4 ms·

Precisely. And I think this is why many employers are also highly hesitant about remote work (at times). They don't necessarily want to give their employees tha

Precisely. And I think this is why many employers are also highly hesitant about remote work (at times). They don't necessarily want to give their employees that much power, but they lack the courage to say that directly. And instead you hear the criticism that it's less productive.

jaggederest 8y ago
I agree. It's much less about productivity. I analyzed my commits at my last part-time-remote job, before I went full remote, and I was about 2x as productive during times when I was not at the office, even when accounting for the fact that I scheduled meetings during in-office days.
mseebach 8y ago
You're asserting a kind of direct malicious intent that I don't think is fair. Certainly, remote work puts some demands on the manager that a bad manager won't be able to handle. If anything, it's an unwillingness to confront this inability. But remote work also puts very high demand on the workers: they have to be very conscientious, self-motivated and proactive and effective communicators. Everybody know slackers who are not pulling their weights, and who would slack even harder if given the "power". The idea that "working from home" could be a euphemism for a half day+ off did not gestate out of the blue in a mean-spirited managers head. A classically managed working environment can mitigate a lot of this in a way remote environments can't. A successful remote working environment requires a particular non-average grade of manager and employee.
speleding 8y ago
An an employer who allows people to work remotely. My experience has been that some employees cannot handle the responsibility and their output drops a lot if they're not behind their desk. Others are fine / better. (Because I found it hard to tell some people they're not allowed to work remotely, while others can, I ended up replacing the ones who performed poorly when working remote.) My point is that you cannot really argue for or against remote work without taking into account that your employees might not all be suitable for that work style. (But if you're building a new organisation then you can pick the right people from the start)
- yosito 8y ago
  If you give people more explicit feedback about their performance and hold them accountable only for their performance regardless of where they get the work done, the problem disappears. I get the sense that you're holding yourself responsible for the performance of your employees, but for remote work to be successful, you need to hold the employees responsible. If you find that some employees aren't responsible enough to handle that, don't you want more responsible employees anyway?
  - speleding 8y ago
    Yes, I came to the same conclusion: I need employees that don't need to be micro-managed. Changing their behaviour (if that is even possible) seemed to require more effort than I was prepared to put in, so I ended up replacing them. However, I haven't found a good way to assess whether potential hires are good at this. Everyone claims to be an independent self-starter who is great at remote work whilst in the hiring process...
    - tkxxx7 8y ago
      This is the kind of thing you can suss out of personal references. Of course, many people will provide the best / most reliable (for them) references they possibly can, but you can still get a good signal with the right question. Ex. "Can you tell me about any times ____ pulled through without oversight", or "delivered something both useful and unexpected", etc. Anything that isn't a fast, resounding "yes" with details is probably a "no".
    - Implicated 8y ago
      Potentially filter for people who have a demonstrated history of successfully freelancing. They've likely learned how they work most efficiently already.

jaggederest 8y ago

I agree. It's much less about productivity. I analyzed my commits at my last part-time-remote job, before I went full remote, and I was about 2x as productive during times when I was not at the office, even when accounting for the fact that I scheduled meetings during in-office days.

mseebach 8y ago

You're asserting a kind of direct malicious intent that I don't think is fair. Certainly, remote work puts some demands on the manager that a bad manager won't be able to handle. If anything, it's an unwillingness to confront this inability. But remote work also puts very high demand on the workers: they have to be very conscientious, self-motivated and proactive and effective communicators. Everybody know slackers who are not pulling their weights, and who would slack even harder if given the "power". The idea that "working from home" could be a euphemism for a half day+ off did not gestate out of the blue in a mean-spirited managers head. A classically managed working environment can mitigate a lot of this in a way remote environments can't. A successful remote working environment requires a particular non-average grade of manager and employee.

speleding 8y ago

An an employer who allows people to work remotely. My experience has been that some employees cannot handle the responsibility and their output drops a lot if they're not behind their desk. Others are fine / better. (Because I found it hard to tell some people they're not allowed to work remotely, while others can, I ended up replacing the ones who performed poorly when working remote.) My point is that you cannot really argue for or against remote work without taking into account that your employees might not all be suitable for that work style. (But if you're building a new organisation then you can pick the right people from the start)

yosito 8y ago
If you give people more explicit feedback about their performance and hold them accountable only for their performance regardless of where they get the work done, the problem disappears. I get the sense that you're holding yourself responsible for the performance of your employees, but for remote work to be successful, you need to hold the employees responsible. If you find that some employees aren't responsible enough to handle that, don't you want more responsible employees anyway?
- speleding 8y ago
  Yes, I came to the same conclusion: I need employees that don't need to be micro-managed. Changing their behaviour (if that is even possible) seemed to require more effort than I was prepared to put in, so I ended up replacing them. However, I haven't found a good way to assess whether potential hires are good at this. Everyone claims to be an independent self-starter who is great at remote work whilst in the hiring process...
  - tkxxx7 8y ago
    This is the kind of thing you can suss out of personal references. Of course, many people will provide the best / most reliable (for them) references they possibly can, but you can still get a good signal with the right question. Ex. "Can you tell me about any times ____ pulled through without oversight", or "delivered something both useful and unexpected", etc. Anything that isn't a fast, resounding "yes" with details is probably a "no".
  - Implicated 8y ago
    Potentially filter for people who have a demonstrated history of successfully freelancing. They've likely learned how they work most efficiently already.