4 ms·
The whole premise of this article rests on the idea that an employee will do exactly the work required of him regardless of his output being visible to his mana
by tompccs 4y ago
The whole premise of this article rests on the idea that an employee will do exactly the work required of him regardless of his output being visible to his manager.
I say to that: bollocks. Outside of the most scrupulous employees or those with the greatest sense of the importance of their work (who tend to be doctors and nurses, hardly the WFH sort), people will slack off if there are no consequences.
For essentially artisanal jobs like software engineering, in a small enough team it can be seen and felt if a team member is not pulling his weight. But most jobs aren't software engineering, most employees have an adversarial relationship with their employer, and most people feel entitled to whatever amount of slacking off they can get away with.
Everyone has anecdotes of colleagues who turn the practice of slacking into an art form. The idea that it's an irrational "presenteeism" causing managers to want employees back in person is another one of those journalistic luxury beliefs.
- Tarsul 4y agothe real question is who is more productive when watched over vs. who is less productive when watched over? I'm certainly in the second category. Depends on a lot of factors, I'd guess. Certainly, most managers won't know which category their workers are in, so why should they decide who's coming into the office and who not? I think the solution lies in trusting the team, so much so that the team says something if one team member is not executing; so that measures can be taken (hopefully measures where everyone benefits; even the lagging team member).