3 ms·

Currently in a 2 days WFH scenario atm where everyone just picks whatever random days they want. I'm not a fan. There's almost no consistency even though people

Currently in a 2 days WFH scenario atm where everyone just picks whatever random days they want. I'm not a fan. There's almost no consistency even though people set which days they are at home. Hard to describe, but it's mentally impossible to keep track of when starting a meeting if everyone is in the meeting who is supposed to be because I can't keep track of everyone's days, so I don't know if they're just not on the call yet, or forgot about the call and need to ping them, or are in the office but grabbing a coffee before coming to the meeting etc. If it's all the same days that'd be great but doesn't seem like it's work for everyone. I know certain days/times where I can't have meetings at home because the space is otherwise occupied and I need to keep quiet etc.

wccrawford 6y ago
I'm sure that's confusing, but it occurs to me that it'd be a lot less confusing if you just assumed that anyone who is late needs a ping, even if they haven't actually forgotten. Even if they're only late by 1 second. Just ping them. If they're grabbing a coffee, they're still late. Non-emergency reasons are not an excuse to hold everyone else up.
- nullsense 6y ago
  I see that behaviour starting to emerge, but you're right. I think this should just become the M.O. Maybe also by waiting to start the meeting we're enabling it all too? I find it all too much to keep track of, so perhaps simplifying it to "meeting starts at X, be there or be square" is all that's needed and behaviour will adjust accordingly? Food for thought. I've seen some comments that WFH and it's variations (full remote vs partial) are a skill like anything else and need to be developed. I'm not strictly speaking a fan of it all really, but that's just me, and I think the "more productive vs less productive" debate is actually a ruse and that the real argument we're all getting into is "this makes me feel better vs this makes me feel worse" which you simply can't logic your way out of, so I get that it truly does suit some people. I think I just need to take the mindset that it's a skill I need to develop a little further and some of my gripes with it will ease or melt away. Seems like, at least in my neck of the woods, 2 days WFH is becoming a standard benefit touted by companies to attract candidates now.

wccrawford 6y ago

I'm sure that's confusing, but it occurs to me that it'd be a lot less confusing if you just assumed that anyone who is late needs a ping, even if they haven't actually forgotten. Even if they're only late by 1 second. Just ping them. If they're grabbing a coffee, they're still late. Non-emergency reasons are not an excuse to hold everyone else up.

nullsense 6y ago
I see that behaviour starting to emerge, but you're right. I think this should just become the M.O. Maybe also by waiting to start the meeting we're enabling it all too? I find it all too much to keep track of, so perhaps simplifying it to "meeting starts at X, be there or be square" is all that's needed and behaviour will adjust accordingly? Food for thought. I've seen some comments that WFH and it's variations (full remote vs partial) are a skill like anything else and need to be developed. I'm not strictly speaking a fan of it all really, but that's just me, and I think the "more productive vs less productive" debate is actually a ruse and that the real argument we're all getting into is "this makes me feel better vs this makes me feel worse" which you simply can't logic your way out of, so I get that it truly does suit some people. I think I just need to take the mindset that it's a skill I need to develop a little further and some of my gripes with it will ease or melt away. Seems like, at least in my neck of the woods, 2 days WFH is becoming a standard benefit touted by companies to attract candidates now.