Quite right, Shmuel, and I guess I was thinking of only one aspect of trust, ie "can I trust you not to steal from the company?". That question can't be resolved by insisting that I work on-site (because what manager would know what I was doing, or even understand what I do, whether I do it 20 feet or 20 miles from him?). But the issue of goofing off when on the clock is also trust, and that's one of the reasons managers could want me on-site.
--- Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 /* New York (SatireWire.com) - A study issued Tuesday claiming that pessimists have more long-term health problems than positive people just proves pessimists were right, say pessimists. */ -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> On Behalf Of Seymour J Metz Sent: Monday, February 20, 2023 10:18 There are different kinds of trust. Mistrust can be a good thing or a bad thing. Can I trust you to do your job? Can I trust you to not abuse your authority? Can I trust you to not make mistakes? Can I trust you to recognize fatigue and take a break when necessary? As a matter of policy, I prefer checks and balances to avoid errors. Maintaining multiple user ids with different levels of access and privile can be seen as a lack of trust, but I see it as a good thing. Micromanaging, OTOH, can damage both morale and productivity; in fact, it might actually increase the error rate. Code and design reviews can be seen as a sign of distrust, but they are well worth doing. Ordering an employee to take a nap during a long DR test can be a sign of distrust, but IMHO it is good management. Bottom line: it's a balancing act. The tradeoffs vary from shop to shop. ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Bob Bridges [robhbrid...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 20, 2023 10:04 AM I've been staying out of this discussion 'cause I'm not a sysprog. (I do security, and before I did security I was an apps developer.) But I'll comment on this one point: It obviously does NOT mean that. Or rather, it could mean that if the only reason they want you on-site is that they don't trust you otherwise. But that's not a serious possibility. Any of us can think of a number of reasons they want you on-site that doesn't have to do with trust, leading among them (in my opinion) is simply habit: They're USED to seeing people on-site. There are other and better reasons too. Mostly it seems to me that management exhibit a surprising level of trust in matters like this. As I said, I'm a security jock, and I've been fully remote since five years before COVID, but mostly wherever I go clients hand me the keys to the kingdom (a different set of keys than yours but nonetheless powerful) without any outward qualms. I sometimes wonder at it, for all that it's necessary for me to do the job they hired me for. Do they lie awake at night worrying about me? They certainly wouldn't tell me if they do. Are they merely clueless? How much is their concern assuaged by the fact that the recruiting company that rents me out to them undoubtedly covers the possibility of my misbehavior with scads of insurance? (Rereading this I have to clarify something: I don't mean that trust cannot seriously be an issue - only that it's not the only possible issue.) -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> On Behalf Of David Spiegel Sent: Monday, February 20, 2023 06:49 I have seen many job ads which say "remote until COVID". This means that they are willing to trust my work out of the office while there is a pandemic. Afterwards, I'm not trusted?! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
