2 ms·
But you're still in a meeting room on a video call, so why not just be on a video call if the rest of your day is spent in isolation with headphones on with all
by UnpossibleJim 4y ago
But you're still in a meeting room on a video call, so why not just be on a video call if the rest of your day is spent in isolation with headphones on with all the inconveniences of office travel. What is the upside? Especially when there are open office plans with no assigned desks (as has been mentioned above - luckily, I haven't actually worked at a "non assigned desk role yet), which is f'ing dehumanizing.
- wollsmoth 4y agoSounds like you're asking what's the upside vs wfh. I'm saying if y'all are at the office anyway, get into a room for the meeting instead of taking the call at your desks. If you're wfh anyway, yeah just call in over video.
- UnpossibleJim 4y agoOh, I'm just asking, if you have to set up a video call in the office anyways (which is often the case, these days, due to multiple teams working in other parts of the country and off-shoring) and the rest of your time is spent siloed with headphones to block out noise, due to office distractions - the reported upsides of the office (collaboration, community, teamwork, shared sense of purpose, closeness to fellow coworkers, etc.) all seem to fall away. What then, becomes the real argument for having an "only work at the office" policy and reviews not be based on the metrics of work done and quality of work? And you are correct, my question was horribly phrased before =) EDIT: and just for reference, I lead a small team and am not really management and we're still remote. We seem to do well and these are the metrics we go by, so I'm generally kind of curious about this. Occasionally my manager asks about hours worked, and I'm vague about it, but our output is better than most teams and of a high quality, so she doesn't peak inside too often =/