417

Guest
Good. For many reasons, WFH should be only for a select few jobs, at a select few times. While most people will make excuses for why WFH is superior for companies (it isn't), those same people fail to realise that by championing WFH, they are signing their own resignation letters.

It has had a detrimental effect on the industry in terms of quality and quantity of shipped products. The sooner the industry returns to 'normal', the better.
 

avenovah

Veteran
8 Jan 2023
640
785
“Today, Activision and Blizzard announced a return to office plan to employees. It begins April/June, depending on the studio. The company will see a large reduction in force if this occurs.

“The majority of employees at ABK have no interest in returning to office either full or part time. This isn’t to say that nobody sees the value in an office environment, but we’ve overall decided the risks do not outweight those benefits.”

Activision-Call-of-Duty.jpg



Leftist. They/Them. BLM/1312/Abolish not Reform. Arm PoC/Trans People.
BINGO!
 

Satoru

Limitless
Founder
20 Jun 2022
6,790
10,223
Good. For many reasons, WFH should be only for a select few jobs, at a select few times. While most people will make excuses for why WFH is superior for companies (it isn't), those same people fail to realise that by championing WFH, they are signing their own resignation letters.

It has had a detrimental effect on the industry in terms of quality and quantity of shipped products. The sooner the industry returns to 'normal', the better.

pretty much all studies show WFH improves productivity and employee wellbeing. What you said is nonsense.

And you're welcome to commute every day, just don't force others to do it because you don't like it. I save 3h in commute per day that I can spend in courses, gaming, my hobbies...
 
D

Deleted member 417

Guest
pretty much all studies show WFH improves productivity and employee wellbeing. What you said is nonsense.
With all due respect, those studies are nonsense. In no way does allowing a human being to sit at home with no oversight from an authority figure, perceived or otherwise, increase productivity. There are decades worth of psychological studies conducted about productivity and how human psychology becomes more productive. Sitting at home (which is an environment hardwire in your psyche as not-work) does not induce feelings of "I must be more productive". Wellbeing on the short term I agree with, but long term, living in the same space you live and work is very damaging to the mind.

The studies I speak of were conducted years before COVID and mass WFH became a thing. While I have no doubt that some people prefer WFh, they are but a small % of the millions who were sent home and told to do almost nothing. Managers have a difficult time motivating their staff face-to-face and IRL, let alone over a computer screen where Pyjama-clad wagies can turn off their camera.
And you're welcome to commute every day, just don't force others to do it because you don't like it. I save 3h in commute per day that I can spend in courses, gaming, my hobbies...

Like I said, one person does not equal millions. If it works for you and you are more productive then I'm happy for you. The masses and the majority are not spending their time on courses or hobbies. Though it does raise the question of why you would accept a job that is 3h away from where you live.

The bigger picture, and point I was making, is that mass WFH allows any industry to fall foul of promises of cost savings by shipping work abroad. Why pay a man in £45k a year to WFH for a company in Manchester, when you can pan an Indian £5k a year to do the same job? The precedent was set with call-centres in the 90's and we saw how quickly every company shipped their customer service abroad and still do to this day.

WFH is not only counter-productive, a drain on resources for companies and detrimental to people's long term mental health, it is opening the door for mass-layoffs. Mass lay-offs that would result in the firing of 80% of office staff and that's a conservative number.
 

ethomaz

Rebolation!
21 Jun 2022
7,995
6,841
Brasil 🇧🇷
PSN ID
ethomaz
With all due respect, those studies are nonsense. In no way does allowing a human being to sit at home with no oversight from an authority figure, perceived or otherwise, increase productivity. There are decades worth of psychological studies conducted about productivity and how human psychology becomes more productive. Sitting at home (which is an environment hardwire in your psyche as not-work) does not induce feelings of "I must be more productive". Wellbeing on the short term I agree with, but long term, living in the same space you live and work is very damaging to the mind.

The studies I speak of were conducted years before COVID and mass WFH became a thing. While I have no doubt that some people prefer WFh, they are but a small % of the millions who were sent home and told to do almost nothing. Managers have a difficult time motivating their staff face-to-face and IRL, let alone over a computer screen where Pyjama-clad wagies can turn off their camera.


Like I said, one person does not equal millions. If it works for you and you are more productive then I'm happy for you. The masses and the majority are not spending their time on courses or hobbies. Though it does raise the question of why you would accept a job that is 3h away from where you live.

The bigger picture, and point I was making, is that mass WFH allows any industry to fall foul of promises of cost savings by shipping work abroad. Why pay a man in £45k a year to WFH for a company in Manchester, when you can pan an Indian £5k a year to do the same job? The precedent was set with call-centres in the 90's and we saw how quickly every company shipped their customer service abroad and still do to this day.

WFH is not only counter-productive, a drain on resources for companies and detrimental to people's long term mental health, it is opening the door for mass-layoffs. Mass lay-offs that would result in the firing of 80% of office staff and that's a conservative number.
That is non sense.

WFH not just increase productivity but give a better quality of life to employees.

I work in that way since 2015 and I have way more time to produce things to company that I work than when I worked in their offices… my metal and psychological is so much better that I can give faster, better and creative ideias for day work tasks and issues.

It can not be the same to all people… after all we are all different and so there are exceptions but what you said is completely bullshit for most companies and employees.

Companies that supported WFH have increased both revenue and profit over the years because well it works.

And of course it didn’t worked well in 1990… the internet and tools where not good enough for WFH.
 

Yurinka

Veteran
VIP
21 Jun 2022
5,270
4,626
With all due respect, those studies are nonsense. In no way does allowing a human being to sit at home with no oversight from an authority figure, perceived or otherwise, increase productivity.
The thing is that normally there's oversight. Basically in all companies there's a daily meeting (and/or weekly) to share their personal progress with the team, ask for help in something specific if needed and to set the tasks they'll do the next day/week.

On top of that, they typically use a company laptop which -depending on the case- during office hours -all or during the common ones in case of flexible hours- they're permanently connected to a videochat with the team and in some cases remotely sharing their desktop.

Meaning, in many companies the control is higher when using remote work.

Managers have a difficult time motivating their staff face-to-face and IRL, let alone over a computer screen where Pyjama-clad wagies can turn off their camera.
Yes, to meet in person at least once or twice helps with this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ethomaz

arvfab

Oldest Guard
23 Jun 2022
1,761
2,711
If people are subject to distraction or are used to procrastinate during work, it doesn't really matter if they are at home or in the office.

Why not give all these jobs to India if there are no issues with remote? Will happen.

You mean like many consulting companies have been doing for years (even before pandemic) and have been actually reverting in recent years?
 
  • they're_right_you_know
Reactions: KiryuRealty

Shmunter

Veteran
22 Jul 2022
2,145
2,590
If people are subject to distraction or are used to procrastinate during work, it doesn't really matter if they are at home or in the office.



You mean like many consulting companies have been doing for years (even before pandemic) and have been actually reverting in recent years?
Did not mean that as I don’t know anything about that
 

Zzero

Major Tom
9 Jan 2023
3,008
1,846
Its 2023, what fucking risks? That you'd actually be held accountable for goofing off all day?

Edit: That said, for the benefit of the eyeballs of everyone else at AB, the person quoted in the OP will be allowed, nay, required, to stay out of the office.
 

Satoru

Limitless
Founder
20 Jun 2022
6,790
10,223
With all due respect, those studies are nonsense. In no way does allowing a human being to sit at home with no oversight from an authority figure, perceived or otherwise, increase productivity. There are decades worth of psychological studies conducted about productivity and how human psychology becomes more productive. Sitting at home (which is an environment hardwire in your psyche as not-work) does not induce feelings of "I must be more productive". Wellbeing on the short term I agree with, but long term, living in the same space you live and work is very damaging to the mind.

Stuff that doesn't conform with your worldview is not nonsense. You can disagree with it all you want. It's the same with the 4-day work week.

The studies I speak of were conducted years before COVID and mass WFH became a thing. While I have no doubt that some people prefer WFh, they are but a small % of the millions who were sent home and told to do almost nothing. Managers have a difficult time motivating their staff face-to-face and IRL, let alone over a computer screen where Pyjama-clad wagies can turn off their camera.

I have no problem motivating my staff, and there's no literature on that being a problem. Managers unable to motivate their staff are shit managers, in office or not. This is not about me btw.

Like I said, one person does not equal millions. If it works for you and you are more productive then I'm happy for you. The masses and the majority are not spending their time on courses or hobbies. Though it does raise the question of why you would accept a job that is 3h away from where you live.

I moved away from a big city following the move to remote, not the other way around. Even when in the city, I saved 1.5h per day in commute. Instead of living in a shitty 1 bedroom and not even being able to own my own place, I now own a 5 bedroom house in the countryside, while paying less in rent. I have my own office at home, dedicated to my work.

The bigger picture, and point I was making, is that mass WFH allows any industry to fall foul of promises of cost savings by shipping work abroad. Why pay a man in £45k a year to WFH for a company in Manchester, when you can pan an Indian £5k a year to do the same job? The precedent was set with call-centres in the 90's and we saw how quickly every company shipped their customer service abroad and still do to this day.

Like outsourcing didn't exist when people were in-office? LOL. Outsourcing has been the word of the day in every single sector for over 30 years.

WFH is not only counter-productive, a drain on resources for companies and detrimental to people's long term mental health, it is opening the door for mass-layoffs. Mass lay-offs that would result in the firing of 80% of office staff and that's a conservative number.

I'd love to see sources for that.


With the spread of the novel SARS-CoV2 virus, most office workers were obliged to shift to remote working almost overnight in mid-March 2020, and the adoption of WFH strategies is likely to persist beyond the pandemic. This work investigated the worker experience during the pandemic’s WFH period and focused on two outcomes: relative productivity and the change in time spent at the workstation at a typical workday. Overall, the results suggest that workers’ productivity levels did not change due to the remote work transition, but that higher productivity was associated with better mental and physical health status. Several worker characteristics, workspace, and work contexts were found to be associated with increased and decreased productivity. Specifically, female workers, older workers, and high-waged workers showed higher productivity levels. Effective communication with coworkers, satisfaction with the thermal environment, workload expectations, having a teenager at home, not having an infant at home, and establishing a dedicated workspace for work activities that has no other uses were all associated with higher productivity. In addition to impacts on productivity, study data indicated that there was an increase in the number of hours spent at the workstation by approximately 1.5 hours on a typical WFH day in comparison to a workday before the pandemic. Longer hours spent at the workstation were associated with having a school-age child at home, having a desk or an adjustable chair at the workstation, and adjustment of specific work hours. The findings of this work highlight key considerations for organizational policies and practices that employers, employees, and other worker support professional can use as a foundation for planning productive and healthy design of WFH in the future of work.

Funny is that the bosses are the ones with the problem and go against the recent literature


What they think
Microsoft released a new study, where it found that 85% of leaders say that the “shift to hybrid work has made it challenging to have confidence that employees are being productive.” More concretely, 49% of managers of hybrid workers “struggle to trust their employees to do their best work.” This lack of trust in worker productivity has led to what Microsoft researchers termed productivity paranoia: “where leaders fear that lost productivity is due to employees not working, even though hours worked, number of meetings, and other activity metrics have increased.”

(...)

So why do so many leaders continue to ignore the data and stubbornly deny the facts? The key lies in how leaders evaluate performance: based on what they can see.

As the Harvard Business Review points out, leaders are trained to evaluate employees based on “facetime.” Those who come early and leave late are perceived and assessed as more productive.

(...)


A related mental blindspot, the confirmation bias, caused these traditionalist leaders to ignore information that goes against the beliefs to which they’re anchored, and seek information that confirms their anchors. For example, they’ll seek out evidence that in-office workers are more productive, even when there’s much stronger evidence that remote workers exhibit higher productivity. In other words, these leaders trust their own gut reactions, internal impressions, and intuitions over the facts, thus failing to develop self-awareness of how their mental processes might steer them to make bad decisions.

The consequence of this trust in false impressions of which type of work is more productive is leading to the unnecessary drama of forcing workers back to the office. And those older, traditionalist bosses who do so will continue to lose workers as part of the Great Resignation. A Society for Human Resources survey in June 2022 found that 48% of respondents will “definitely” seek a full-time remote position for their next job. To get them to stay at a hybrid job with a 30-minute commute, employers would have to give a 10% pay raise, and for a full-time job with the same commute, a 20% pay raise. Given the significant likelihood of a recession in the near future, which will limit the ability of employers to offer pay raises and lead to a focus on actual productivity over false gut-based intuitions, we can expect a greater shift to more hybrid and remote work going forward.

Another problem of this false belief is proximity bias. That term describes how managers have an unfair preference for and higher ratings of employees who come to the office, compared to those who work remotely, even if the remote workers show higher productivity. The face-to-face interactions between managers and employees lead to managers having more positive impressions of these employees due to cognitive biases such as the mere-exposure effect. This mental blindspot describes our predilection to have more favorable attitudes toward whatever we see more often, whether people or things, without any basis for this favorable attitude other than mere exposure.

The reality
COVID resulted in the proliferation of studies of remote work productivity. For example, a two-year survey by Great Place to Work of more than 800,000 employees showed that the shift to working remotely in the pandemic boosted worker productivity by 6% on average.

A study using employee monitoring software confirmed that the shift to remote work during COVID improved productivity by 5%. In a University of Chicago research paper, scientists found that nearly six in ten of their survey respondents reported higher productivity when working remotely, while only 14% proved less productive. On average, remote work productivity was over 7% higher than in-office productivity.

That shouldn’t be surprising. A major benefit from remote work comes from doing away with the daily commute. Workers on average devote approximately 35% of their saved time from not commuting to their primary job, according to research at the University of Chicago. Given that people spend an average of nearly an hour per day on commute travel alone, and additional time on other commute-related tasks, this adds up to substantial additional time worked.

Indeed, a research study from Harvard University published in the National Bureau of Economic Research finds a large increase in the amount of time worked by remote workers compared to in-office workers. Evaluating the impact of the lockdowns in 16 large cities in North America, Europe, and the Middle East on knowledge workers, the researchers found an increase in the average workday of 8.2%, or 48.5 minutes.

(...)

And more recent research showed that remote work productivity actually increased throughout the pandemic. Stanford University researchers doing a longitudinal study comparing productivity at different time periods found that remote workers were 5% more efficient than office-based ones in the summer of 2020. But this number improved to 9% by summer 2022. Why? Because all of us learned how to be better at remote work.

And really, are workers all that productive in the office? Studies show that in-office employees only work between 36% and 39% of the time. What about the rest of their time in the office? They’re shopping on Amazon, checking social media, and may even be searching for new positions, especially if their bosses are forcing them to come to the office full-time.

(...)

And really, are workers all that productive in the office? Studies show that in-office employees only work between 36% and 39% of the time. What about the rest of their time in the office? They’re shopping on Amazon, checking social media, and may even be searching for new positions, especially if their bosses are forcing them to come to the office full-time.
 

KiryuRealty

Cambridge Dictionary High Priest of Grammar
28 Nov 2022
6,647
8,165
Where it’s at.
Stuff that doesn't conform with your worldview is not nonsense. You can disagree with it all you want. It's the same with the 4-day work week.



I have no problem motivating my staff, and there's no literature on that being a problem. Managers unable to motivate their staff are shit managers, in office or not. This is not about me btw.



I moved away from a big city following the move to remote, not the other way around. Even when in the city, I saved 1.5h per day in commute. Instead of living in a shitty 1 bedroom and not even being able to own my own place, I now own a 5 bedroom house in the countryside, while paying less in rent. I have my own office at home, dedicated to my work.



Like outsourcing didn't exist when people were in-office? LOL. Outsourcing has been the word of the day in every single sector for over 30 years.



I'd love to see sources for that.




Funny is that the bosses are the ones with the problem and go against the recent literature


What they think


The reality
I did a contract during lockdown where I worked alongside a team that was previously 100% in-office. The manager of the team told me that they were doubling all KPIs, or better, working from home because the distractions of office life were no longer an issue.

Sadly, the control-freak baby boomer execs demanded everyone return to the office, and the KPIs went back to being a struggle to hit.

Anyone saying WFH is a negative to efficiency is full of shit, plain and simple.
 

ethomaz

Rebolation!
21 Jun 2022
7,995
6,841
Brasil 🇧🇷
PSN ID
ethomaz
The thing is that normally there's oversight. Basically in all companies there's a daily meeting (and/or weekly) to share their personal progress with the team, ask for help in something specific if needed and to set the tasks they'll do the next day/week.

On top of that, they typically use a company laptop which -depending on the case- during office hours -all or during the common ones in case of flexible hours- they're permanently connected to a videochat with the team and in some cases remotely sharing their desktop.

Meaning, in many companies the control is higher when using remote work.


Yes, to meet in person at least once or twice helps with this.
Exactly.
You have tools to constantly be in talking face to face with your manager or team... in fact you are more time in touch with them doing your job in a Teams meeting instead that 30 minutes physical meeting you have on physical office and after go back to you seat space.

It is a challenge for non-adaptable managers that doesn't like to learn new ways of handle teams.
Managers with more adaptable skills have a easy way to manager a team via remote work.

The adpatation phase is hard for some and easy for others but after everything is fine the management is more strict, productivity is better, employees health and quality of life are better, company costs are cut, revenue are higher and prifits come.

BTW the work become more flexible too... imagine when you are working in a physical space you have to be there from X to Y time... at home you are more flexible and if you are not in the best condition to do the work right now (that will affect the quality of delivery) you can do it a few hours late when you are best apto to delivery the best quality results of your work.

I use to be always ahead of schedule... so if I have some imprevist I can take some hours or even a day off and not compromisse my work schedule.
It can be an issue with people that use to do the work always at the last minute :D
 
Last edited:

Satoru

Limitless
Founder
20 Jun 2022
6,790
10,223
I did a contract during lockdown where I worked alongside a team that was previously 100% in-office. The manager of the team told me that they were doubling all KPIs, or better, working from home because the distractions of office life were no longer an issue.

Sadly, the control-freak baby boomer execs demanded everyone return to the office, and the KPIs went back to being a struggle to hit.

Anyone saying WFH is a negative to efficiency is full of shit, plain and simple.

My 2 cents on why some companies are so adamant in having people in the office are as follows
  • People that commute have less time to look for other jobs and will stay longer
  • Work from home reduces the ability to micromanage employees days
  • There are long term office contracts that need to be honoured, and the risk of losing employees in a remote setting + the cost of an office you can't break the lease for are a lose lose.
This is the same story as the 4-day work week. It has been shown to improve productivity and profits, yet plenty of companies (most of them in fact) refuse to adopt a 4 day 8-hour work week. it's all about control, about crushing employees morale so they are subservient and less likely to look for a job. I wouldn't have been able to renegotiate my contract 2 times if I hadn't been WFH and able to having interviews during my lunch time or just after work. I wouldn't have the time nor the space to do so.

The outsourcing argument is also bullshit since companies have been outsourcing shit, especially manufacturing, customer support, and some peripheral functions, for decades. It's not new.

Edit: another effect I've seen is less employee churn. People only look for remote jobs if their current job is remote, and since not all companies are offering... there's less choice.
 

ethomaz

Rebolation!
21 Jun 2022
7,995
6,841
Brasil 🇧🇷
PSN ID
ethomaz
Why not give all these jobs to India if there are no issues with remote? Will happen.
That already happens a lot in TI since decades ago.
Any big consulting company like Oracle for example the chances to talk with an India is really high.

And yes you know when it is a native English and Indian English talking :D
Just like you know I'm Brazilian English :D :D :D

And just to be clear outside the language acents I had no issue resolving my issues with Indians.
 

ethomaz

Rebolation!
21 Jun 2022
7,995
6,841
Brasil 🇧🇷
PSN ID
ethomaz
My 2 cents on why some companies are so adamant in having people in the office are as follows
  • People that commute have less time to look for other jobs and will stay longer
  • Work from home reduces the ability to micromanage employees days
  • There are long term office contracts that need to be honoured, and the risk of losing employees in a remote setting + the cost of an office you can't break the lease for are a lose lose.
This is the same story as the 4-day work week. It has been shown to improve productivity and profits, yet plenty of companies (most of them in fact) refuse to adopt a 4 day 8-hour work week. it's all about control, about crushing employees morale so they are subservient and less likely to look for a job. I wouldn't have been able to renegotiate my contract 2 times if I hadn't been WFH and able to having interviews during my lunch time or just after work. I wouldn't have the time nor the space to do so.

The outsourcing argument is also bullshit since companies have been outsourcing shit, especially manufacturing, customer support, and some peripheral functions, for decades. It's not new.

Edit: another effect I've seen is less employee churn. People only look for remote jobs if their current job is remote, and since not all companies are offering... there's less choice.
The less micromanage is a reality for WFH.
The bosses have less work to do because everything goes more smooth so the need for several Managers and High Exces decrease (bosses)... so I can see why these wants everything back to offices.

I think they have fear to lose their jobs because they have more free time in WFH situations... so he can't show he is doing his job like an office scheme.
That is a misunderstanding imo... if you need less time to manager you can put that free time for others taks in the company... so you can increase your productivity too.

But like I said there are bosses that easy addapt and others that have a hard time to do that (sometimes because it is not his confort zone)... these that can't addapt are the ones with fear to lose the job position.

The ones that adapt even aim higher positions (promotion) in the company... that put even more pressure in the ones that don't want to addapt.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.