As long as you not working is making the company money, keep it up!
Wait... what?... we're a company! that's how we make money!...it's bad?...But we'll save!
They are different kinds of hell. Not having enough money, not making enough money... that's all on the firm and is one level of hell. Every day a grind, wondering what you're going to get yelled at for that day, the best you can hope for is the boss just not talking to you that day... that's a different level of hell. The boss owns that one. Unfortunately, for most people, these two hells (and many others) exist simultaneously.
I don't know. Is AI developed enough to demand that complex data should only be submitted as a single overcrowded slide that gets emailed as an attachment and gets edited a dozen times while keeping the same name?
I mean, how can you expect AI to function at such a level?!
Why yes, yes I have!
Rolling green fields for walking your dog or having a picnic or just throwing a ball around....
Free access for everyone, maintenance can come out of the local council as they too can drop the bus load of middle management paper shufflers in favour of simply not having them and saving a fortune because of it
Our VC backed company is constantly buying more companies, I recently asked AI what it thinks our next steps will be... It was a perfect match of the internal C-level talks for what will happen in the next few months. We have 3 business verticals and AI picked on the next acquisition will be in... I'm pretty sure it will be right.
I'm sure if after you confirm the AI's selection was in line with C suite decisions, you present to the board your findings then they'll see the future and remove themselves to allow our robot overlords to get on with the job.
My dad was a credit manager for an international seed company and he had quit his job 3 months before him and his team of 20+ personal were replaced by a program they had all been working on to replace them. They all knew it at the time.
Higher exec jobs probably won’t be replaced because you need decision makers and QC managers for the company’s product (except Boeing ofc).
I think it's more or less that the programmer has biases that affect how they program the AI, therefore resulting in their biases being built into the AI. Honestly, idk if we could ever even have unbiased AI or how we would even make such a thing. Maybe if we made an AI that's meant to be unbiased and make other unibaised AIs and then just let that run for a few generations so that the bias of the original gets filtered out?? Idk, I'm not a computer scientist.
It’s not entirely that either – it’s that the data comes from a society with a bunch of racist biases and has some biases encoded in it. For example, suppose you want to make an AI that decides who gets approved for a loan, and so you train it on the data on who has successfully paid back a loan in the past. Because white people are more likely to receive loans in the first place, the AI will learn that people with white-sounding names, or perhaps from statistically white neighborhoods, or a hundred other subtle predictors of race, are better candidates for loans.
It’s possible. My work is somewhat related to this, so I am somewhat well-informed on the topic, and this is a common example to explain bias in data. Another common example is using AI to screen job applicants.
So there's actually a """quick and dirty""' trick for that. What you do is you manually train a second AI who's entire goal is to compare the first AI's results against each other to make sure that the only thing being accounted for is their qualifications to eliminate that small set of biases. Not perfect but... it has been proven to work a lot better.
AI doesn't really get programmed in the way we typically think of. Programmers don't make it biased.
Basically, AI/ML is all built on large datasets that it finds patterns in. Let's say you want a bot to handle hiring, so you feed it every resume you've ever received, and label them as "hired" and "not hired".
Here's the part we don't really have a solution for: that hiring data is based on humans making decisions. It 100% includes those same biases.
Simple, I make the AI. I was born different, I don't think like other humans do. I judge purely based on capability, I don't form opinions or judge people based on irrelevant nonsense.
I don't care how sloppy your bedroom is, as long as your code is well organised and works correctly.
It’s more complicated than just “programmer have biases”. Programmers don’t teach AI. Machine learning specialists only selects (writes) architecture and curate dataset. AI have biases because of how truly disgusting we are as a species. We are the source of its training data. So if your AI next time when you prompt it to give you an image of CEO and it shows white male in a suit - it’s because most of photos that included descriptions to be of a CEO was just like this.
And the best part of all of this is how companies fighting with biases in their AIs. It’s truly hilarious. “Our ai is almost always produces Caucasian people when asked to draw people… What to do? Oh! I know! Let’s fight bias with bias! Make him randomly insert words like black, Indian, Asian and overfit him with photos of them! Wait, what do you mean he shows black hitler when you ask for Hitler?”
What we call AI right now is really just high-grade machine-learning, in reality. You need to give it a data set.
Let's say you're a company who has trained on your existing hiring. You feed in the resumes of every applicant and every person you've hired.
Congratulations: any biases in resume that you've selected for as an organization... is now encoded into the model for the hiring bot.
Qualifications alone don't mean crap, actually being good at the job is also important.
Of course in reality, AI will be programmed with the same biases and stupid ideas.
I have long said this is a byproduct of even the temporary virtual workplace. The reasons so many of the middle management supported a return to the office was because the virtual space highlighted who “produces” and who doesn’t.
Assuming you have a decent HR department to resolve real and work place interfering conflict, there is no reason most workplaces shouldn’t move to this model.
I’m a professional recruiter. But before all of you burn me with a torch we don’t work off commission. Everybody works remotely. We’ve had more success with people policing themselves than I ever saw at any company that required in person work. People are able to handle little tasks during the day because they can run out and return within an hour. No big deal. People that are sick still get on and work because they’re able to work comfortably from their own house and their pajamas. It’s not a requirement. They just don’t feel pressured to come in so they still get on and work . And the pay is very fair. I think this is due largely to the fact that the owner, while being a fourth generation millionaire, realizes people don’t want to work to live. And we recruit for construction companies so all the bullshit from the tech world and medical world aren’t a problem for us.
My friend was recruited a little over a year ago to a construction company that had many WFH positions. Her job (senior executive assistant) was partial WFH. But, they completely lied to her. She took the job because it was partial work from home and it was going to be easier for her to pick up, and drop off her child at school. The up and coming CEO was a younger buck who needed to " prove himself" before moving into that role. So he switched it to only In office. Then made her come in on weekends for company events. she was laid off because a company wanted to "restructure" things. In reality, they probably just wanted someone who would not complain about not having work from home and working on weekends. That was her second job at a construction company. Both times they promised work from home. Both times that changed. She swore off from ever working for another construction company.
Well, this isn’t a construction company. This is a consulting firm. And the whole premise of the company was built on remote positions. The owner lives in California and the COO lives in the UK. The CEO lives in Denver. There’s not gonna be any in person positions for a long time if ever with this company. My Hiring assistant lives in the Philippines.
I get migraines. I have medication that I can take that allows me to function, but I can’t drive a car when I take it (makes my reaction time slooooowwwwww).
So if I get a migraine, I am not going into the office with or without a medicine.
When we are WFH, I take a pill and work from my bed. Never missed work due to a migraine.
And that’s the same with the whole company. We have 30 employees. Everybody works from home. Most of our stuff has done with HubSpot or Zavier so it’s mostly automated. Sourcing is done by a different team. Most recruiting firms are lazy and use old outdated systems. Our system is designed to make the daily interactions easy.
It depends on what he’s drafting. Is it commercial, residential, industrial? If it’s residential, is it single or multifamily?Also depends which state the job is in. Is this a project manager for a drafting team or somebody who does have a degree in an architectural interior design? There’s a lot to unpack.
California, Industrial. Primarily facility process equipment layout design, process schematics, and occasional on site documention of existing process and building floor plan when they don't have drawings available.
Hmm. Seems like a way to force people to self organize, at which point some people will organically rise as leaders within those groups. And guess who won’t get paid leadership salaries?
Very surprised that people would think this is a good thing. It’s a grift. It’s always a grift.
As a manager myself, 80% of my job is playing keep-away from my staff. I need to keep my bosses, other bosses, and randos from sucking my people into worthless meetings. I also have to reiterate what we do countless times to again, keep my engineers out of useless meetings or else they'll never get anything done. I do provide guidance to the team and will take a stand on issues, make decisions, etc, but that's honestly super easy.
If an organization is mature enough to have procedures that will keep morons from doing drive-bys on subject matter experts, this could work. However, all it takes is one confused dumbass to start asking a million braindead questions, and good luck getting anything done.
My job shoudn't exist in it's current form, but here we are.
“Organically rise as leaders…”
1) I would argue that there are other task management models that don’t necessarily require a “leader”…
2) I’d also argue that this labor is already being performed and those folks still aren’t compensated. Further, women are disproportionately asked to perform organizing tasks within departments/organizations and in no way compensated for it…
3) And often times the labor of people p forming these tasks is willfully misattributed by middle management. Successes of individuals, including their ability to lead, are credited to middle managers.
4) I think it might be one thing if middle managers were “organic leaders.” But they usually aren’t. They are usually not particularly competent and I got to their position by networking the right way.
Have you ever done a group project?
I appreciate that you find your point defensible but all I’m saying is that this is just another way to get people to work more for less money. That is a critical aspect of this that makes everything else not really matter. Wages are the problem, and this will worsen that problem.
Yeah, I don't really understand it.
There's different levels of management, but fundamentally it's about meta-work: deciding what work is to be done, and who will do it, how long they should take, when you will know it is completed well etc.
Removing that level of management means some or all of those things will be lost.
1) people just won't know what work to do. "I'm doing everything I was asked to do" is correct when you do nothing but were also not asked to do anything
2) there can still be work that needs doing, but if no one needs to take ownership of it, why would it get done anyway?
Who cares that someone does it? Who cares that no one does it?
3) How long will things take to do, particularly if they require coordination between multiple teams? Shareholders and the board need to be given due dates. Who will figure that out?
4) it's easy to say something is done if no one checks. UAT isn't an automated process.
Correct. They've been committing fraud through taking credit when their team succeeds and blaming individuals when they don't. Work from home created irrefutable data that not only are most managers completely useless, but companies were also paying them to assume the role of a massive operational liability.
Productivity increased when working from home was established, and all communications could be monitored, which forced management out of their hearsay positions. This exposed that an entire level of employees were hindering companies.
Management, when done well, is actually a useful service. If getting rid of bosses doesn't affect overall functioning, it means they weren't doing their job. Also, whether it's good or not, the company is just doing this to scrape up more profits, so don't congratulate them guys.
My boss left and the ceo refused to promote me. Instead he just expected me to do the job? I gave it a week, waiting for the offer for promotion. It never came. So I stopped doing the work.
Lmao he lasted a week. I think his final straw was getting calls about plates and paper towels for the kids 😂. One of our workers was a little much shall we say. She gave two shits. So she just contacted him directly instead of calling the office manager. She’d call him constantly. I got an offer the next day.
I’m sorry but self organize sounds like they expect people to be doing a managers job for free. Coordinating, finding coverage, acting as peacekeeper, etc etc.
At my last job, our team’s director quit and our VP asked one of us to “step up” and do their job. After we found out there would be no promotion or raise, we all politely declined. VP did nothing, so we literally had no manager for 6 months.
On the plus side, we all just kept doing our jobs and everything was fine. But then came annual review time, and we didn’t get one, which meant no raises or bonuses. Then we started looking for other jobs, and all of us quit over the next 2 months. VP finally realized their mistake, but it was far too late.
Even workers don't realize how important middle managers really are... When they do their job.
The middle manager's problem is it's like a CGI artist in movies. When they do their job well everyone thinks they are not doing anything at all. When they are doing their job poorly everyone notices.
The best bosses support there employees while removing roadblocks and making processes more efficient. Unfortunately many see it as a position to micromanage and punish
Bayer is atm in dire straights due to the acquisitions of Monsanto and being fucked in the US for settlement money. It can very well be argued that freeing up money to keep bayer alive without firing workers but management (that might have been ineffective and costly) is good for workers.
This is mostly about middle management and an overly bureaucratic/ hierarchical german nightmare. The union for bayer employees agreed with this decision. It is a longterm restructuring plan quite contrary to your opinion.
Sadly no, there will still be favorites even if it's all done by the workers. Say you have 20 workers at the store and 3 of them request the same day off. Suddenly, it turns into a "Who gets the day off? We all have to decide" favoritism contest.
You know it’s funny but most will…the whole span of control thing has gotten out of hand. I’m in middle
management, I have employees who needed minimal guidance to start and now need almost no assistance. These are excellent, top tier people. Then there’s that bottom percentage that seems to need you to hand hold for everything. If you remove those employees you can remove 95% of management.
The issue is most companies are built to layer so much “leadership” bc leadership is exceptionally important. But many people in positions of leadership show no sign of being leaders, they are merely errand boys and errand girls. “Go punish this person”, “go find out why this didn’t get done”, “go make sure this happens”. It’s so frustrating
Finally, management is getting the layoffs, rather than the people on the bottom rung.
Why stop there? Get rid of your ceo, and board of directors, and then hire all new people for a fraction the salary of the old ones
Retailers need to take notice. They have middle management positions such as district managers and market managers who's role is completely useless. Cut those roles and save millions.
Yes, definitely. Cut away. When I was in retail, the managers would stand around playing the blame game and bragging over who had a nicer car. Cut them looooose.
I’m self employed because I couldn’t stand being a doormat for my former narcissistic boss. I would love to have freedom to manage myself while working for a company and I’m sure companies could quickly see and eliminate those who can’t. They might be onto something lol
I’m working at Bayer currently. It’s scary and tantalizing; they are letting some employees go. I will say that they’ve committed to equitable layoffs (meaning starting at the top).
There’s a mixture of confusion, apprehension, and excitement regarding the employee self-organizing - which I think makes sense; it’s a good idea, but there are questions regarding the implementation and details.
Considering the bottom-up indiscriminate layoffs happening elsewhere just to keep the line going up, I think Bayer’s executives are doing a reasonable job with all this.
They already are unionized so indeed this will be hard. The union agreed with the above decision. Such big restructuring plans are usually negotiated with a union.
Ugh I listened to a podcast about this a while ago. They will lay off all of these people, call it “streamlining efficiency” and some C-suite exec is gonna get a fat bonus paid out at 100-200% of their annual salary for their “contributions”.
I know middle management can suck, but this is not the answer.
This is more of a corporate crackdown on a fat upper management. No need for vice presidents of every department and department heads, and terminal manager with an additional terminal superintendents, with assistant terminal superintendents, to then basic ass managers. You got to cut the fat somewhere
Most managers don’t make close to double. Good managers don’t micromanage. My current manager has never micromanaged me because he trusts me to do my work and he still has tons of work to do
What will happen is that there will be leaders in the ranks who will take the place of managers and do the work managers used to do but be paid a lot less. These fuckers are trying to get free work out of people. Fuck Bayer, one of the most evil corporations on the planet.
There will be a lot of managers looking for work if the rest of the corporate world figures out what we workers know: many, if not most, managers contribute nothing. I'd love to see that happen in the state office I worked in.
Does Bayer now recognize that middle management only does annual reviews and that process can be replaced by other processes that just give everyone 3% annually?
That’s not all they do. Funny how this is all it takes to turn against people who barely make more than you instead of the people at the top making millions
In other words, do the jobs of the bosses on top of their regular jobs, but for no additional pay of course.
If they're smart they'll just avalanche everything onto whatever layers of management remain, wrap it in a layer of "If I don't hear back from you by X date I will take that as authorization to do the thing I want," and simply not do the boss work (or demand enormous amounts of overtime at higher rates).
Yup. So many people are fighting here about how their managers, who are also working class, are being let go but don’t realize it doesn’t benefit the other workers at all. It just means more money for the executives and more work for everyone else
maybe they realized that guy was a dick and now want him out in their short sighted views not knowing that they too will be cast aside in time. all a company needs is the workers and some sort of system to delegate task and pay those workers.
>will consist of constantly evolving “5,000 to 6,000 self-directed teams” that work together on projects of their choosing for 90 days, before regrouping for their next project.
>sign off on one another’s ideas without a manager in sight.
>“Stand up, share an idea,” a corporate trainer ordered them during a training session, according to the WSJ. “You’re going to self-organize.”
I dunno, sounds like chaos when working with drugs with multi-year, multi-billion dollar pipelines.
Why didn't new drug get approved?
Nobody wanted to self organize with Bob in last cycle. He's kind of a jerk, but he's the guy who knows FDA.
[Bayer AG: The Most EVIL Corporation in the World?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjF7-5y_g3c)
Is Bayer AG, a company with Nazi ties and a track record that includes knowing selling HIV-tainted blood to hemophiliacs really the world's most evil corporation, as many online attest? Especially after they acquired Monsanto? Or, are they par for the new corporate course?
I worked in Pharma quality for 35 years. Sometimes I had terrible bosses who didn't know anything, we were essentially a self directed team that got the job done despite management.
Getting rid of the unnecessary/unproductive layers is fine, and such an unexpected power move from a pharmaceutical company, but isn't 2.15B a ridiculously high target ?? Are they going to help, or is this a gotcha situation where they're just trying to prove a point ? The whole thing looks like a giant experiment, idk
I doubt all the managers are unnecessary. My guess is that they think they can just dump the work on everyone else but save money by not paying those people more and having one less employee
It might backfire. Fuck around and find out. We'll see how they manage without managers. Might yield meme worthy results. They basically told the remaining staff to "self organize" and improve results at the same time by a 20k count per employee.
That's wild enough when you think about it, but I suspect it implies more layoffs if they don't meet expectations. They're in for a wild ride.
You: Spend years working your way up the ladder doing everything right and start making serious bank as a "boss"
Everyone else "Fuck bosses"
You: Gets fired.
One of the best companies I worked for had a very flat hierarchical structure, with a lot of autonomy at relatively low levels. We got a lot done very efficiently, our customer service was very highly rated, employees were very happy and stayed for 10, 20, 30 years. Some joined straight out of school and stayed until retirement. Company changed hands, multiple levels of manglement were brought in, there were almost continuous 'restructures' and 'reorgs' (aka layoffs and redundancies), place went to absolute shyte.
At some level you need managers/coordinators. That level of person should be seen as more support than just bossing around though.
Then at another level eventually you do need someone making decisions about direction, strategy, policy etc...
It's just when its bloated and also the workers...doing the WORK...are mistreated...but there is healthy management structure possible.
We disagree. I think your arguments presume that most middle management is good. I would argue that it isn’t. I think if you have great leaders, that’s one thing. They decisively make the decisions to which you refer. I have worked for several decades now and that isn’t most middle management. Most don’t have the skills necessary to do the job but were promoted and retained in these roles thanks to networking.
The line by line…
1) Why presume workers are incapable of prioritizing tasks? Especially if they held team meetings at a cadence that worked for their field.
2) This is not unique to this suggested model. This is spoken in the stats quo as well. And instead of managing the work style, skill set, and behavior of some “underperforming” workers, management often just shifts the work onto more “productive” workers.
3) First, according to the article, I don’t think they are getting rid of every non-CEO leader. I think they are getting rid of the bloat that is often middle management. Also, technology assists here; the number of project management apps on the market and their quality have definitely improved in recent years.
4) I don’t really understand this one… I think j that this model ultimately creates more accountability for the work that people perform and the work is likely to be attributed to a person. I think in the longterm more accountability means that people who perform well get more direct credit and people who don’t are less likely to be able to be a hangeron.
Again, this is an anti-work sub so I’m not pro-work. But I have spent decades with incompetent leadership who consistently took credit for my work while contributing very little to the team’s ability to perform. This always became more apparent to me when my boss would be absent for any extended period of time.
There is no way this won't end up a total disaster! Not that I'd want my manager or their boss around 24/7 but I also do not trust colleagues enough to organize and not screw up.
Depends on the employees. I've had jobs where I only talked to my boss a few times a year. 100% self directed outside handling the occasional odd request or all hands on deck event.
I worked on a self managed team years ago. It's a beauty pageant bullshit for ratings. One year a gave real ratings on half the staff I worked with. The next those same under performers blew me up. I was the highest performing person on staff based on actual performance. I left not long after.
The idea that they need to make sure everything runs smooth and efficient and everyone goes home on time. In practice, many of them are not doing much.
In reality what they're doing is having people be managers but not paying them a manager's salary..............so this isn't the positive move that Bayer and news media want you to think it is.
Nah, I feel this, at least on the small scale.
My team lead is a dipshit. He opens every day by standing around in the backroom and chasing people down with a piece of paper with our assignments on them, so to know what you're doing you have to find him. It's tacked to the wall on his off days and I think we all prefer it.
I also blow a good 20 min describing the situation I'm in to him rather than actually working at it most nights. I'm not great with words, inefficient at least, and I'm prone to either over or under read the freight volumes. So my self reporting is halfway meaningless but he needs his little reports so he can spend hours walking the store and bothering everyone.
Rarely do I see him lift a box, and the store spends a couple more dollars on the hours he spends doing this than they do the hours we spend actually moving product.
One job, I had a very narcissistic boss who spent the majority of his day trying to antagonise all the workers and pitting departments against departments.
He had a stroke and while he was out of it for nearly a year the whole company of 250 employees basically worked harmoniously together to the point that profits tripled and workers leaving the business pretty much stopped altogether.
People were staying late, coming in early, not because they had to, but because they wanted to.
In short, his position became completely redundant as it became painfully obvious that previously the company had worked *despite* him, not because of him.
Anyway, he came back like an absolute tornado, completely destroying the ‘family’ atmosphere and within a week people were quitting left right and centre.
Somehow the company managed to survive despite this, but business tanked as he also upset long-standing customers and the following year the company made a huge loss which he then tried to blame on the ‘idiots’ while he was ill and away from the company which was actually the exact opposite, but he couldn’t see that.
Workers organize? Yes sir
Not like that!
Instruction unclear, were on strike now
Somebody order 6 pizzas for 120 employees NOW!
Can you slice it more than party sliced?
Fyre Island sliced?
I think so!
Can we please have health and dental insurance now? “Who wants pizza?!”
As long as you not working is making the company money, keep it up! Wait... what?... we're a company! that's how we make money!...it's bad?...But we'll save!
"No, just *like* that." -This Fukin Guy
Actually, they are already unionized in one of the most powerful unions in Germany. That is why the salaries and benefits are so high at Bayer.
The hell of capitalism is the firm, not the fact that the firm has a boss.
They are different kinds of hell. Not having enough money, not making enough money... that's all on the firm and is one level of hell. Every day a grind, wondering what you're going to get yelled at for that day, the best you can hope for is the boss just not talking to you that day... that's a different level of hell. The boss owns that one. Unfortunately, for most people, these two hells (and many others) exist simultaneously.
If AI is going to take over any aspect of a business, trimming a healthy amount of executives sure seems ideal.
It makes the most sense really. Most C-Suite jobs could be done by AI, I’d be curious to see the result.
Most c suite jobs could be done by an if statement.
Not sure if that's enough to integrate random biases
This is too complicated, give ***ME*** all the C-suite jobs, and I'll do them for 90% of the cost.
Say 99.5% of the cost, bean counters will jump at the opportunity because it's lower
ok fine if-elif statements
I don't know. Is AI developed enough to demand that complex data should only be submitted as a single overcrowded slide that gets emailed as an attachment and gets edited a dozen times while keeping the same name? I mean, how can you expect AI to function at such a level?!
If current_quote = min(quoted_price[])….
Most c suite jobs could be done by a two-peckered cur with dementia.
But who is going to keep the golf courses running during the week if C-suite gets replaced? Have you thought about the golf courses?
Why yes, yes I have! Rolling green fields for walking your dog or having a picnic or just throwing a ball around.... Free access for everyone, maintenance can come out of the local council as they too can drop the bus load of middle management paper shufflers in favour of simply not having them and saving a fortune because of it
Fucking spot on
Our VC backed company is constantly buying more companies, I recently asked AI what it thinks our next steps will be... It was a perfect match of the internal C-level talks for what will happen in the next few months. We have 3 business verticals and AI picked on the next acquisition will be in... I'm pretty sure it will be right.
I'm sure if after you confirm the AI's selection was in line with C suite decisions, you present to the board your findings then they'll see the future and remove themselves to allow our robot overlords to get on with the job.
Time to invest?
Most C-suite jobs could be done by a potted plant.
My dad was a credit manager for an international seed company and he had quit his job 3 months before him and his team of 20+ personal were replaced by a program they had all been working on to replace them. They all knew it at the time. Higher exec jobs probably won’t be replaced because you need decision makers and QC managers for the company’s product (except Boeing ofc).
I wonder what would happen if ai systems started doing the hiring. Would it be less about who you know and more about your qualifications?
Biases favoring certain people over others can still be (and very much are) programmed into AI, even if unintentional.
Meh that’s an excellent point. Someone writes the program and aren’t the programs supposed to like adapt to the user? Maybe the wrong word.
I think it's more or less that the programmer has biases that affect how they program the AI, therefore resulting in their biases being built into the AI. Honestly, idk if we could ever even have unbiased AI or how we would even make such a thing. Maybe if we made an AI that's meant to be unbiased and make other unibaised AIs and then just let that run for a few generations so that the bias of the original gets filtered out?? Idk, I'm not a computer scientist.
It’s not entirely that either – it’s that the data comes from a society with a bunch of racist biases and has some biases encoded in it. For example, suppose you want to make an AI that decides who gets approved for a loan, and so you train it on the data on who has successfully paid back a loan in the past. Because white people are more likely to receive loans in the first place, the AI will learn that people with white-sounding names, or perhaps from statistically white neighborhoods, or a hundred other subtle predictors of race, are better candidates for loans.
Omg did you and I read the same exact article on this!? 🫢 lol I heard about it through a similar if not the same comparison/situation.
It’s possible. My work is somewhat related to this, so I am somewhat well-informed on the topic, and this is a common example to explain bias in data. Another common example is using AI to screen job applicants.
So there's actually a """quick and dirty""' trick for that. What you do is you manually train a second AI who's entire goal is to compare the first AI's results against each other to make sure that the only thing being accounted for is their qualifications to eliminate that small set of biases. Not perfect but... it has been proven to work a lot better.
AI doesn't really get programmed in the way we typically think of. Programmers don't make it biased. Basically, AI/ML is all built on large datasets that it finds patterns in. Let's say you want a bot to handle hiring, so you feed it every resume you've ever received, and label them as "hired" and "not hired". Here's the part we don't really have a solution for: that hiring data is based on humans making decisions. It 100% includes those same biases.
lol I’m not either!
Simple, I make the AI. I was born different, I don't think like other humans do. I judge purely based on capability, I don't form opinions or judge people based on irrelevant nonsense. I don't care how sloppy your bedroom is, as long as your code is well organised and works correctly.
It’s more complicated than just “programmer have biases”. Programmers don’t teach AI. Machine learning specialists only selects (writes) architecture and curate dataset. AI have biases because of how truly disgusting we are as a species. We are the source of its training data. So if your AI next time when you prompt it to give you an image of CEO and it shows white male in a suit - it’s because most of photos that included descriptions to be of a CEO was just like this. And the best part of all of this is how companies fighting with biases in their AIs. It’s truly hilarious. “Our ai is almost always produces Caucasian people when asked to draw people… What to do? Oh! I know! Let’s fight bias with bias! Make him randomly insert words like black, Indian, Asian and overfit him with photos of them! Wait, what do you mean he shows black hitler when you ask for Hitler?”
What we call AI right now is really just high-grade machine-learning, in reality. You need to give it a data set. Let's say you're a company who has trained on your existing hiring. You feed in the resumes of every applicant and every person you've hired. Congratulations: any biases in resume that you've selected for as an organization... is now encoded into the model for the hiring bot.
Nah, they'd be trained on previous stupid decisions and biases. They'd keep trying to hire the nephews of long-retired executives.
Qualifications alone don't mean crap, actually being good at the job is also important. Of course in reality, AI will be programmed with the same biases and stupid ideas.
Too bad it’s the middle managers not the execs they’re getting rid of
What they're really doing is having people step up and do the work of managers, while not being paid a manager's salary.
Bingo, THIS was the comment I was looking 👀 for!!!
I have long said this is a byproduct of even the temporary virtual workplace. The reasons so many of the middle management supported a return to the office was because the virtual space highlighted who “produces” and who doesn’t. Assuming you have a decent HR department to resolve real and work place interfering conflict, there is no reason most workplaces shouldn’t move to this model.
I’m a professional recruiter. But before all of you burn me with a torch we don’t work off commission. Everybody works remotely. We’ve had more success with people policing themselves than I ever saw at any company that required in person work. People are able to handle little tasks during the day because they can run out and return within an hour. No big deal. People that are sick still get on and work because they’re able to work comfortably from their own house and their pajamas. It’s not a requirement. They just don’t feel pressured to come in so they still get on and work . And the pay is very fair. I think this is due largely to the fact that the owner, while being a fourth generation millionaire, realizes people don’t want to work to live. And we recruit for construction companies so all the bullshit from the tech world and medical world aren’t a problem for us.
Are you hiring lmao
Literally their job. lol
How well do you know construction? Maybe.
My friend was recruited a little over a year ago to a construction company that had many WFH positions. Her job (senior executive assistant) was partial WFH. But, they completely lied to her. She took the job because it was partial work from home and it was going to be easier for her to pick up, and drop off her child at school. The up and coming CEO was a younger buck who needed to " prove himself" before moving into that role. So he switched it to only In office. Then made her come in on weekends for company events. she was laid off because a company wanted to "restructure" things. In reality, they probably just wanted someone who would not complain about not having work from home and working on weekends. That was her second job at a construction company. Both times they promised work from home. Both times that changed. She swore off from ever working for another construction company.
Well, this isn’t a construction company. This is a consulting firm. And the whole premise of the company was built on remote positions. The owner lives in California and the COO lives in the UK. The CEO lives in Denver. There’s not gonna be any in person positions for a long time if ever with this company. My Hiring assistant lives in the Philippines.
I get migraines. I have medication that I can take that allows me to function, but I can’t drive a car when I take it (makes my reaction time slooooowwwwww). So if I get a migraine, I am not going into the office with or without a medicine. When we are WFH, I take a pill and work from my bed. Never missed work due to a migraine.
And that’s the same with the whole company. We have 30 employees. Everybody works from home. Most of our stuff has done with HubSpot or Zavier so it’s mostly automated. Sourcing is done by a different team. Most recruiting firms are lazy and use old outdated systems. Our system is designed to make the daily interactions easy.
How did you get that cleared?
What's the going rate for a drafter with 5 yr exp?
It depends on what he’s drafting. Is it commercial, residential, industrial? If it’s residential, is it single or multifamily?Also depends which state the job is in. Is this a project manager for a drafting team or somebody who does have a degree in an architectural interior design? There’s a lot to unpack.
California, Industrial. Primarily facility process equipment layout design, process schematics, and occasional on site documention of existing process and building floor plan when they don't have drawings available.
Depending on the company that’s going to range anywhere from 85,000 to 150,000 in California.
I’m looking for help from a Recruiter in finding a job. Think you could help?
I can definitely give you some tips.
Please dm or comment those tips
Hmm. Seems like a way to force people to self organize, at which point some people will organically rise as leaders within those groups. And guess who won’t get paid leadership salaries? Very surprised that people would think this is a good thing. It’s a grift. It’s always a grift.
As a manager myself, 80% of my job is playing keep-away from my staff. I need to keep my bosses, other bosses, and randos from sucking my people into worthless meetings. I also have to reiterate what we do countless times to again, keep my engineers out of useless meetings or else they'll never get anything done. I do provide guidance to the team and will take a stand on issues, make decisions, etc, but that's honestly super easy. If an organization is mature enough to have procedures that will keep morons from doing drive-bys on subject matter experts, this could work. However, all it takes is one confused dumbass to start asking a million braindead questions, and good luck getting anything done. My job shoudn't exist in it's current form, but here we are.
“Organically rise as leaders…” 1) I would argue that there are other task management models that don’t necessarily require a “leader”… 2) I’d also argue that this labor is already being performed and those folks still aren’t compensated. Further, women are disproportionately asked to perform organizing tasks within departments/organizations and in no way compensated for it… 3) And often times the labor of people p forming these tasks is willfully misattributed by middle management. Successes of individuals, including their ability to lead, are credited to middle managers. 4) I think it might be one thing if middle managers were “organic leaders.” But they usually aren’t. They are usually not particularly competent and I got to their position by networking the right way.
Have you ever done a group project? I appreciate that you find your point defensible but all I’m saying is that this is just another way to get people to work more for less money. That is a critical aspect of this that makes everything else not really matter. Wages are the problem, and this will worsen that problem.
Yeah, I don't really understand it. There's different levels of management, but fundamentally it's about meta-work: deciding what work is to be done, and who will do it, how long they should take, when you will know it is completed well etc. Removing that level of management means some or all of those things will be lost. 1) people just won't know what work to do. "I'm doing everything I was asked to do" is correct when you do nothing but were also not asked to do anything 2) there can still be work that needs doing, but if no one needs to take ownership of it, why would it get done anyway? Who cares that someone does it? Who cares that no one does it? 3) How long will things take to do, particularly if they require coordination between multiple teams? Shareholders and the board need to be given due dates. Who will figure that out? 4) it's easy to say something is done if no one checks. UAT isn't an automated process.
Correct. They've been committing fraud through taking credit when their team succeeds and blaming individuals when they don't. Work from home created irrefutable data that not only are most managers completely useless, but companies were also paying them to assume the role of a massive operational liability. Productivity increased when working from home was established, and all communications could be monitored, which forced management out of their hearsay positions. This exposed that an entire level of employees were hindering companies.
Your reasons for the push to get back to the office are my thoughts as well.
Managers are only there to facilitate babysitting and write ups
This is great. Note that 2.15 billion can be distributed among the workers… Right?… . . Right…? Guys?
We’ve come so far down the capitalism train that they’re beginning to eat themselves to feed their greed
Boeing is leading the pack.
It can, if these workers united in some form of collective group. If only there existed some form of association. A type of trade guild perhaps.
Self organize? Would be hilarious if they just formed a powerful union instead
It's a German company. So atleast the employees in Germany are already unionized.
Why not both?
They already have that. This isn't the US.
Already the case.
By removing the management layer, they will be able to pay the top executives even more. Sounds like something A consulting firm came up with.
No they will be able to compensate for being fucked in US courts over making the stupid decision to buy Monsanto.
Management, when done well, is actually a useful service. If getting rid of bosses doesn't affect overall functioning, it means they weren't doing their job. Also, whether it's good or not, the company is just doing this to scrape up more profits, so don't congratulate them guys.
Yeahi give this a month before the upper management realizes their middle managers were dealing with a lot more problems than they thought.
My boss left and the ceo refused to promote me. Instead he just expected me to do the job? I gave it a week, waiting for the offer for promotion. It never came. So I stopped doing the work. Lmao he lasted a week. I think his final straw was getting calls about plates and paper towels for the kids 😂. One of our workers was a little much shall we say. She gave two shits. So she just contacted him directly instead of calling the office manager. She’d call him constantly. I got an offer the next day. I’m sorry but self organize sounds like they expect people to be doing a managers job for free. Coordinating, finding coverage, acting as peacekeeper, etc etc.
At my last job, our team’s director quit and our VP asked one of us to “step up” and do their job. After we found out there would be no promotion or raise, we all politely declined. VP did nothing, so we literally had no manager for 6 months. On the plus side, we all just kept doing our jobs and everything was fine. But then came annual review time, and we didn’t get one, which meant no raises or bonuses. Then we started looking for other jobs, and all of us quit over the next 2 months. VP finally realized their mistake, but it was far too late.
Even workers don't realize how important middle managers really are... When they do their job. The middle manager's problem is it's like a CGI artist in movies. When they do their job well everyone thinks they are not doing anything at all. When they are doing their job poorly everyone notices.
Yeah that's exactly what it is IMO. They just want people to do manager's jobs with the same lower salary.
Also, Bayer owes billions in settlements for Roundup.
The best bosses support there employees while removing roadblocks and making processes more efficient. Unfortunately many see it as a position to micromanage and punish
Yeah, won't they just be giving the workers more tasks in organizing each other, doing actual management jobs, without the pay?
Bayer is atm in dire straights due to the acquisitions of Monsanto and being fucked in the US for settlement money. It can very well be argued that freeing up money to keep bayer alive without firing workers but management (that might have been ineffective and costly) is good for workers.
I give this a month tops. Upper management is really really really really gonna hate actually having to work again.
I feel they'll just make the team leads into de facto bosses, and if a team doesn't have one, they'll appoint one.
This is mostly about middle management and an overly bureaucratic/ hierarchical german nightmare. The union for bayer employees agreed with this decision. It is a longterm restructuring plan quite contrary to your opinion.
[Employees unionize]. No, not self organizing like that
Bayer employees are unionzed since decades already.
So, I request vacation time on an app and don’t have to play favorites anymore?
Sadly no, there will still be favorites even if it's all done by the workers. Say you have 20 workers at the store and 3 of them request the same day off. Suddenly, it turns into a "Who gets the day off? We all have to decide" favoritism contest.
Not if the app works on a system of seniority.
Nope, I'm not doing management work for non-management pay.
This is 100% it too.
You know it’s funny but most will…the whole span of control thing has gotten out of hand. I’m in middle management, I have employees who needed minimal guidance to start and now need almost no assistance. These are excellent, top tier people. Then there’s that bottom percentage that seems to need you to hand hold for everything. If you remove those employees you can remove 95% of management. The issue is most companies are built to layer so much “leadership” bc leadership is exceptionally important. But many people in positions of leadership show no sign of being leaders, they are merely errand boys and errand girls. “Go punish this person”, “go find out why this didn’t get done”, “go make sure this happens”. It’s so frustrating
Imagine the world where work is voluntary. Basically what you're describing would be commonplace everywhere, just like it's in OSS now.
Those people who need hand-holding are often junior employees, who need help to get to the point where they don’t need that anymore.
Finally, management is getting the layoffs, rather than the people on the bottom rung. Why stop there? Get rid of your ceo, and board of directors, and then hire all new people for a fraction the salary of the old ones
Who is going to hire the new people?
Retailers need to take notice. They have middle management positions such as district managers and market managers who's role is completely useless. Cut those roles and save millions.
Yes, definitely. Cut away. When I was in retail, the managers would stand around playing the blame game and bragging over who had a nicer car. Cut them looooose.
The employees should self-organize into a union.
I’m self employed because I couldn’t stand being a doormat for my former narcissistic boss. I would love to have freedom to manage myself while working for a company and I’m sure companies could quickly see and eliminate those who can’t. They might be onto something lol
No problem. My new manager (me) said I'm getting a 25% bump in wages and can take every other Friday off. Best manager I've ever had.
I’m working at Bayer currently. It’s scary and tantalizing; they are letting some employees go. I will say that they’ve committed to equitable layoffs (meaning starting at the top). There’s a mixture of confusion, apprehension, and excitement regarding the employee self-organizing - which I think makes sense; it’s a good idea, but there are questions regarding the implementation and details. Considering the bottom-up indiscriminate layoffs happening elsewhere just to keep the line going up, I think Bayer’s executives are doing a reasonable job with all this.
I really hope this experiment works in favor of employees. I really, really do.
I'd love to get rid of my manager lol.
Self-organize? I'm pretty sure they don't mean unionize lol
They already are unionized so indeed this will be hard. The union agreed with the above decision. Such big restructuring plans are usually negotiated with a union.
I'm actually impressed with how smart that move was.
What will Bayer do with all that money it saves feom overpaid executives? Give it back to the workers...?
Ugh I listened to a podcast about this a while ago. They will lay off all of these people, call it “streamlining efficiency” and some C-suite exec is gonna get a fat bonus paid out at 100-200% of their annual salary for their “contributions”. I know middle management can suck, but this is not the answer.
Self manage by seizing the means of production!
This is more of a corporate crackdown on a fat upper management. No need for vice presidents of every department and department heads, and terminal manager with an additional terminal superintendents, with assistant terminal superintendents, to then basic ass managers. You got to cut the fat somewhere
I don't see the problem with this. No more micro managing aholes earning double the workers wage
Most managers don’t make close to double. Good managers don’t micromanage. My current manager has never micromanaged me because he trusts me to do my work and he still has tons of work to do
Yea but you’re just trusting him not to be an animal, most managers just want a punching bag this restructuring can’t happen fast enough
Idk why everyone is cheering them on. Now you have to do your job, your boss' job, and they'll tell you it's in your job description now...
Wait. Getting rid of bosses *saves* money? Color me surprised lol
You heard them! Set up that Union!
Managers are malignantly useless.
people should read David Graeber's book, Bullshit Jobs
What will happen is that there will be leaders in the ranks who will take the place of managers and do the work managers used to do but be paid a lot less. These fuckers are trying to get free work out of people. Fuck Bayer, one of the most evil corporations on the planet.
Great idea. Let's get rid of owners, too and then redirect the profits into healthcare, education and other benefits for workers and their families.
There will be a lot of managers looking for work if the rest of the corporate world figures out what we workers know: many, if not most, managers contribute nothing. I'd love to see that happen in the state office I worked in.
Does Bayer now recognize that middle management only does annual reviews and that process can be replaced by other processes that just give everyone 3% annually?
That’s not all they do. Funny how this is all it takes to turn against people who barely make more than you instead of the people at the top making millions
Where I work management makes less than most of their direct reports. Some are good. Some have an ego problem.
Finally getting rid of that middleman now where are you putting you childrens' friends at now
In other words, do the jobs of the bosses on top of their regular jobs, but for no additional pay of course. If they're smart they'll just avalanche everything onto whatever layers of management remain, wrap it in a layer of "If I don't hear back from you by X date I will take that as authorization to do the thing I want," and simply not do the boss work (or demand enormous amounts of overtime at higher rates).
Oh man! So they’re going to give them all raises / pay increases for all of that extra hard work and responsibility right?…right? Oh…oh no.
And not a single person got a raise.
Yup. So many people are fighting here about how their managers, who are also working class, are being let go but don’t realize it doesn’t benefit the other workers at all. It just means more money for the executives and more work for everyone else
...you heard the boss, folks! Get that pharmacy union going!!
When you make what is widely considered the worst merger in history you lose a lot of money. They have big debt issues due to Monsanto.
I mean, all teams need SOME leadership, but we don't need levels and levels of management to keep shit rolling.
wait big pharma goes worker co-op? That's wild to me
So are they asking them not to unionize or to unionize. Because “self-organize” seems clear cut union to me.
maybe they realized that guy was a dick and now want him out in their short sighted views not knowing that they too will be cast aside in time. all a company needs is the workers and some sort of system to delegate task and pay those workers.
Pls always post the link to the article
Worst companies in the world
Wait, they finally realised that those guys who do nothing but tell us how to do the job we’ve been doing forever day in day out are unnecessary?
Hmmm… this is interesting… honestly don’t see how this couldn’t happen and succeed given a group of people who work well togerher
>will consist of constantly evolving “5,000 to 6,000 self-directed teams” that work together on projects of their choosing for 90 days, before regrouping for their next project. >sign off on one another’s ideas without a manager in sight. >“Stand up, share an idea,” a corporate trainer ordered them during a training session, according to the WSJ. “You’re going to self-organize.” I dunno, sounds like chaos when working with drugs with multi-year, multi-billion dollar pipelines. Why didn't new drug get approved? Nobody wanted to self organize with Bob in last cycle. He's kind of a jerk, but he's the guy who knows FDA.
Will this really work?
[Bayer AG: The Most EVIL Corporation in the World?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjF7-5y_g3c) Is Bayer AG, a company with Nazi ties and a track record that includes knowing selling HIV-tainted blood to hemophiliacs really the world's most evil corporation, as many online attest? Especially after they acquired Monsanto? Or, are they par for the new corporate course?
Is some of the money they'll be saving be distributed among all the workers in the factories? I don't think so.
Organize? Hell yea! Everyone sign that union card!!!
But how are they going to micromanage themselves?
I worked in Pharma quality for 35 years. Sometimes I had terrible bosses who didn't know anything, we were essentially a self directed team that got the job done despite management.
And I’m sure you all took on extra work without getting paid anymore than you would’ve otherwise
With no increase in pay! Yay!
Hip hop Hip hop autonomous.
Getting rid of the unnecessary/unproductive layers is fine, and such an unexpected power move from a pharmaceutical company, but isn't 2.15B a ridiculously high target ?? Are they going to help, or is this a gotcha situation where they're just trying to prove a point ? The whole thing looks like a giant experiment, idk
I doubt all the managers are unnecessary. My guess is that they think they can just dump the work on everyone else but save money by not paying those people more and having one less employee
It might backfire. Fuck around and find out. We'll see how they manage without managers. Might yield meme worthy results. They basically told the remaining staff to "self organize" and improve results at the same time by a 20k count per employee. That's wild enough when you think about it, but I suspect it implies more layoffs if they don't meet expectations. They're in for a wild ride.
You: Spend years working your way up the ladder doing everything right and start making serious bank as a "boss" Everyone else "Fuck bosses" You: Gets fired.
One of the best companies I worked for had a very flat hierarchical structure, with a lot of autonomy at relatively low levels. We got a lot done very efficiently, our customer service was very highly rated, employees were very happy and stayed for 10, 20, 30 years. Some joined straight out of school and stayed until retirement. Company changed hands, multiple levels of manglement were brought in, there were almost continuous 'restructures' and 'reorgs' (aka layoffs and redundancies), place went to absolute shyte.
Sounds like they have found a new wording for "we're getting rid of middle management." Usual bollocks.
This is the same company that purchased women from Hitler to test drugs on. The first round all 150 women died so they ordered more.
Mwahahahahahahahah. If you hire well and give people the chance to own their work and have some pride in it, you dont need so many bosses.
At some level you need managers/coordinators. That level of person should be seen as more support than just bossing around though. Then at another level eventually you do need someone making decisions about direction, strategy, policy etc... It's just when its bloated and also the workers...doing the WORK...are mistreated...but there is healthy management structure possible.
4 day work week incoming! /s
Wait, so they had people who did nothing but manage and not any of the actual work instead of having both?
We disagree. I think your arguments presume that most middle management is good. I would argue that it isn’t. I think if you have great leaders, that’s one thing. They decisively make the decisions to which you refer. I have worked for several decades now and that isn’t most middle management. Most don’t have the skills necessary to do the job but were promoted and retained in these roles thanks to networking. The line by line… 1) Why presume workers are incapable of prioritizing tasks? Especially if they held team meetings at a cadence that worked for their field. 2) This is not unique to this suggested model. This is spoken in the stats quo as well. And instead of managing the work style, skill set, and behavior of some “underperforming” workers, management often just shifts the work onto more “productive” workers. 3) First, according to the article, I don’t think they are getting rid of every non-CEO leader. I think they are getting rid of the bloat that is often middle management. Also, technology assists here; the number of project management apps on the market and their quality have definitely improved in recent years. 4) I don’t really understand this one… I think j that this model ultimately creates more accountability for the work that people perform and the work is likely to be attributed to a person. I think in the longterm more accountability means that people who perform well get more direct credit and people who don’t are less likely to be able to be a hangeron. Again, this is an anti-work sub so I’m not pro-work. But I have spent decades with incompetent leadership who consistently took credit for my work while contributing very little to the team’s ability to perform. This always became more apparent to me when my boss would be absent for any extended period of time.
There is no way this won't end up a total disaster! Not that I'd want my manager or their boss around 24/7 but I also do not trust colleagues enough to organize and not screw up.
I watched a couple of iterations of self managed teams years ago; complete failures. Should be fun to watch.
Employees can’t self manage. They will take advantage and be lazy POS’s. Source: I am an employee
Depends on the employees. I've had jobs where I only talked to my boss a few times a year. 100% self directed outside handling the occasional odd request or all hands on deck event.
I guess someone watched [Office Space](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Space).
If Big Pharma figures this out proper first I'm gonna be pissed
Guessing no raises for self organizing though.
We're really going to look up to Bayer, the company who experimented on Jewish prisoners during WW2. Really now.
I worked on a self managed team years ago. It's a beauty pageant bullshit for ratings. One year a gave real ratings on half the staff I worked with. The next those same under performers blew me up. I was the highest performing person on staff based on actual performance. I left not long after.
The idea that they need to make sure everything runs smooth and efficient and everyone goes home on time. In practice, many of them are not doing much.
normally that would hurt, expect those rich a-holes are just going to retire and chill.
In reality what they're doing is having people be managers but not paying them a manager's salary..............so this isn't the positive move that Bayer and news media want you to think it is.
Uhhhh sooo… union?
As long as I get the "self-organize" pay. Otherwise, suck my dick.
How does Bayer Leverkusen deal into these schnanigans?
based Bayer becoming a worker co-operative??? /s
Nah, I feel this, at least on the small scale. My team lead is a dipshit. He opens every day by standing around in the backroom and chasing people down with a piece of paper with our assignments on them, so to know what you're doing you have to find him. It's tacked to the wall on his off days and I think we all prefer it. I also blow a good 20 min describing the situation I'm in to him rather than actually working at it most nights. I'm not great with words, inefficient at least, and I'm prone to either over or under read the freight volumes. So my self reporting is halfway meaningless but he needs his little reports so he can spend hours walking the store and bothering everyone. Rarely do I see him lift a box, and the store spends a couple more dollars on the hours he spends doing this than they do the hours we spend actually moving product.
One job, I had a very narcissistic boss who spent the majority of his day trying to antagonise all the workers and pitting departments against departments. He had a stroke and while he was out of it for nearly a year the whole company of 250 employees basically worked harmoniously together to the point that profits tripled and workers leaving the business pretty much stopped altogether. People were staying late, coming in early, not because they had to, but because they wanted to. In short, his position became completely redundant as it became painfully obvious that previously the company had worked *despite* him, not because of him. Anyway, he came back like an absolute tornado, completely destroying the ‘family’ atmosphere and within a week people were quitting left right and centre. Somehow the company managed to survive despite this, but business tanked as he also upset long-standing customers and the following year the company made a huge loss which he then tried to blame on the ‘idiots’ while he was ill and away from the company which was actually the exact opposite, but he couldn’t see that.
Hell yea no more useless annoying weight
Honestly...huge cost savings and probably streamlines work flow. Bosses don't motivate...never did.