7 ms·

As someone who has gone to the dark side, there's an interesting tradeoff here. There's basically three scenarios: (1) all employees are trusted and unmeasure

by fizx 7y ago

As someone who has gone to the dark side, there's an interesting tradeoff here. There's basically three scenarios: (1) all employees are trusted and unmeasured, but you have to tap people on the shoulder every once in a while to confirm that they're on track. Naturally, this is easier if everyone is on-site. (2) everyone is accountable for producing of tickets, and you can check that everyone is at least doing some work. Check-ins can happen via comments in tickets. (3) Everyone just does whatever they think they're supposed to be doing, and the manager only finds out something is wrong when the employee volunteers the information or the project isn't delivered on-time. (1) is the common case, (2) requires time and skills many managers don't have (and creates @#$% Jira commentary form the peanut gallery), (3) requires building an excellent team with years of mutual trust between them, and still goes wrong all the time. Seeing you at your desk working, and asking a casual question or two at the water cooler is by far the easiest (laziest?) way to make sure things don't go too far sideways.

JimboOmega 7y ago
"I just stare at my desk. But it looks like I'm working!" - Office Space
baron_harkonnen 7y ago
In the many jobs I've had I've never seen "things go side ways" because those tricky employees have finally found a way to not do any work! By and large the vast majority of workers have the capitalist cultural logic deeply ingrained in their psyche and personally feel value only when they produce meaningful work. Most people are not trying to get away with doing less, and, at least in my experience, feel the most satisfied and secure when they are working hard and creating visible products of their labor. When I've seen "things go side ways" it's almost exclusively at higher levels of management when politics create goals other than "create an amazing product". Anyone who has worked both in a large company and a small startups has likely seen the difference between "my boss's goal is for us to create a best in class product" vs "my boss's goal is for him to get L_current +1 promotion". There are no companies that have failed because the workers have finally figured out how to sneak their way out of doing work. But workers do have a hard time being productive when "productivity" is some weird game that no one will really explain the rules to. But the logic of blaming workers who get "off track" is a huge part of the culture we need to get rid of to have successful remote work.
- fizx 7y ago
  Agree that 90% of people want to do effective work. The problem is that 6 people have 7 opinions about what effective means. It's not about blame, it's about trying to ensure the team works together cohesively, and that individuals are unblocked.
- MaxBarraclough 7y ago
  > There are no companies that have failed because the workers have finally figured out how to sneak their way out of doing work. I suspect there are such companies, but that the guilty individuals weren't serious professionals. Hire bad enough 'developers' and I can see it becoming a problem. If the job is shovelling snow, I imagine it becomes one of the management's chief concerns.
ergothus 7y ago
> (1) all employees are trusted and unmeasured, but you have to tap people on the shoulder every once in a while to confirm that they're on track. Naturally, this is easier if everyone is on-site. I don't get it - shouldn't one-on-ones and regular progress check-ins (be those standups, metrics (This is your #2), whatever) give you that information? None of those are easier when on-site. In fact, given today's move towards open offices, any form of 1:1 collaboration is easier remotely where you don't have to fight for precious meeting room space. I think the core problem is that you're trying to prove "everyone is working" when we should be interested in "the work is getting done". Seeing that everyone is working doesn't actually mean progress is getting made. If you have to take steps to answer that question anyway, the first question is fairly pointless.
- hobofromabroad 7y ago
  > > (1) all employees are trusted and unmeasured, but you have to tap people on the shoulder every once in a while to confirm that they're on track. Naturally, this is easier if everyone is on-site. > I don't get it - shouldn't one-on-ones and regular progress check-ins (be those standups, metrics (This is your #2), whatever) give you that information? None of those are easier when on-site. In fact, given today's move towards open offices, any form of 1:1 collaboration is easier remotely where you don't have to fight for precious meeting room space. This is not quite the case everywhere. We have agile 5-8 person offices and people are still supposed to walk out for longer phone calls occupying one of the smaller meeting rooms. But I actually like that different teams can mix a lot easier.
  - ergothus 7y ago
    > But I actually like that different teams can mix a lot easier. I've heard this claim for open offices a lot. I never understand it. It's not like I'm AGAINST easy collaboration. But I spend (or try to spend) more time on my own, and everyone "collaborating" around me and expecting that I can turn off my peripheral vision and hearing with a brain that is hardwired to NOT ignore those things just makes the majority of my time worse. Plus, in the last 20 years and 5 companies (spanning 8 offices if you count office moves) I've never had adequate meeting room space (defined as: We need a space to spontaneously talk without disturbing others, can we find it trivially?) for more than a 3 month span after moving to a larger building. Hardly scientifically conclusive, but personally persuasive. So I'm all for collaboration between people, including between teams, but I don't understand sacrificing the REST of the time in the name of that one thing.
bonestamp2 7y ago
From my experience, as long as the company is divided into small project teams, a project manager can take 10 minutes every day to have a group meeting for everyone to share what they worked on yesterday and what they're working on today. Call it a scrum meeting or a stand-up or whatever, but it doesn't have to follow any specific model as this will probably vary depending on your type of work. We have 8 people on our current project team and we can typically finish this meeting in under 5 minutes each morning. We have some people on each coast, and half the people are remote so we do it at 10:30 am Eastern. It keeps everyone accountable to the company and each other, and because everyone knows what everyone else is working on, it makes it easier to avoid overlap and divide up tasks in the most logical way possible.
otakucode 7y ago
I would like to suggest a tremendously simple (4) : Every day, each employee spends no more than 5 minutes reporting what they did the prior day, and what they are planning to work on that day. If they're blocked by anything, they can mention that and ask for assistance. I just finished working on a fully remote contract that worked that way, every day at noon there was a conference call that never took longer than 15 minutes. It worked great. A couple manager types were on the call, and they'd share any developments on the contract side of things, feedback from the customer, things like that, but mostly they just listened and took note of potential issues and made sure they got resolved (so like if you mentioned a problem one day then didn't the next, they'd ask if it got dealt with).
- fizx 7y ago
  Making standups useful to everyone on mid-to-large teams (i.e. > 6:1 employee:manager ratio) is quite challenging, but yes, you raise a good point that this is viable, particularly for smaller teams.
- wolco 7y ago
  Sounds horrible. Have meetings when they are necessary. Talk to people throughout the day. Send weekly status reports. Don't waste a day resolve that issue now.
VonGuard 7y ago
Reminds me of an old adage about tech work and other skilled labors: If you give me a task that takes a normal perosn 8 hours, and I finish it in 30 minutes, you're paying me for the skill, knowledge and experience that allows me to do it in 30 minutes. I do not owe you another 7.5 hours of work. I owe you the job being done, not the hours it should take to do it.
- Chirael 7y ago
  Isn't that one of the reasons Hacker News exists, to fill those other 7.5 hours?
- umvi 7y ago
  > I do not owe you another 7.5 hours of work. Only if you are a contractor and you've fulfilled your contract. If you are a salaried employee I expect you to keep your hopper of tasks full so you aren't sitting around idle 95% of the day waiting for me to feed you 30 minute taskers
  - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
    Why? As a salaried employee you're literally paying me for my ability to get work done, not for my hourly output. If the goal is to keep me busy for X number of hours a day, instead of getting a job done whatever it requires, why am I salaried?
    - umvi 7y ago
      > If the goal is to keep me busy for X number of hours a day, instead of getting a job done whatever it requires, why am I salaried? The "goal" in a lot of cases is nebulous (i.e. "keep developing the product", "improve stability", etc). There might not be a manager feeding you tasks every time you run out. At least in my company, you are expected to figure out on your own how to continually make the product better and proactively do it, not sit around idle after rapidly finishing the last task your manager gave you. If you are just a dumb worker that can only work when your manager fills your queue, you are not valuable to me as a salaried employee (you are more valuable as a contractor who I can call upon for a one-off difficult task that you can then complete in 30 minutes).
davidjnelson 7y ago
2 seems to work well. Keep people updated as you go. It’s compassionate - managers have a lot on their plate, give them an assist.
malvosenior 7y ago
Why can they not be trusted and measured? I trust my employees and encourage them to be creative and autonomous. I also expect people to ship their progress regularly and work in strategic alignment as helped by the direction I provide in our regular meeting cadence. It's a weak manager that's constantly concerned about their reports not being productive. Nothing in the world is easier to spot than someone who doesn't produce. You don't need to optimize for that, when it happens, deal with it. Optimize toward keeping your team motivated.
- justbaker 7y ago
  Does the employee deliver? That should be a yes/no answer. Micromanging employees minutes is an ineffective distraction to reaching that goal of delivery. The more autonomous each is while still moving in the direction of the common goal of the team, the more trusted they can be.
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    Absolutely. You will get the best work out of an employee if they have as much autonomy and creative input as possible. I've never understood why that's so difficult for a lot of managers to realize. I suspect most people aren't cut out for leadership because they don't have the trust, confidence or lack of ego required to motivate people without power tripping on them.
  - Xelbair 7y ago
    >> Micromanging employees minutes is an ineffective distraction to reaching that goal of delivery. i would say that it is a very quick way for employee to reach towards a new company.

by fizx 7y ago

JimboOmega 7y ago

"I just stare at my desk. But it looks like I'm working!" - Office Space

baron_harkonnen 7y ago

In the many jobs I've had I've never seen "things go side ways" because those tricky employees have finally found a way to not do any work! By and large the vast majority of workers have the capitalist cultural logic deeply ingrained in their psyche and personally feel value only when they produce meaningful work. Most people are not trying to get away with doing less, and, at least in my experience, feel the most satisfied and secure when they are working hard and creating visible products of their labor. When I've seen "things go side ways" it's almost exclusively at higher levels of management when politics create goals other than "create an amazing product". Anyone who has worked both in a large company and a small startups has likely seen the difference between "my boss's goal is for us to create a best in class product" vs "my boss's goal is for him to get L_current +1 promotion". There are no companies that have failed because the workers have finally figured out how to sneak their way out of doing work. But workers do have a hard time being productive when "productivity" is some weird game that no one will really explain the rules to. But the logic of blaming workers who get "off track" is a huge part of the culture we need to get rid of to have successful remote work.

fizx 7y ago
Agree that 90% of people want to do effective work. The problem is that 6 people have 7 opinions about what effective means. It's not about blame, it's about trying to ensure the team works together cohesively, and that individuals are unblocked.
MaxBarraclough 7y ago
> There are no companies that have failed because the workers have finally figured out how to sneak their way out of doing work. I suspect there are such companies, but that the guilty individuals weren't serious professionals. Hire bad enough 'developers' and I can see it becoming a problem. If the job is shovelling snow, I imagine it becomes one of the management's chief concerns.

ergothus 7y ago

> (1) all employees are trusted and unmeasured, but you have to tap people on the shoulder every once in a while to confirm that they're on track. Naturally, this is easier if everyone is on-site. I don't get it - shouldn't one-on-ones and regular progress check-ins (be those standups, metrics (This is your #2), whatever) give you that information? None of those are easier when on-site. In fact, given today's move towards open offices, any form of 1:1 collaboration is easier remotely where you don't have to fight for precious meeting room space. I think the core problem is that you're trying to prove "everyone is working" when we should be interested in "the work is getting done". Seeing that everyone is working doesn't actually mean progress is getting made. If you have to take steps to answer that question anyway, the first question is fairly pointless.

hobofromabroad 7y ago
> > (1) all employees are trusted and unmeasured, but you have to tap people on the shoulder every once in a while to confirm that they're on track. Naturally, this is easier if everyone is on-site. > I don't get it - shouldn't one-on-ones and regular progress check-ins (be those standups, metrics (This is your #2), whatever) give you that information? None of those are easier when on-site. In fact, given today's move towards open offices, any form of 1:1 collaboration is easier remotely where you don't have to fight for precious meeting room space. This is not quite the case everywhere. We have agile 5-8 person offices and people are still supposed to walk out for longer phone calls occupying one of the smaller meeting rooms. But I actually like that different teams can mix a lot easier.
- ergothus 7y ago
  > But I actually like that different teams can mix a lot easier. I've heard this claim for open offices a lot. I never understand it. It's not like I'm AGAINST easy collaboration. But I spend (or try to spend) more time on my own, and everyone "collaborating" around me and expecting that I can turn off my peripheral vision and hearing with a brain that is hardwired to NOT ignore those things just makes the majority of my time worse. Plus, in the last 20 years and 5 companies (spanning 8 offices if you count office moves) I've never had adequate meeting room space (defined as: We need a space to spontaneously talk without disturbing others, can we find it trivially?) for more than a 3 month span after moving to a larger building. Hardly scientifically conclusive, but personally persuasive. So I'm all for collaboration between people, including between teams, but I don't understand sacrificing the REST of the time in the name of that one thing.

bonestamp2 7y ago

From my experience, as long as the company is divided into small project teams, a project manager can take 10 minutes every day to have a group meeting for everyone to share what they worked on yesterday and what they're working on today. Call it a scrum meeting or a stand-up or whatever, but it doesn't have to follow any specific model as this will probably vary depending on your type of work. We have 8 people on our current project team and we can typically finish this meeting in under 5 minutes each morning. We have some people on each coast, and half the people are remote so we do it at 10:30 am Eastern. It keeps everyone accountable to the company and each other, and because everyone knows what everyone else is working on, it makes it easier to avoid overlap and divide up tasks in the most logical way possible.

otakucode 7y ago

I would like to suggest a tremendously simple (4) : Every day, each employee spends no more than 5 minutes reporting what they did the prior day, and what they are planning to work on that day. If they're blocked by anything, they can mention that and ask for assistance. I just finished working on a fully remote contract that worked that way, every day at noon there was a conference call that never took longer than 15 minutes. It worked great. A couple manager types were on the call, and they'd share any developments on the contract side of things, feedback from the customer, things like that, but mostly they just listened and took note of potential issues and made sure they got resolved (so like if you mentioned a problem one day then didn't the next, they'd ask if it got dealt with).

fizx 7y ago
Making standups useful to everyone on mid-to-large teams (i.e. > 6:1 employee:manager ratio) is quite challenging, but yes, you raise a good point that this is viable, particularly for smaller teams.
wolco 7y ago
Sounds horrible. Have meetings when they are necessary. Talk to people throughout the day. Send weekly status reports. Don't waste a day resolve that issue now.

VonGuard 7y ago

Reminds me of an old adage about tech work and other skilled labors: If you give me a task that takes a normal perosn 8 hours, and I finish it in 30 minutes, you're paying me for the skill, knowledge and experience that allows me to do it in 30 minutes. I do not owe you another 7.5 hours of work. I owe you the job being done, not the hours it should take to do it.

Chirael 7y ago
Isn't that one of the reasons Hacker News exists, to fill those other 7.5 hours?
umvi 7y ago
> I do not owe you another 7.5 hours of work. Only if you are a contractor and you've fulfilled your contract. If you are a salaried employee I expect you to keep your hopper of tasks full so you aren't sitting around idle 95% of the day waiting for me to feed you 30 minute taskers
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  Why? As a salaried employee you're literally paying me for my ability to get work done, not for my hourly output. If the goal is to keep me busy for X number of hours a day, instead of getting a job done whatever it requires, why am I salaried?
  - umvi 7y ago
    > If the goal is to keep me busy for X number of hours a day, instead of getting a job done whatever it requires, why am I salaried? The "goal" in a lot of cases is nebulous (i.e. "keep developing the product", "improve stability", etc). There might not be a manager feeding you tasks every time you run out. At least in my company, you are expected to figure out on your own how to continually make the product better and proactively do it, not sit around idle after rapidly finishing the last task your manager gave you. If you are just a dumb worker that can only work when your manager fills your queue, you are not valuable to me as a salaried employee (you are more valuable as a contractor who I can call upon for a one-off difficult task that you can then complete in 30 minutes).

davidjnelson 7y ago

2 seems to work well. Keep people updated as you go. It’s compassionate - managers have a lot on their plate, give them an assist.

malvosenior 7y ago

Why can they not be trusted and measured? I trust my employees and encourage them to be creative and autonomous. I also expect people to ship their progress regularly and work in strategic alignment as helped by the direction I provide in our regular meeting cadence. It's a weak manager that's constantly concerned about their reports not being productive. Nothing in the world is easier to spot than someone who doesn't produce. You don't need to optimize for that, when it happens, deal with it. Optimize toward keeping your team motivated.

justbaker 7y ago
Does the employee deliver? That should be a yes/no answer. Micromanging employees minutes is an ineffective distraction to reaching that goal of delivery. The more autonomous each is while still moving in the direction of the common goal of the team, the more trusted they can be.
- malvosenior 7y ago
  Absolutely. You will get the best work out of an employee if they have as much autonomy and creative input as possible. I've never understood why that's so difficult for a lot of managers to realize. I suspect most people aren't cut out for leadership because they don't have the trust, confidence or lack of ego required to motivate people without power tripping on them.
- Xelbair 7y ago
  >> Micromanging employees minutes is an ineffective distraction to reaching that goal of delivery. i would say that it is a very quick way for employee to reach towards a new company.