5 ms·

> Employees want private offices Employees want a little privacy and most of the want a quiet are. It's not the same as a want of private offices. > If the sc

by pmlnr 10y ago

> Employees want private offices Employees want a little privacy and most of the want a quiet are. It's not the same as a want of private offices. > If the science pointed towards sitting next to the loud sales guy "If". Show me the data ;) > Most people can't work remotely, even if they say they want to. That depends on the equipment you need to use. If it's a phone, a laptop, and an internet connection, you can, end of story. If you need specialized equipment it gets problematic indeed. EDIT: typo.

MichaelBurge 10y ago
> That depends on the equipment you need to use. If it's a phone, a laptop, and an internet connection, you can, and of story. Have you tried to hire anyone to do remote work, even freelance work? Most people fail miserably if you don't give them structure(and being on-site is a type of structure). You can work around it by selecting for the small percentage of people who can work independently, but most people aren't in that small percentage. So success by being vigilant in selection would reinforce that it doesn't work on average. If this site was "Manager News" and everybody here was a manager, I'd be more likely to believe discussion praising allowing remote workers. As it is, I'm skeptical that people aren't believing what they want to hear. Personally, I find it quite plausible that the loud sales guy is hurting everyone's productivity. But lots of things are plausible, and it seems undisciplined to believe all the resulting discussion.
- sheepmullet 10y ago
  You are assuming remote work is significantly less structured than on-site work. When I worked remote I had meetings to attend every week and consistent schedules to deliver to.
- sheepmullet 10y ago
  > Personally, I find it quite plausible that the loud sales guy is hurting everyone's productivity Plausible is such a weak word given the amount of evidence we have. In study after study we can see loud consistent distractions significantly reduce our ability to perform complex tasks. It could be that loud sales people are the special kind of distraction that improves productivity but it's doubtful.
- croon 10y ago
  > Have you tried to hire anyone to do remote work, even freelance work? Most people fail miserably if you don't give them structure(and being on-site is a type of structure). Have you tried to hire anyone at all? Recruitment is hard. Period. Failure to track production/results is completely unrelated to where your employee works, as well as failure to produce is only related to the employee. If he/she does not know where he/she best produces, the recruitment is bad to begin with.
Chris2048 10y ago
> "If". Show me the data ;) You are ignoring the point; That popularity is biased by personal preference.
- croon 10y ago
  You are ignoring the possibility that productivity is related to the well being of the staff.
  - MichaelBurge 10y ago
    This is irrelevant. The truth of whether open spaces or private offices or walled cubicles are better is irrelevant to my argument. Attention and selection bias apply and have a negative effect, even when the target is factually correct.
    - croon 10y ago
      If well being is a factor of productivity, then it is _by definition_ relevant. I don't see your point. Also, I see plenty of comments on these threads from people who do like working in open offices. The "selection bias" you experience is likely just related to the fact that open offices are what is very much in vogue right now, and mostly people who doesn't like it chime in. Likewise if single offices where in vogue we would hear from the people who do like to work in open offices currently.
      - Chris2048 10y ago
        It's not relevant to the above point, it's a different point entirely. You are arguing about whether X, when X was an irrelevant example to make another point. More explicitly, the argument is of the form: "If the science pointed towards X; where 'X' is an idea that is not popular among developers." In this scenario, it is irrelevant if X is true because it is a hypothetical.
        croon 10y ago

by pmlnr 10y ago

MichaelBurge 10y ago

> That depends on the equipment you need to use. If it's a phone, a laptop, and an internet connection, you can, and of story. Have you tried to hire anyone to do remote work, even freelance work? Most people fail miserably if you don't give them structure(and being on-site is a type of structure). You can work around it by selecting for the small percentage of people who can work independently, but most people aren't in that small percentage. So success by being vigilant in selection would reinforce that it doesn't work on average. If this site was "Manager News" and everybody here was a manager, I'd be more likely to believe discussion praising allowing remote workers. As it is, I'm skeptical that people aren't believing what they want to hear. Personally, I find it quite plausible that the loud sales guy is hurting everyone's productivity. But lots of things are plausible, and it seems undisciplined to believe all the resulting discussion.

sheepmullet 10y ago
You are assuming remote work is significantly less structured than on-site work. When I worked remote I had meetings to attend every week and consistent schedules to deliver to.
sheepmullet 10y ago
> Personally, I find it quite plausible that the loud sales guy is hurting everyone's productivity Plausible is such a weak word given the amount of evidence we have. In study after study we can see loud consistent distractions significantly reduce our ability to perform complex tasks. It could be that loud sales people are the special kind of distraction that improves productivity but it's doubtful.
croon 10y ago
> Have you tried to hire anyone to do remote work, even freelance work? Most people fail miserably if you don't give them structure(and being on-site is a type of structure). Have you tried to hire anyone at all? Recruitment is hard. Period. Failure to track production/results is completely unrelated to where your employee works, as well as failure to produce is only related to the employee. If he/she does not know where he/she best produces, the recruitment is bad to begin with.

Chris2048 10y ago

> "If". Show me the data ;) You are ignoring the point; That popularity is biased by personal preference.

croon 10y ago
You are ignoring the possibility that productivity is related to the well being of the staff.
- MichaelBurge 10y ago
  This is irrelevant. The truth of whether open spaces or private offices or walled cubicles are better is irrelevant to my argument. Attention and selection bias apply and have a negative effect, even when the target is factually correct.
  - croon 10y ago
    If well being is a factor of productivity, then it is _by definition_ relevant. I don't see your point. Also, I see plenty of comments on these threads from people who do like working in open offices. The "selection bias" you experience is likely just related to the fact that open offices are what is very much in vogue right now, and mostly people who doesn't like it chime in. Likewise if single offices where in vogue we would hear from the people who do like to work in open offices currently.
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      It's not relevant to the above point, it's a different point entirely. You are arguing about whether X, when X was an irrelevant example to make another point. More explicitly, the argument is of the form: "If the science pointed towards X; where 'X' is an idea that is not popular among developers." In this scenario, it is irrelevant if X is true because it is a hypothetical.
      - croon 10y ago