6 ms·

There is on thing I never see mentioned in these discussions: a lot of employees take advantage of work from home to work as little as possible. I see it in my

There is on thing I never see mentioned in these discussions: a lot of employees take advantage of work from home to work as little as possible. I see it in my coworkers, I hear it from management friends from other companies, it is measured. The reality is not everybody is passionate about their job, office peer pressure pushes people to be more productive, it is harder to measure productivity for remote individuals, and there are not enough remote fit workers to fill all the required positions. So yes, management pushes for return to the office, but they do have real reasons. It is dishonest to simply paint them as power addicts who just like to see slaves toiling for them.

mbrodersen 5y ago
If you are a manager, and you don’t know how to measure your teams productivity without them being in the office, then you deserve to be fired for incompetency. I have been the CEO of a successful company for 5+ years and in directory/management positions in other companies so I believe I know what I am talking about.
lostcolony 5y ago
It's dishonest to paint them that way, but it's fair to point out they're trying to solve the wrong problem. You say "a lot of employees take advantage of work from home to work as little as possible" - I guarantee you that's not what employees are setting out to do. No one went, at the start of the pandemic "oh thank God I am remote; now I can not do my job". What they're facing is a variety of things; reduced social bonds (not just at work but generally), a deviation from normalcy (which creates stress and makes productivity harder), and likely a culture that was transplanted from in person, without figuring out how to make remote work. But your statement is definitely how a lot of managers think, "people are taking advantage", which is why the fix, according to those managers, is to bring people back in, where they can feel the pressure of being watched. So you're not wrong in describing motivation...but the implication that these managers have correctly diagnosed and solved the problem is wrong. What I've noticed is that without going into the office, the -already existing issues- become more apparent and more morale sucking, and it makes it harder to care about (and thus do) the work. Every obstacle feels harder because I don't have social glue to make me feel it needs to be overcome. Etc. The correct solution isn't to reinforce that social glue to better trick people into overlooking the issues, but to identify and fix the issues. But that's harder than mandating people come back into the office.
DoingIsLearning 5y ago
> So yes, management pushes for return to the office, but they do have real reasons. It is dishonest to simply paint them as power addicts who just like to see slaves toiling for them. If this is a genuine concern it is profoundly naive. If someone is slacking off at home, they will be doing the same slacking off in the office, just with extra steps of convincing you that they are busy. If you have no means of evaluating that people are not delivering other than eyeballs on them, then your organization is deeply broken.
- RamblingCTO 5y ago
  > If someone is slacking off at home, they will be doing the same slacking off in the office, just with extra steps of convincing you that they are busy. I disagree. At home, motivation can be way harder for people. The "buzz" is missing. I've heard this regularly from my devs/ui/ux team. They like coming in. Motivation is lacking at home. You can wash clothes, clean or watch some netflix. Sure people slack off in the office, but the feeling that they are part of something is there and gives motivation. This whole discussion seems to be about a minority which tries to argue that everyone should do it like they would've liked to have it for themselves. That's plain dishonest. A lot of people in these discussions should really try different employers. We have a flexible setup. The maximum number of days people would like to stay at home is 2 per week. Most people come in every day.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    > A lot of people in these discussions should really try different employers. We have a flexible setup. The maximum number of days people would like to stay at home is 2 per week. Most people come in every day. How can the factor of people coming in because they need to keep up appearances with others coming in be controlled for in this experiment?
- trabant00 5y ago
  I already addressed your argument: the performance of the workers was measured before and after going remote. It went down, by a significant margin, that is a fact. As for the reasons, this is all theory: I think it's some kind of peer pressure, seeing everybody around you work and the boss present. Others think it's motivation. Slacking off at home is infinitely easier. But in the end why and how does not really matter. The results stay the same, companies see their productivity going down.
zz865 5y ago
Half our team is only online for 10-20 hours a week now. People really dont care. Esp in this job market.

mbrodersen 5y ago

If you are a manager, and you don’t know how to measure your teams productivity without them being in the office, then you deserve to be fired for incompetency. I have been the CEO of a successful company for 5+ years and in directory/management positions in other companies so I believe I know what I am talking about.

lostcolony 5y ago

It's dishonest to paint them that way, but it's fair to point out they're trying to solve the wrong problem. You say "a lot of employees take advantage of work from home to work as little as possible" - I guarantee you that's not what employees are setting out to do. No one went, at the start of the pandemic "oh thank God I am remote; now I can not do my job". What they're facing is a variety of things; reduced social bonds (not just at work but generally), a deviation from normalcy (which creates stress and makes productivity harder), and likely a culture that was transplanted from in person, without figuring out how to make remote work. But your statement is definitely how a lot of managers think, "people are taking advantage", which is why the fix, according to those managers, is to bring people back in, where they can feel the pressure of being watched. So you're not wrong in describing motivation...but the implication that these managers have correctly diagnosed and solved the problem is wrong. What I've noticed is that without going into the office, the -already existing issues- become more apparent and more morale sucking, and it makes it harder to care about (and thus do) the work. Every obstacle feels harder because I don't have social glue to make me feel it needs to be overcome. Etc. The correct solution isn't to reinforce that social glue to better trick people into overlooking the issues, but to identify and fix the issues. But that's harder than mandating people come back into the office.

DoingIsLearning 5y ago

> So yes, management pushes for return to the office, but they do have real reasons. It is dishonest to simply paint them as power addicts who just like to see slaves toiling for them. If this is a genuine concern it is profoundly naive. If someone is slacking off at home, they will be doing the same slacking off in the office, just with extra steps of convincing you that they are busy. If you have no means of evaluating that people are not delivering other than eyeballs on them, then your organization is deeply broken.

RamblingCTO 5y ago
> If someone is slacking off at home, they will be doing the same slacking off in the office, just with extra steps of convincing you that they are busy. I disagree. At home, motivation can be way harder for people. The "buzz" is missing. I've heard this regularly from my devs/ui/ux team. They like coming in. Motivation is lacking at home. You can wash clothes, clean or watch some netflix. Sure people slack off in the office, but the feeling that they are part of something is there and gives motivation. This whole discussion seems to be about a minority which tries to argue that everyone should do it like they would've liked to have it for themselves. That's plain dishonest. A lot of people in these discussions should really try different employers. We have a flexible setup. The maximum number of days people would like to stay at home is 2 per week. Most people come in every day.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  > A lot of people in these discussions should really try different employers. We have a flexible setup. The maximum number of days people would like to stay at home is 2 per week. Most people come in every day. How can the factor of people coming in because they need to keep up appearances with others coming in be controlled for in this experiment?
trabant00 5y ago
I already addressed your argument: the performance of the workers was measured before and after going remote. It went down, by a significant margin, that is a fact. As for the reasons, this is all theory: I think it's some kind of peer pressure, seeing everybody around you work and the boss present. Others think it's motivation. Slacking off at home is infinitely easier. But in the end why and how does not really matter. The results stay the same, companies see their productivity going down.

zz865 5y ago

Half our team is only online for 10-20 hours a week now. People really dont care. Esp in this job market.