3 ms·

> Why is it that remote workers are especially suspect? Because it's not difficult to get hired into two remote jobs. It is, however, impossible to be in two

> Why is it that remote workers are especially suspect? Because it's not difficult to get hired into two remote jobs. It is, however, impossible to be in two physical offices at the same time. Being in office is not a free pass to ignore performance management. Obviously if you're not paying attention to deliverables then your in-office employees could be doing nothing as well. But remote jobs are a magnet for people trying to abuse the system (by riding the coattails of their actually productive coworkers). > If that's all managers do, they can be replaced with spyware that measures how much time the worker is typing in VSCode each week. I think you misunderstood my comment. I specifically said that measuring hours active at a keyboard or activity in Slack is the worst way to try to do performance management.

ipaddr 5y ago
The amount of people holding two remote jobs for more than a few months without burning out approaches zero pretty quickly. In person positions are a magnet for people abusing the system by not being productive. People will feel justified to chit-chat as long as everyone can see them, they will organize meetings or volunteer work hours put on bakeathons. They will meet people in higher positions in these social settings and leverage their relationship for better position often with more success than someone productive. Productive workers are seen as resources. Non productive social climbers will always leap over the productive. Non-productive socializers remote or in person will always be holding you back. The remote double job close to being burned out with no time for socializing is the least of your concerns if they even exist.
civilized 5y ago
> I think you misunderstood my comment. I specifically said that measuring hours active at a keyboard or activity in Slack is the worst way to try to do performance management. You say that, but then you advocate for butts-in-chairs (BIC) as a critical performance management practice that can't be replicated in the remote model and therefore shows the weakness of the remote model. If BIC is so critical to performance management, spyware will do a way better job.

ipaddr 5y ago

The amount of people holding two remote jobs for more than a few months without burning out approaches zero pretty quickly. In person positions are a magnet for people abusing the system by not being productive. People will feel justified to chit-chat as long as everyone can see them, they will organize meetings or volunteer work hours put on bakeathons. They will meet people in higher positions in these social settings and leverage their relationship for better position often with more success than someone productive. Productive workers are seen as resources. Non productive social climbers will always leap over the productive. Non-productive socializers remote or in person will always be holding you back. The remote double job close to being burned out with no time for socializing is the least of your concerns if they even exist.

civilized 5y ago

> I think you misunderstood my comment. I specifically said that measuring hours active at a keyboard or activity in Slack is the worst way to try to do performance management. You say that, but then you advocate for butts-in-chairs (BIC) as a critical performance management practice that can't be replicated in the remote model and therefore shows the weakness of the remote model. If BIC is so critical to performance management, spyware will do a way better job.