3 ms·

I know everyone is different, and noisy offices can be disruptive to some, but I can't help think that an ulterior motive with working from home is working less

I know everyone is different, and noisy offices can be disruptive to some, but I can't help think that an ulterior motive with working from home is working less. Maybe work from home will be how we reduce the workweek to account for the diminishing need for work.

skywhopper 7y ago
There are certainly people who don't do well working at home, and people who try to take advantage, but as you say, everyone is different. If anything I work more when I don't work out of an office. Not only do I spend more time at my computer--since my office setup is handy at all times of day and on the weekends--but I feel more productive while I'm doing it. For example, at the office, if I feel unmotivated (or stressed out/distracted by the noise/chatter/other people), my only real options for a context switch are to take a walk, or get a snack or coffee, none of which really gets me going again... But at home I can easily go downstairs and accomplish something like washing the dishes or a load of laundry, which gets my mind back in the right space of accomplishing tasks. And if I'm doing that and something comes up, I'm 10 seconds away from my desk and I can be back working much faster than if I were 10 minutes away at the coffee shop.
Strom 7y ago
Eliminating dead time is definitely part of it. However if a thinking based worker doesn't feel like working, it doesn't matter if they're sitting at an office. There's no way to verify whether they're thinking about a work related problem or thinking about their vacation plans. On top of that, in a lot of cases people can get away even with just blatant non-working like reading Hacker News on their work computer. Thus it's always about trust anyway. It doesn't matter much where the worker physically is. Additionally, it's results not methods that should be managed. You want to set goals for your workers and see how they progress. Whether they achieve those goals sitting at an office or by outsouring their work to their little nephew while playing video games, it shouldn't really matter. Ultimately what matters is if the goals are achieved, as that's why you're paying the person -- not because you want them to physically be doing some specific activity.
rofo1 7y ago
I can sort of understand the scepticism, but it's relatively easy to see whether someone is working or not. Especially if you have tools like git, and any tool that tracks tasks/progress etc. Also, people can work less and just exist more, albeit physically closer to you. In the end, you'll only be able to measure the amount of work they've done similarly in both cases: remote or regular. It'll be a combination of seeing the progress, understanding the tasks and gauging whether they've been done in reasonable time, etc. You can do all of this in the case of a remote worker. Speaking for myself, I am vastly more productive in a remote, quiet place (home). Easily 5x more productive, or perhaps even more. I cannot understand people working mentally demanding jobs and being interrupted all the time.

skywhopper 7y ago

There are certainly people who don't do well working at home, and people who try to take advantage, but as you say, everyone is different. If anything I work more when I don't work out of an office. Not only do I spend more time at my computer--since my office setup is handy at all times of day and on the weekends--but I feel more productive while I'm doing it. For example, at the office, if I feel unmotivated (or stressed out/distracted by the noise/chatter/other people), my only real options for a context switch are to take a walk, or get a snack or coffee, none of which really gets me going again... But at home I can easily go downstairs and accomplish something like washing the dishes or a load of laundry, which gets my mind back in the right space of accomplishing tasks. And if I'm doing that and something comes up, I'm 10 seconds away from my desk and I can be back working much faster than if I were 10 minutes away at the coffee shop.

Strom 7y ago

Eliminating dead time is definitely part of it. However if a thinking based worker doesn't feel like working, it doesn't matter if they're sitting at an office. There's no way to verify whether they're thinking about a work related problem or thinking about their vacation plans. On top of that, in a lot of cases people can get away even with just blatant non-working like reading Hacker News on their work computer. Thus it's always about trust anyway. It doesn't matter much where the worker physically is. Additionally, it's results not methods that should be managed. You want to set goals for your workers and see how they progress. Whether they achieve those goals sitting at an office or by outsouring their work to their little nephew while playing video games, it shouldn't really matter. Ultimately what matters is if the goals are achieved, as that's why you're paying the person -- not because you want them to physically be doing some specific activity.

rofo1 7y ago

I can sort of understand the scepticism, but it's relatively easy to see whether someone is working or not. Especially if you have tools like git, and any tool that tracks tasks/progress etc. Also, people can work less and just exist more, albeit physically closer to you. In the end, you'll only be able to measure the amount of work they've done similarly in both cases: remote or regular. It'll be a combination of seeing the progress, understanding the tasks and gauging whether they've been done in reasonable time, etc. You can do all of this in the case of a remote worker. Speaking for myself, I am vastly more productive in a remote, quiet place (home). Easily 5x more productive, or perhaps even more. I cannot understand people working mentally demanding jobs and being interrupted all the time.