Problems in Decision-Making in Large Organizations as Seen in Google's Policy of Recommending Office Attendance
Claude.iconIn this series of tweets, the following concerns and points were raised in response to Google's policy of encouraging employees to work in the office at least three days per week.
The problem with prioritizing the wishes of the majority despite the possibility of lower productivity for the minority (those who want to work remotely).
The decision was made without fully examining the results of the telecommuting "experiment" that began in the wake of the epidemic. Things are being done as if they are rational decisions without rational and acceptable explanations. If outliers are intentionally truncated, accountability should be fulfilled. that those who make the decision to change policy are in a position not to be directly affected by the change.
On the other hand, it is not realistic to base all decisions on data, and some degree of separation is necessary. However, in making such decisions, we must be accountable to those who will be affected.
---
hikalium The reason I'm not too convinced by the company's decision to encourage a stricter 3-day work week, I believe, is because it is exactly the same structure as oppression of minorities. I think it's because it's exactly the same structure as oppression of minorities. Some people say, "hikalium, you're here more than 3 days a week for whatever reason, nothing will change!" But is it okay if the productivity of the few goes down as long as it is good for the many? hikalium If you admit such cruelty and then say, "According to this data, the company's productivity will increase, so even though there will be individual ups and downs, we have factored them in, so please cooperate. If you admit such cruelty and then say, "The data shows that the company's productivity will increase, so even though there are individual ups and downs, we've factored them in, so please cooperate with us. It would be exactly unconscious prejudice to proceed with the conversation with such a sentiment as "I think it's important to have small conversations that occur in the office after all. hikalium Another N in my head says, "Focus on your work instead of losing productivity over trivial things," or "Why don't you do something else when you have time to write this? "Why don't you do something else when you have time to write this?" "Are you really enjoying yourself?" "You shouldn't complain so much, you don't want to lose this environment, do you?" I listen to them half-heartedly. hikalium It is an effective survival strategy to keep quiet even if you want to speak up about a situation if you don't want to get burned by it, and that is one way to live. However, I am writing this because I have suffered in a society made up of such people, and if we were in such a situation, I would have to despair of everything. hikalium As someone who worked completely from home from my first day on the job for over a year and a half before gradually coming back to work due to an epidemic, I can understand that there are good and bad things about both. I understand that both are good and bad, and in fact there have been times when I have suffered from working from home, but it is unfortunate that a decision was made that appears to have been made without fully examining the results of an unintentional experiment that occurred. hikalium The hardest part is that things are going on in an atmosphere as if this is a rational decision, even though a sufficiently rational and acceptable explanation has not been given. I am not sure if it is just my lack of understanding or not. Of course, maybe I just don't understand it well enough, but if not, where the heck have we gone when we should have been acting on the basis of data.... hikalium Well, perhaps acting on data is itself an illusion. In fact, it is too costly and impractical to base every single decision on data. Therefore, I think it is sometimes necessary to make a decision at the last moment, and that is how the real world works. While cutting off outliers. hikalium If you are intentionally truncating outliers to achieve other metrics, I think that should be clearly stated and accountable. If they don't even realize they are truncating, that's very sad, but they can revisit it from there as pointed out. If that doesn't work, then maybe there isn't much of a future. hikalium The other hard part is that the people who made the decision to change the policy are people who are not directly affected by the policy change. Either the organization has grown so large that it cannot see the ridiculousness of enforcing rules on others to which it is not subject, or it is intentionally ignoring them, but either way, there is a deep divide. ---
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/Googleのオフィス出勤推奨方針に見る大規模組織の意思決定の問題点 using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I'm very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.