3 ms·
>I often hear advocates of remote work talk about "presenteeism" and how managers need to just focus more on outputs. This is fine, but if they can do that why
by ameister14 6y ago
>I often hear advocates of remote work talk about "presenteeism" and how managers need to just focus more on outputs. This is fine, but if they can do that why not sack everyone and just hire contractors and pay for the outputs?
Why not do that anyway? The same reasons apply.
>If they are at work, and can't slack off, then they will use this discretion to create value for the company in ways that the managers don't always have time to exactly specify.
I've never been in a work environment where everyone is working at 100% all the time. Never. Have you?
Pure anecdote - while working remotely I've found that my team is bout the same productivity level, maybe slightly more productive; we've had people build internal tools in their spare time, people are focused on the task rather than wasting time and we've hired carefully and built a culture where people know they are trusted and needed to get the job done.
Yes, it doesn't work the same way in-person works all the time. You have to allow for more asynchronicity, but you can counter that in part by having the opportunity for scheduled check-ins.
In your example, by the way, the staffer has gained no favor from the manager by directly going against what they said to do. They might solve this bug and be a hero but they'll be likely to gain a reputation for not being able to listen to directions.
- cableshaft 6y ago> I've never been in a work environment where everyone is working at 100% all the time. Never. Have you? Yes, (except mandated breaks) although they were all unskilled labor. Working in shipping/receiving, a warehouse, fast food (less so, there usually are lulls at certain times), a restaurant. Very little time not spent working. In an office environment, though? Yeah, I've never seen it, except on the rare day when something major breaks and it needs to be resolved asap.
- sokoloff 6y agoMaybe and maybe not. My underlying direction is “do what’s best for the company”. If I see things wrongly and give you a more specific direction that you believe contradicts that (“don’t fix that bug!”), it will be well-received when you fix that bug. Even if you spend some time chasing it and come up empty, the story that you went above what was assigned because you were convinced I was wrong and hurting the company is still a good one. Now, if you always act like an arrow without any feathers, we may have a problem, but I’d way rather have a bunch of engineers trying to improve the company even if that means proving me wrong than have a bunch of them waiting to faithfully execute my divinely-inspired direction.