4 ms·
> but that trust is much harder when you can observe neither process, progress, or results I don’t get it. There’s code and working features. That’s the result
by f6v 5y ago
> but that trust is much harder when you can observe neither process, progress, or results
I don’t get it. There’s code and working features. That’s the result.
- nostrademons 5y agoPeople who consistently deliver code and working features usually don't have a problem getting approved to work remotely. That's the case-by-case part. It's the people whose code is buggy or nonexistent and whose features don't work that are stuck in the office.
- herodoturtle 5y agoIf I may humbly weigh in on this... It's not just about the code, it's also about the culture. Non-performing staff could be non-performing for different reasons - not just output - and it's often easier to spot those reasons (and address them) when you're working in the same office. Source: I've been running a company with hybrid in-office + remote staff for 15 years. Would be happy to expand on the above if asked.
- vosper 5y ago15 years of experience with this kind of work puts you well ahead of most, so I’ll bite: please do expand on the above :)
- lrem 5y agoBut what is there's no code or code that is not used in a working feature? Both ends of the performance spectrum comprise people who don't really code.
- Kiro 5y agoI take it you're not a professional slacker. It's so easy to game all these tracking systems.
- vidarh 5y agoYou've just explained it yourself: there may not be enough code and/or working features.