> I've been on teams where the majority of the team appear to spend about 6 hours a day actually in the office, and don't appear to be working (although of cour

> I've been on teams where the majority of the team appear to spend about 6 hours a day actually in the office, and don't appear to be working (although of course they may be thinking/reading/learning) more than that. That seems undesirable. This was sort of my point. If people don't want to work they'll find a way to not work regardless of whether they're in a seat. > It's not a boolean; it's a rational. One gets so much quality stuff done over time. Those who produce more quality features over less time are more valuable than those who produce fewer, more broken features over more time. Sure, but because of the above it can be difficult to tell whether two people who are equivalently productive are both working equivalently hard. At the end of the day, if they're delivering value proportional to their compensation, you're probably going to keep paying them.