10 ms·

I have been fully remote my entire career (several decades), in fact in 30+ years have never been on site anywhere for more than 2 weeks total. Wouldn't have it

by ejb999 5y ago

I have been fully remote my entire career (several decades), in fact in 30+ years have never been on site anywhere for more than 2 weeks total. Wouldn't have it any other way. But as a counter-point, seeing a whole bunch of people who were never remote before, how little work they are actually doing, it is no surprise to me that a lot of employers are going to start forcing - to the extent possible - employees back into the office. I think a small percentage of people are self-motivated, and more productively at home, but watching this all play out for the last 2 years makes me realize that an awful lot of people are going to try to get away with absolutely anything they can - including working as little as possible - when allowed to be on their own. I have had coworkers literally disappear for days at a time, miss meetings for weeks at a time, constantly miss deadlines etc - and as a manager, that is very hard to manage underperformers with a remote work force. Remote work isn't for everyone, and unfortunately there is a non-trivial percentage of the workforce that actual does need someone watching over them to make sure they do what they are supposed to be doing each day. Let's hope they don't ruin it for the rest of us.

runarberg 5y ago
> I think a small percentage of people are self-motivated Why does that matter? We should probably start asking how much does it actually correlate with productivity, before assigning it importance. I have a hunch that even if there even is such a thing as self-motivation, and even if there is a correlation with production, the effect size is probably not high and is conflated with other factors which explain a much higher proportion of the variability. An employer which cares about their workers will (a) grant them the freedom to work from home, and (b) provide them with the structure to do so effectively. In the absence of such structure I can see how motivation could replace it and make up the productivity, however that should not be the worker’s responsibility. The loss in productivity is 100% on management for failing to provide to structure to keep the workers productivity while remote. self motivation seems to me to be a poor excuse to shift the responsibility of management to the worker.
sixstringtheory 5y ago
> disappear for days at a time, miss meetings for weeks at a time How is this not an immediately fireable offense? At least at the point of reestablishing contact where a doctor’s note or equivalent excuse can’t be furnished…
- ejb999 5y ago
  I absolutely agree - and if it was upto me, they would be gone already - but when the manager is also one of those 'do as little as I can' types of people, they don't really want to open that particular can of worms.
  - sixstringtheory 5y ago
    Fair enough, that’s a bummer of a situation. I was alternatively wondering if it was some kind of contracted work.
  - willcipriano 5y ago
    > the manager is also one of those 'do as little as I can' types of people Doesn't sound like the kind of person you should put all that much effort in for.
    - josefx 5y ago
      Just remember you aren't just fucking over your manager but also everyone else in the company and the customers.
      - post-it 5y ago
        Not if all the employees do it.
        morgante 5y ago
        Not everyone has the temperament to slack. I don't enjoy "phoning it in" and will work on things (including overworking) to accomplish results, even if others aren't carrying their weight. If you build an org like this, the inevitable outcome is all the top performers leave (as they're tired of covering for low performers) and eventually nothing gets done at all.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
sumedh 5y ago
> I have had coworkers literally disappear for days at a time, miss meetings for weeks at a time, constantly miss deadlines etc As a manager why cant you call out this behaviour when you see people slacking off?
- khazhoux 5y ago
  I don't know about disappearing for days and weeks, but as a manager I can say that in practice, performance problems are often subtle and hard to detect. I don't subscribe to the idea that you have to be at your desk to get work done, and I do my own best work usually hiding away somewhere quiet. However, with the middle- to low-performers, I admit it's disquieting to suspect that some people are working only an hour a day, but I have no way to confirm.
  - eertami 5y ago
    Unless their performance becomes unacceptable, I don't see the problem that someone works only an hour per day.
    - khazhoux 5y ago
      Well, I did say "middle- to low-performers" above. But regardless, I disagree with your premise. Software engineering, as a profession, is based largely on trust. This isn't a factory where you have to solder a set number of devices to meet your target numbers. This isn't an animation studio where you have to animate a certain number of director-approved frames ("footage") a week in order to meet your performance expectations. In our field, the engineer largely decides on their own how much time a task should take, and the manager hopefully trusts their estimate. The *assumption* (and it's not spelled out in your employment contract because we're supposed to be professionals) is that a day of effort means a "full day" of 7-9 hours (or whatever, the precise number isn't the point). So if I, as a manager, ask you, the developer, how long this feature will take to build out, and you tell me "5 days", well I think it's fair for me to expect you meant 5 "full" days. And because I trust you, I'm not going to look over your shoulder or try to pre-solve the problem you're working on -- I will ideally just trust that it takes you 5 days. And because I think highly of you, I will trust that the work takes a dedicated and fast-working developer 5 days to finish, and that's that. If I find out that all along, you really were working only an hour a day, then I think it's fair for me to say: "What the actual fuck, you tell me these tasks require a week of effort but they really could have been done in one day, and the project could have been moving 5x faster than it has been." But... the other option, I suppose, is for managers to decide by themselves how long each feature and bugfix should take, and not ask the developers or take their feedback, and then the manager can evaluate the developers' performance based on that. As a manager, I'll look at a task and say "I want this done in 1 day" and when you tell me "That's not possible, it will take at least a week" I'll just say "Too bad -- get to work". We don't want that.... do we?
2spicy4me 5y ago
Speaking for myself, I need the structure and am currently getting very little done. A lot of us aren’t trying to scam the remote work system, we’re just hanging on by our fingernails until the office opens back up.
- cebert 5y ago
  How does going back to the office help with that?
  - croutonwagon 5y ago
    I cannot speak for OP but as a working manager, COVID was hard to really keep forward progress. I had people that were rockstars in the office that just didnt do work at home. Maybe its the removal of distractions (no TV, I may walk by, etc). But even for things that were totally fine remote (ie: Ticket Queues) i noticed very quickly if my status showed "in" they were on it. If my status for any reason showed away, tickets would straight up get ignored. Mentioning this would enact change for a day or two, but ultimately it would return back to status quo. What did happen is that those that were self motivated were quicker/starting to burn out. I had to get with them and intervene and encourage them to take time off, encourage them to let the queue go for their teammates to pick it up etc. I had other colleagues asking my ops teams to check in on their direct reports and I often had to have meetings telling them thats not a IT/Tech issue and they need to deal with it, just like I am having to.. Frankly i had a mouse shaker on a side box not for MY Managers, but for my direct reports... As we transitioned back to the office a lot of these issues mostly disappeared. EXCEPT for those with weak/timid managers. A lot of those guys are still slacking, but they were slacking before and the manager just didnt want to handle it. But my teams....most of them are mostly back to normal. We all have burnout to deal with, myself included and I have had to manage to balance pushing them and encouraging them to do things that dont cause burnout, front structuring your workday, to taking mental health days etc. But ultimately the return to the office was a relief for me, and a lot of that just went away. I personally think its the removal of distractions coupled with the "threat" of someone walking up that doesnt exist at home. And its worth saying, I'm not one of those old school butts in chairs kinda guy. In fact im pretty laid back, and have been told so by peers and reports alike, and in many cases I have been asked how I am able to be so laid back and still have productivity like I do, but covid made it harder. And thats beyond the fact that I have colleagues in other divisions that i KNOW are using their WFH days to be out fishing, playing golf, hiking whatever. Personally for me thats an ethics issue, i take days off for that. But I work in a small sector, im not going to tattle tail on someone i may cross paths with down the line, karma will catch them anyhow.
scottlamb 5y ago
> I think a small percentage of people are self-motivated, and more productively at home, but watching this all play out for the last 2 years makes me realize that an awful lot of people are going to try to get away with absolutely anything they can - including working as little as possible - when allowed to be on their own. I have had coworkers literally disappear for days at a time, miss meetings for weeks at a time, constantly miss deadlines etc - and as a manager, that is very hard to manage underperformers with a remote work force. Please also keep in mind that we didn't just shift from in-person to remote work. Among other things, many parents completely lost child care in March 2020. It was slow to return. Where I live, it wasn't until August 2021 that the public schools were back to (almost) normal from a child care perspective: students there for the full school day every day, and at-school after care programs available. Speaking from personal experience, 2020 was horrible for my productivity, and I noped out of the workforce in early 2021 and am finally looking for a job now. I don't feel it was due to the shift to remote work. I think it's true that some people will "try to get away with absolutely everything they can", but I'm not sure about "an awful lot of people". There are other reasons that productivity and availability tanked. edit: and let's imagine that I didn't have the finances to quit despite other demands preventing me from putting in a full workday (and me not feeling up to one anyway). I probably would have kept plugging along, sort of working, as best as I could. We could debate the morality of that, and maybe remote work makes it more possible to get away with that, but I wouldn't say remote work is the underlying reason people aren't putting in a full day's work. Maybe for many, "get away absolutely everything they can" should read "get away with absolutely everything they have to" or "do only what they can".
- ahoka 5y ago
  Oh, these people never did useful work on-site either. When staring at a screen means work maybe their bosses thought they did. Real contributors do well remote too.
- morgante 5y ago
  You're right that there are many reasons people might seem to be underperforming in remote work, but unfortunately it doesn't really improve the situation for managers or coworkers. If many employees are spending their time in childcare instead of their job, it increases the burden on other employees who have to work extra hard to pick up the slack. It's a miserable situation, and because the reason for slacking is a protected one there's virtually nothing others can do about it.
PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> But as a counter-point, seeing a whole bunch of people who were never remote before, how little work they are actually doing, it is no surprise to me that a lot of employers are going to start forcing - to the extent possible - employees back into the office. Same experience here. Of course, management shares some of the blame. People will push the boundaries of remote and flex time until someone tells them they’ve gone too far. If nobody in management is doing anything about the abuse, or if someone is openly breaking the rules without any consequences, the bad behavior will only get worse.
r_hoods_ghost 5y ago
In the UK a lot of people during the pandemic suddenly found themselves having to look after their children full time because the schools were closed and there was no childcare, while also having to work, possibly coming down with Covid, and during the first lockdown at least having to queue for hours every time they went to the supermarket. Even when the lockdowns we're relaxes my colleagues with kids would frequently find themselves back working from home because their children were sent home because one if their classmates had Covid, which immediately reduces productivity. A lot of people also didn't have suitable places to work at home. Lots of my colleagues were working on their kitchen tables next to their partners and children, or sat on their beds. It's easy to be smug about remote working and critical if those who suddenly found themselves having to do it at no notice if you're already set up for it, have no caring responsibilities, have space, and aren't in the middle if a pandemic. Less so if the above applies.
- erosenbe0 5y ago
  There are thousands of cases in America where the child care provider (grandparent) died of COVID.
  - buzzert 5y ago
    That's a very dishonest distortion of statistics.
    - fortuna86 5y ago
      Why?
      - ribosometronome 5y ago
        I imagine their point is that, given the number of deaths, the number is probably considerably higher than one would expect from just "thousands". The bigger point being that childcare expectations were thoroughly disrupted and folk were thrust into it, rather than planning. Coupled with the "will they won't they" come back to work dates, it's made it not super incentivizing for those of us who could afford to figure out better long term options chose not to. Ex. If you knew it was going to be two years before you were expected back in office, moving closer to family might have made sense. Or setting up a home office. Or any number of things to better our home productivity.
berg117 5y ago
I think a small percentage of people are self-motivated, and more productively at home, but watching this all play out for the last 2 years makes me realize that an awful lot of people are going to try to get away with absolutely anything they can - including working as little as possible - when allowed to be on their own. It's not that they're trying to "get away with absolutely anything". It's that their survival incentive is not to get fired, and they've been operating in that mode for years if not decades. The less you do, the less likely you are to inadvertently piss someone off and lose your job. Overperformers get fired faster than underperformers, who can usually kick around in the system for years. Take a risk and win, and your boss makes more money. Take a risk and lose, and your income drops by 100%. The incentive structure rewards doing as little as possible, and that's not even necessarily a bad thing, because there are organizational situations in which it's better for people to be underutilized than overtaxed and therefore unpredictable. Capitalism is an abusive system, but there's no escape because the legal system is on the abuser's side. How do you survive an abuser, if you can't get away? You become meek, reactive, and passive. Remote work isn't for everyone, and unfortunately there is a non-trivial percentage of the workforce that actual does need someone watching over them to make sure they do what they are supposed to be doing each day. They weren't getting much done in the office, either. In fact, in the office regime, the problem employees were interfering with other people's productivity. In the WFH world, they do less damage.
- amrocha 5y ago
  I promise you, there's lots of people out there that used to be great co-workers in the office that are now struggling and not getting much done remotely. Maybe they're in a blind spot for you, but I guarantee you they exist, and they're probably the majority. The environment that you work in has an effect on how well you can do the work.
bluefirebrand 5y ago
> But as a counter-point, seeing a whole bunch of people who were never remote before, how little work they are actually doing, it is no surprise to me that a lot of employers are going to start forcing - to the extent possible - employees back into the office My suspicion is those people probably don't do anything while at the office either but they are good at making themselves very visible and appearing to be productive when in an office situation.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  Back when I worked in an office, everyone knew who the slackers were.
  - craigie 5y ago
    Why didn't the managers fire them?
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      Because they don't take any pleasure in firing them. Most managers will avoid doing it until they have to, like the budget must be cut. Often they'll just shunt them into low prestige tasks, and hope they'll get the hint and leave on their own.
- weq 5y ago
  Yeh exactly. Same thing happened in office, seems easier to hide with lots of water cooler chat. Covid provided the cover for slackers to get even slacker. My company was very empathetic to covid needs including reinstating forced leave due to sickness/family reasons.
opportune 5y ago
I completely agree with you. Unfortunately I’ve seen a decent amount of adverse selection in the people I work with who’ve chosen to try to go fully remote (more in the try to hide from work than the people who would be just as/more successful being remote). I have feeling that in 5 years companies will mostly revert back to only hiring new employees on site but grandfather in previously remote employees who have proven to be able to handle it. In 10 years, it will be almost entirely back to how it was before the pandemic. Not saying this to be a contrarian, and I think there will always be a place for fully remote teams/companies or exceptions in large companies (just as there was in the before times). But it’s really hard to see someone be unproductive or not work much and not attribute that to them being remote - and being remote will be even more likely to be blamed when a large portion of employees aren’t remote already.
- weq 5y ago
  Do you really think in 10 years it will be like it was 5 years ago? REALLY? We still aint past the GFC, 14yrs later. In my lifetime, i doubt i will see 7% again. Definately not the 30% that my parents payed. As much as life is cyclic, in 10yrs time we AR/VR will be worked out and there will be even less reason to be in a physical space with someone.
EMM_386 5y ago
> I have been fully remote my entire career (several decades), in fact in 30+ years have never been on site anywhere for more than 2 weeks total. Wouldn't have it any other way. Same, I've been remote for 10 years with another decade+ on-site prior to that as a SE. I have no issues with remote work. When I need people I can easily schedule calls, send them an instant message, email them, etc. Every single thing I do is timestamped and logged in a database somewhere at some point. If anyone wants to know what I was working on at 2:13 in the afternoon they can query for it. Reports can be run on what issues I've resolved, what code I've checked in against them, who I was on a meeting with, when I connected to remote machines, what time I started/ended at, etc. at any given time. I have not noticed any productivity declines, but have noticed huge QoL improvements.
bob1029 5y ago
> Remote work isn't for everyone, and unfortunately there is a non-trivial percentage of the workforce In my experience, a majority of the workforce requires some degree of regular supervision or things will go off the rails quickly. Hell, I am full-time remote (pre-covid) and I don't think I should be left alone on something for more than 2 weeks.
1270018080 5y ago
You SHOULD be putting the smallest amount of effort/time into work and try to get away with as much as possible. Worshiping the line going up and to the right so an executive/founder can write themselves a bigger bonus is fruitless. Putting any of your personality/self worth into work is a personal fault you should improve on as well. I applaud all shirkers, they are the winners in your story.
abvdasker 5y ago
Even if what you're saying is true, I don't see the problem with everyone working less in the remote world. If everyone secretly wants to work less maybe we should all just work less. If we collectively need an excuse like remote work to do what we all actually want to do, then so be it. Everyone wins...
- redisman 5y ago
  I was at the office yesterday and was shocked by how little got done. Hanging out, grabbing snacks, going for lunch, commute. I got much less long stretches of time of freedom where I do most of my productive work. Everyone sees that you were there doing stuff so I also felt less pressure than wfh where I felt bad if I didn’t get what I talked about in the standup done
fendy3002 5y ago
> But as a counter-point, seeing a whole bunch of people who were never remote before, how little work they are actually doing, it is no surprise to me that a lot of employers are going to start forcing - to the extent possible - employees back into the office. It happens if your company, originally on site, suddenly become remote. Nobody knows how to do remote works. My manager is one of them. I am slacking because there is literally no tasks (no tasks given from him). Also same when in the office, but he has a habit of initiating small talk and assign / proceed tasks there, which isn't possible in remote world. Changing at how you work remote is crucial at maintaining productivity.
uhtred 5y ago
I don't believe you are describing even 5% of remote software engineers. And those 5% would find ways to not do anything even in the office, but then they could also distract others so they are better off at home.
eyelidlessness 5y ago
I’ve been mostly remote for my entire career, about 20 years. I don’t think I’ve seen significant productivity issues with newly remote colleagues. I’ve just seen and felt a whole lot more stress. Not all because of being remote, a lot of it has come from mismanagement. In my experience people are mostly doing as well as you could expect given a dreadful situation. I don’t expect they’ll perform better under arbitrary scrutiny.
xmonkee 5y ago
this is some narc energy
samstave 5y ago
UHM.. AMA? What do you do / what have you built?
noncoml 5y ago
> how little work they are actually doing Are you sure they were doing more work while in office?
RubyRidgeRandy 5y ago
an interesting phrase is working as little as possible. This is an organizational issue more so than a motivation one. I work remote and am assigned all my work on a monday that is due by the end of the day friday. If I don't do it, there will be questions asked. Because of the way our company is organized, working as little as possible means working exactly as expected.
- warkdarrior 5y ago
  You have an interesting setup, where both tasks and time allocation are given to you ("implement X, you have 5 days"). Do you have any say in how long something is supposed to take?
asimpletune 5y ago
It seems that being able to work remotely is just a skill unto itself, and one that takes time and patience to cultivate. A lot of it is good written communication, especially when it comes to reading other people's communication, and a lot of it is just being good enough at your job to do the work without feeling like someone is watching you. Makes sense that these things would be hard for people. If you look at OSS maintainers, a lot of times their written communication is excellent, and they obviously manage their time really well. These are people who by the very nature of what they maintain are distributed. A lot of OSS software is also of excellent quality, because they don't have the luxury of being able to be in an offer, fire people, etc... I would argue to the people who complain about not getting stuff done or that they need structure... don't take those feelings as a sign that you need to automatically return to what you know. You can also take it as a sign that you have an opportunity to grow, but it's just hard... which is totally ok and normal. If you can overcome this, you will become an excellent engineer as a result.

by ejb999 5y ago

runarberg 5y ago

> I think a small percentage of people are self-motivated Why does that matter? We should probably start asking how much does it actually correlate with productivity, before assigning it importance. I have a hunch that even if there even is such a thing as self-motivation, and even if there is a correlation with production, the effect size is probably not high and is conflated with other factors which explain a much higher proportion of the variability. An employer which cares about their workers will (a) grant them the freedom to work from home, and (b) provide them with the structure to do so effectively. In the absence of such structure I can see how motivation could replace it and make up the productivity, however that should not be the worker’s responsibility. The loss in productivity is 100% on management for failing to provide to structure to keep the workers productivity while remote. self motivation seems to me to be a poor excuse to shift the responsibility of management to the worker.

sixstringtheory 5y ago

> disappear for days at a time, miss meetings for weeks at a time How is this not an immediately fireable offense? At least at the point of reestablishing contact where a doctor’s note or equivalent excuse can’t be furnished…

ejb999 5y ago
I absolutely agree - and if it was upto me, they would be gone already - but when the manager is also one of those 'do as little as I can' types of people, they don't really want to open that particular can of worms.
- sixstringtheory 5y ago
  Fair enough, that’s a bummer of a situation. I was alternatively wondering if it was some kind of contracted work.
- willcipriano 5y ago
  > the manager is also one of those 'do as little as I can' types of people Doesn't sound like the kind of person you should put all that much effort in for.
  - josefx 5y ago
    Just remember you aren't just fucking over your manager but also everyone else in the company and the customers.
    - post-it 5y ago
      Not if all the employees do it.
      - morgante 5y ago
        Not everyone has the temperament to slack. I don't enjoy "phoning it in" and will work on things (including overworking) to accomplish results, even if others aren't carrying their weight. If you build an org like this, the inevitable outcome is all the top performers leave (as they're tired of covering for low performers) and eventually nothing gets done at all.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

sumedh 5y ago

> I have had coworkers literally disappear for days at a time, miss meetings for weeks at a time, constantly miss deadlines etc As a manager why cant you call out this behaviour when you see people slacking off?

khazhoux 5y ago
I don't know about disappearing for days and weeks, but as a manager I can say that in practice, performance problems are often subtle and hard to detect. I don't subscribe to the idea that you have to be at your desk to get work done, and I do my own best work usually hiding away somewhere quiet. However, with the middle- to low-performers, I admit it's disquieting to suspect that some people are working only an hour a day, but I have no way to confirm.
- eertami 5y ago
  Unless their performance becomes unacceptable, I don't see the problem that someone works only an hour per day.
  - khazhoux 5y ago
    Well, I did say "middle- to low-performers" above. But regardless, I disagree with your premise. Software engineering, as a profession, is based largely on trust. This isn't a factory where you have to solder a set number of devices to meet your target numbers. This isn't an animation studio where you have to animate a certain number of director-approved frames ("footage") a week in order to meet your performance expectations. In our field, the engineer largely decides on their own how much time a task should take, and the manager hopefully trusts their estimate. The *assumption* (and it's not spelled out in your employment contract because we're supposed to be professionals) is that a day of effort means a "full day" of 7-9 hours (or whatever, the precise number isn't the point). So if I, as a manager, ask you, the developer, how long this feature will take to build out, and you tell me "5 days", well I think it's fair for me to expect you meant 5 "full" days. And because I trust you, I'm not going to look over your shoulder or try to pre-solve the problem you're working on -- I will ideally just trust that it takes you 5 days. And because I think highly of you, I will trust that the work takes a dedicated and fast-working developer 5 days to finish, and that's that. If I find out that all along, you really were working only an hour a day, then I think it's fair for me to say: "What the actual fuck, you tell me these tasks require a week of effort but they really could have been done in one day, and the project could have been moving 5x faster than it has been." But... the other option, I suppose, is for managers to decide by themselves how long each feature and bugfix should take, and not ask the developers or take their feedback, and then the manager can evaluate the developers' performance based on that. As a manager, I'll look at a task and say "I want this done in 1 day" and when you tell me "That's not possible, it will take at least a week" I'll just say "Too bad -- get to work". We don't want that.... do we?

2spicy4me 5y ago

Speaking for myself, I need the structure and am currently getting very little done. A lot of us aren’t trying to scam the remote work system, we’re just hanging on by our fingernails until the office opens back up.

cebert 5y ago
How does going back to the office help with that?
- croutonwagon 5y ago
  I cannot speak for OP but as a working manager, COVID was hard to really keep forward progress. I had people that were rockstars in the office that just didnt do work at home. Maybe its the removal of distractions (no TV, I may walk by, etc). But even for things that were totally fine remote (ie: Ticket Queues) i noticed very quickly if my status showed "in" they were on it. If my status for any reason showed away, tickets would straight up get ignored. Mentioning this would enact change for a day or two, but ultimately it would return back to status quo. What did happen is that those that were self motivated were quicker/starting to burn out. I had to get with them and intervene and encourage them to take time off, encourage them to let the queue go for their teammates to pick it up etc. I had other colleagues asking my ops teams to check in on their direct reports and I often had to have meetings telling them thats not a IT/Tech issue and they need to deal with it, just like I am having to.. Frankly i had a mouse shaker on a side box not for MY Managers, but for my direct reports... As we transitioned back to the office a lot of these issues mostly disappeared. EXCEPT for those with weak/timid managers. A lot of those guys are still slacking, but they were slacking before and the manager just didnt want to handle it. But my teams....most of them are mostly back to normal. We all have burnout to deal with, myself included and I have had to manage to balance pushing them and encouraging them to do things that dont cause burnout, front structuring your workday, to taking mental health days etc. But ultimately the return to the office was a relief for me, and a lot of that just went away. I personally think its the removal of distractions coupled with the "threat" of someone walking up that doesnt exist at home. And its worth saying, I'm not one of those old school butts in chairs kinda guy. In fact im pretty laid back, and have been told so by peers and reports alike, and in many cases I have been asked how I am able to be so laid back and still have productivity like I do, but covid made it harder. And thats beyond the fact that I have colleagues in other divisions that i KNOW are using their WFH days to be out fishing, playing golf, hiking whatever. Personally for me thats an ethics issue, i take days off for that. But I work in a small sector, im not going to tattle tail on someone i may cross paths with down the line, karma will catch them anyhow.

scottlamb 5y ago

> I think a small percentage of people are self-motivated, and more productively at home, but watching this all play out for the last 2 years makes me realize that an awful lot of people are going to try to get away with absolutely anything they can - including working as little as possible - when allowed to be on their own. I have had coworkers literally disappear for days at a time, miss meetings for weeks at a time, constantly miss deadlines etc - and as a manager, that is very hard to manage underperformers with a remote work force. Please also keep in mind that we didn't just shift from in-person to remote work. Among other things, many parents completely lost child care in March 2020. It was slow to return. Where I live, it wasn't until August 2021 that the public schools were back to (almost) normal from a child care perspective: students there for the full school day every day, and at-school after care programs available. Speaking from personal experience, 2020 was horrible for my productivity, and I noped out of the workforce in early 2021 and am finally looking for a job now. I don't feel it was due to the shift to remote work. I think it's true that some people will "try to get away with absolutely everything they can", but I'm not sure about "an awful lot of people". There are other reasons that productivity and availability tanked. edit: and let's imagine that I didn't have the finances to quit despite other demands preventing me from putting in a full workday (and me not feeling up to one anyway). I probably would have kept plugging along, sort of working, as best as I could. We could debate the morality of that, and maybe remote work makes it more possible to get away with that, but I wouldn't say remote work is the underlying reason people aren't putting in a full day's work. Maybe for many, "get away absolutely everything they can" should read "get away with absolutely everything they have to" or "do only what they can".

ahoka 5y ago
Oh, these people never did useful work on-site either. When staring at a screen means work maybe their bosses thought they did. Real contributors do well remote too.
morgante 5y ago
You're right that there are many reasons people might seem to be underperforming in remote work, but unfortunately it doesn't really improve the situation for managers or coworkers. If many employees are spending their time in childcare instead of their job, it increases the burden on other employees who have to work extra hard to pick up the slack. It's a miserable situation, and because the reason for slacking is a protected one there's virtually nothing others can do about it.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

> But as a counter-point, seeing a whole bunch of people who were never remote before, how little work they are actually doing, it is no surprise to me that a lot of employers are going to start forcing - to the extent possible - employees back into the office. Same experience here. Of course, management shares some of the blame. People will push the boundaries of remote and flex time until someone tells them they’ve gone too far. If nobody in management is doing anything about the abuse, or if someone is openly breaking the rules without any consequences, the bad behavior will only get worse.

r_hoods_ghost 5y ago

In the UK a lot of people during the pandemic suddenly found themselves having to look after their children full time because the schools were closed and there was no childcare, while also having to work, possibly coming down with Covid, and during the first lockdown at least having to queue for hours every time they went to the supermarket. Even when the lockdowns we're relaxes my colleagues with kids would frequently find themselves back working from home because their children were sent home because one if their classmates had Covid, which immediately reduces productivity. A lot of people also didn't have suitable places to work at home. Lots of my colleagues were working on their kitchen tables next to their partners and children, or sat on their beds. It's easy to be smug about remote working and critical if those who suddenly found themselves having to do it at no notice if you're already set up for it, have no caring responsibilities, have space, and aren't in the middle if a pandemic. Less so if the above applies.

erosenbe0 5y ago
There are thousands of cases in America where the child care provider (grandparent) died of COVID.
- buzzert 5y ago
  That's a very dishonest distortion of statistics.
  - fortuna86 5y ago
    Why?
    - ribosometronome 5y ago
      I imagine their point is that, given the number of deaths, the number is probably considerably higher than one would expect from just "thousands". The bigger point being that childcare expectations were thoroughly disrupted and folk were thrust into it, rather than planning. Coupled with the "will they won't they" come back to work dates, it's made it not super incentivizing for those of us who could afford to figure out better long term options chose not to. Ex. If you knew it was going to be two years before you were expected back in office, moving closer to family might have made sense. Or setting up a home office. Or any number of things to better our home productivity.

berg117 5y ago

I think a small percentage of people are self-motivated, and more productively at home, but watching this all play out for the last 2 years makes me realize that an awful lot of people are going to try to get away with absolutely anything they can - including working as little as possible - when allowed to be on their own. It's not that they're trying to "get away with absolutely anything". It's that their survival incentive is not to get fired, and they've been operating in that mode for years if not decades. The less you do, the less likely you are to inadvertently piss someone off and lose your job. Overperformers get fired faster than underperformers, who can usually kick around in the system for years. Take a risk and win, and your boss makes more money. Take a risk and lose, and your income drops by 100%. The incentive structure rewards doing as little as possible, and that's not even necessarily a bad thing, because there are organizational situations in which it's better for people to be underutilized than overtaxed and therefore unpredictable. Capitalism is an abusive system, but there's no escape because the legal system is on the abuser's side. How do you survive an abuser, if you can't get away? You become meek, reactive, and passive. Remote work isn't for everyone, and unfortunately there is a non-trivial percentage of the workforce that actual does need someone watching over them to make sure they do what they are supposed to be doing each day. They weren't getting much done in the office, either. In fact, in the office regime, the problem employees were interfering with other people's productivity. In the WFH world, they do less damage.

amrocha 5y ago
I promise you, there's lots of people out there that used to be great co-workers in the office that are now struggling and not getting much done remotely. Maybe they're in a blind spot for you, but I guarantee you they exist, and they're probably the majority. The environment that you work in has an effect on how well you can do the work.

bluefirebrand 5y ago

> But as a counter-point, seeing a whole bunch of people who were never remote before, how little work they are actually doing, it is no surprise to me that a lot of employers are going to start forcing - to the extent possible - employees back into the office My suspicion is those people probably don't do anything while at the office either but they are good at making themselves very visible and appearing to be productive when in an office situation.

WalterBright 5y ago
Back when I worked in an office, everyone knew who the slackers were.
- craigie 5y ago
  Why didn't the managers fire them?
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    Because they don't take any pleasure in firing them. Most managers will avoid doing it until they have to, like the budget must be cut. Often they'll just shunt them into low prestige tasks, and hope they'll get the hint and leave on their own.
weq 5y ago
Yeh exactly. Same thing happened in office, seems easier to hide with lots of water cooler chat. Covid provided the cover for slackers to get even slacker. My company was very empathetic to covid needs including reinstating forced leave due to sickness/family reasons.

opportune 5y ago

I completely agree with you. Unfortunately I’ve seen a decent amount of adverse selection in the people I work with who’ve chosen to try to go fully remote (more in the try to hide from work than the people who would be just as/more successful being remote). I have feeling that in 5 years companies will mostly revert back to only hiring new employees on site but grandfather in previously remote employees who have proven to be able to handle it. In 10 years, it will be almost entirely back to how it was before the pandemic. Not saying this to be a contrarian, and I think there will always be a place for fully remote teams/companies or exceptions in large companies (just as there was in the before times). But it’s really hard to see someone be unproductive or not work much and not attribute that to them being remote - and being remote will be even more likely to be blamed when a large portion of employees aren’t remote already.

weq 5y ago
Do you really think in 10 years it will be like it was 5 years ago? REALLY? We still aint past the GFC, 14yrs later. In my lifetime, i doubt i will see 7% again. Definately not the 30% that my parents payed. As much as life is cyclic, in 10yrs time we AR/VR will be worked out and there will be even less reason to be in a physical space with someone.

EMM_386 5y ago

> I have been fully remote my entire career (several decades), in fact in 30+ years have never been on site anywhere for more than 2 weeks total. Wouldn't have it any other way. Same, I've been remote for 10 years with another decade+ on-site prior to that as a SE. I have no issues with remote work. When I need people I can easily schedule calls, send them an instant message, email them, etc. Every single thing I do is timestamped and logged in a database somewhere at some point. If anyone wants to know what I was working on at 2:13 in the afternoon they can query for it. Reports can be run on what issues I've resolved, what code I've checked in against them, who I was on a meeting with, when I connected to remote machines, what time I started/ended at, etc. at any given time. I have not noticed any productivity declines, but have noticed huge QoL improvements.

bob1029 5y ago

> Remote work isn't for everyone, and unfortunately there is a non-trivial percentage of the workforce In my experience, a majority of the workforce requires some degree of regular supervision or things will go off the rails quickly. Hell, I am full-time remote (pre-covid) and I don't think I should be left alone on something for more than 2 weeks.

1270018080 5y ago

You SHOULD be putting the smallest amount of effort/time into work and try to get away with as much as possible. Worshiping the line going up and to the right so an executive/founder can write themselves a bigger bonus is fruitless. Putting any of your personality/self worth into work is a personal fault you should improve on as well. I applaud all shirkers, they are the winners in your story.

abvdasker 5y ago

Even if what you're saying is true, I don't see the problem with everyone working less in the remote world. If everyone secretly wants to work less maybe we should all just work less. If we collectively need an excuse like remote work to do what we all actually want to do, then so be it. Everyone wins...

redisman 5y ago
I was at the office yesterday and was shocked by how little got done. Hanging out, grabbing snacks, going for lunch, commute. I got much less long stretches of time of freedom where I do most of my productive work. Everyone sees that you were there doing stuff so I also felt less pressure than wfh where I felt bad if I didn’t get what I talked about in the standup done

fendy3002 5y ago

> But as a counter-point, seeing a whole bunch of people who were never remote before, how little work they are actually doing, it is no surprise to me that a lot of employers are going to start forcing - to the extent possible - employees back into the office. It happens if your company, originally on site, suddenly become remote. Nobody knows how to do remote works. My manager is one of them. I am slacking because there is literally no tasks (no tasks given from him). Also same when in the office, but he has a habit of initiating small talk and assign / proceed tasks there, which isn't possible in remote world. Changing at how you work remote is crucial at maintaining productivity.

uhtred 5y ago

I don't believe you are describing even 5% of remote software engineers. And those 5% would find ways to not do anything even in the office, but then they could also distract others so they are better off at home.

eyelidlessness 5y ago

I’ve been mostly remote for my entire career, about 20 years. I don’t think I’ve seen significant productivity issues with newly remote colleagues. I’ve just seen and felt a whole lot more stress. Not all because of being remote, a lot of it has come from mismanagement. In my experience people are mostly doing as well as you could expect given a dreadful situation. I don’t expect they’ll perform better under arbitrary scrutiny.

xmonkee 5y ago

this is some narc energy

samstave 5y ago

UHM.. AMA? What do you do / what have you built?

noncoml 5y ago

> how little work they are actually doing Are you sure they were doing more work while in office?

RubyRidgeRandy 5y ago

an interesting phrase is working as little as possible. This is an organizational issue more so than a motivation one. I work remote and am assigned all my work on a monday that is due by the end of the day friday. If I don't do it, there will be questions asked. Because of the way our company is organized, working as little as possible means working exactly as expected.

warkdarrior 5y ago
You have an interesting setup, where both tasks and time allocation are given to you ("implement X, you have 5 days"). Do you have any say in how long something is supposed to take?

asimpletune 5y ago

It seems that being able to work remotely is just a skill unto itself, and one that takes time and patience to cultivate. A lot of it is good written communication, especially when it comes to reading other people's communication, and a lot of it is just being good enough at your job to do the work without feeling like someone is watching you. Makes sense that these things would be hard for people. If you look at OSS maintainers, a lot of times their written communication is excellent, and they obviously manage their time really well. These are people who by the very nature of what they maintain are distributed. A lot of OSS software is also of excellent quality, because they don't have the luxury of being able to be in an offer, fire people, etc... I would argue to the people who complain about not getting stuff done or that they need structure... don't take those feelings as a sign that you need to automatically return to what you know. You can also take it as a sign that you have an opportunity to grow, but it's just hard... which is totally ok and normal. If you can overcome this, you will become an excellent engineer as a result.