5 ms·
I have yet to see an employee that works harder from home. Employees get lazier at home.
by system2 4y ago
I have yet to see an employee that works harder from home. Employees get lazier at home.
- edgyquant 4y agoI run a remote only team, I agree with this and think the trade off is worth it. I get the productivity I’ve always expected. We have deadlines and we meet them on average. That my engineers may spread 6 hours work over a 14 hour period isn’t really my concern. Then again we do a ton of live share “office” coding and pair programming. So we still have a similar environment to an office. But I think my team is overall happier than if they had to come in 8 hours a day.
- denkmoon 4y agoI do my damn best to ensure that I am no more productive in the office than I am at home :) You can't use the stick to make people more productive/less lazy, unless you're watching them 8hrs a day 5 days a week.
- tmaly 4y agoUsing at home productivity to leverage a remote work agreement was one of the main points of the 4 hour work week.
- solardev 4y agoSpeak for yourself. Anecdotally, as an employee who prefers the office and goes in most days a week even though I don't have to, I am waaaaaay more productive at home. Fewer distractions, no random noises and people talking all around you, deliveries being dropped off all the time, etc. And a more powerful machine, better monitor, etc. The office loses money on me whenever I go in. Sure, the boss sees me more, but it's a lot less efficient when I'm constantly talking to people around me (which I enjoy, and is why I go in) but my actual work only gets done in the quiet moments in between, which are much rarer at the office than at home. Shrug. People are different.
- drewcoo 4y agoI have yet to meet an office-preferer who doesn't slack off a lot at the office. In the office I can make appearances and sleepwalk through a bunch of meetings and I look productive. At home, I actually have to produce something measurable and not just pleasant social interactions in meetings and on coffee breaks.
- mruniverse 4y agoI think the issue is that managers want to "see" their employees "working". And by "working" I mean being seen at their desk, in meetings, or at the whiteboard. It's harder for them to judge by the quality of work because they don't have that expertise.
- solardev 4y agoIt's funny because I often wonder the same of CEOs. What exactly are we paying them for? How can we judge the quality of their work?
- denkmoon 4y agoWell that's actually much easier. CEOs are paid, by shareholders, for the return on investment they generate for said shareholders. The quality of their work is judged by the return on investment generated every 3 months.
- solardev 4y agoAnd why does the CEO get the credit for that?
- denkmoon 4y ago1. because that's how we've decided businesses work. 2. because the buck stops with the CEO. They are (ostensibly) responsible for the output/productivity of the entire organisation. How they achieve that is mostly irrelevant, in the same way that our managers don't really understand what we do, so it goes for shareholders.
- solardev 4y agoSo maybe we can get rid of them and deliver even more value to shareholders?
- deleted 4y ago
- roflyear 4y agoHow do you measure this?