4 ms·

> It’s up to the employer to set clear performance expectations and measurements, then handle employees who don’t meet those expectations as a job performance p

by jstx1 5y ago

> It’s up to the employer to set clear performance expectations and measurements, then handle employees who don’t meet those expectations as a job performance problem. Yes, and that's the question that OP is asking - how do you set those expectations and measurements. It's a starting point for the whole conversation, not the end of it. > I don’t understand the argument “They are already well-paid so they shouldn’t look to make more money.” I've never made this argument or seen anyone else in the thread make this argument.

gregjor 5y ago
The OP didn’t ask how to measure employee performance or set expectations and goals. They asked how to identify employees who had multiple jobs. > First of all, I'd like to figure out how we can identify someone working more than we are aware of. Generally it would be fine for me (/us) what people do in their non-work time, but if it affects our work, then it's not acceptable. So how can we identify such a situation? The question indicates the OP doesn’t have a way to measure performance, and instead focuses on identifying employees who might have other jobs. > I've never made this argument or seen anyone else in the thread make this argument. I must have misunderstood what you meant by this: > We aren't talking about people holding mulitple low-paying jobs to make ends meet. It's mostly people in well payed positions taking advantage of being remote. One could read “taking advantage of being remote” more than one way, but in the context I read it as people already paid well taking advantage of their employer.
- NaTopp 5y ago
  > The OP didn’t ask how to measure employee performance or set expectations and goals. They asked how to identify employees who had multiple jobs. While this statement is true, I'm nonetheless interested in a good ways to measure and agree on performance metrics. But please metrics that do not affect (especially the remote) in a negative way. Personally I'm not so much of a fan to put number of people's performances, especially in development, which makes it really hard some times.
- ttoinou 5y ago
  I have an idea of a metric. Upon regular schedule working hours, percentage of calls missed (i.e. you wanted to call them to have a meeting, but it failed, they weren't available)
  - gregjor 5y ago
    That’s surveillance, not performance measurement.
    - ttoinou 5y ago
      If they promise you 8 hours per day but you can't contact them, they're not really there so they don't keep up their promise. I'm not saying it's a good solution though
      - gregjor 5y ago
        Committing to eight hours a day is what Walmart and McDonalds expect of their employees. We’re talking about programmers, who should get measured and paid based on delivering value to the employer, whether that takes eight hours or four, and whether it happens during normal business hours or at 3 am. Interrupting creative and technical employees randomly during the day to check that they will answer only confirms they have their phone nearby, not that they are working, or working for you. If your performance metric comes down to “Employee has blocked out eight hours per day exclusively to me” then you’re a terrible manager and employer. I would almost play along with bullshit check-in calls like you describe if I could call my manager and the company executives randomly to check if they’re actually working too, and not golfing or buying NFTs with my withheld taxes.
        ttoinou 5y ago
        I didn't say it was a good idea. I am arguing that either you give full freedom for employees but they have to commit to one job, or you do freelancing with very specific measurements and they can have multiple jobs. Read my others comments. I was suggesting a new measurement that is less worse than others. Not saying it is good in the absolute sense whether that takes eight hours or four, and whether it happens during normal business hours or at 3 am So they could very well only work 2 hours and say that's all they can work and call it done, work 3 others jobs I could call my manager and the company executives randomly to check if they’re actually working too I didn't say it was random calls

by jstx1 5y ago

gregjor 5y ago

The OP didn’t ask how to measure employee performance or set expectations and goals. They asked how to identify employees who had multiple jobs. > First of all, I'd like to figure out how we can identify someone working more than we are aware of. Generally it would be fine for me (/us) what people do in their non-work time, but if it affects our work, then it's not acceptable. So how can we identify such a situation? The question indicates the OP doesn’t have a way to measure performance, and instead focuses on identifying employees who might have other jobs. > I've never made this argument or seen anyone else in the thread make this argument. I must have misunderstood what you meant by this: > We aren't talking about people holding mulitple low-paying jobs to make ends meet. It's mostly people in well payed positions taking advantage of being remote. One could read “taking advantage of being remote” more than one way, but in the context I read it as people already paid well taking advantage of their employer.

NaTopp 5y ago
> The OP didn’t ask how to measure employee performance or set expectations and goals. They asked how to identify employees who had multiple jobs. While this statement is true, I'm nonetheless interested in a good ways to measure and agree on performance metrics. But please metrics that do not affect (especially the remote) in a negative way. Personally I'm not so much of a fan to put number of people's performances, especially in development, which makes it really hard some times.
ttoinou 5y ago
I have an idea of a metric. Upon regular schedule working hours, percentage of calls missed (i.e. you wanted to call them to have a meeting, but it failed, they weren't available)
- gregjor 5y ago
  That’s surveillance, not performance measurement.
  - ttoinou 5y ago
    If they promise you 8 hours per day but you can't contact them, they're not really there so they don't keep up their promise. I'm not saying it's a good solution though
    - gregjor 5y ago
      Committing to eight hours a day is what Walmart and McDonalds expect of their employees. We’re talking about programmers, who should get measured and paid based on delivering value to the employer, whether that takes eight hours or four, and whether it happens during normal business hours or at 3 am. Interrupting creative and technical employees randomly during the day to check that they will answer only confirms they have their phone nearby, not that they are working, or working for you. If your performance metric comes down to “Employee has blocked out eight hours per day exclusively to me” then you’re a terrible manager and employer. I would almost play along with bullshit check-in calls like you describe if I could call my manager and the company executives randomly to check if they’re actually working too, and not golfing or buying NFTs with my withheld taxes.
      - ttoinou 5y ago
        I didn't say it was a good idea. I am arguing that either you give full freedom for employees but they have to commit to one job, or you do freelancing with very specific measurements and they can have multiple jobs. Read my others comments. I was suggesting a new measurement that is less worse than others. Not saying it is good in the absolute sense whether that takes eight hours or four, and whether it happens during normal business hours or at 3 am So they could very well only work 2 hours and say that's all they can work and call it done, work 3 others jobs I could call my manager and the company executives randomly to check if they’re actually working too I didn't say it was random calls