12 ms·

These remote-vs-office discussions where nobody discusses the actual work involved are fairly pointless. Disregarding the obvious scenarios of presence-required

These remote-vs-office discussions where nobody discusses the actual work involved are fairly pointless. Disregarding the obvious scenarios of presence-required in order to work (i.e. manufacturing), the question applies: what is most productive for "information work"? In my personal experience, I've found collaboration conducted face-to-face far more effective than doing so in a distributed/online way. There is a high level of context in these situations: the topic of discussion, the interactions among attendees, etc. On the flip side, standard administrative operations that require nothing more than a terminal/shell? That's not collaborative, don't make those colleagues commute to a remote workstation. But those employers who "feel their employees aren't so productive" when they aren't in-house -- huge signal they don't know how to really measure productivity. What I've heard from other colleagues in management roles: the concern with remote work isn't about productivity, it's about _dedicated_ productivity coupled with zero trust. In other words, how do we (the employer) ensure our employees aren't moonlighting on our team and only giving the minimum level of effort with us?

charlie0 3y ago
Does anyone give more than the minimum effort when they find themselves with a 2% to 4% raise, if any, in their yearly reviews, even if they are in the office?
- jasmer 3y ago
  Yes, definitely, for professionals anyone needing to ask the question might consider some introspection.
  - ProjectArcturis 3y ago
    It seems from your answer that you have a self-image as a "professional" and that motivates you to work hard even though it may have minimal impact on your compensation. Have you considered the economic rationality of that stance?
    - jasmer 3y ago
      'Nothing good' happens by 'self-oriented individuals doing the least', in fact I would go further and say 'almost nothing' happens at all. If you've ever been on a 'decent team' you'll see that there are many 'in between' elements of an operating situation that have to be accommodated, and it takes a bit of extra focus and goodwill by everyone if it's going to work out. This applies not only to tight-knit groups, but large teams, and also to contractors, and can be extended to the system overall, aka companies working with each other, individuals, public servants etc. We generally have to keep our chins up, and 'try to do our jobs as we can' not the 'minimum we can get away with', knowing full well that it's not going to work out all the time, that some situations are better than others, and that there will be a lot of variables for which your 'expected bonus of 4%' or whatever is only one small part. This doesn't mean we 'die on a hill for someone else's cause' or work ourselves in a grind for no reason, nor does it mean accepting negative behaviour on the part of employers, and definitely 'some days are better than others' - but 'life is long' and 'consistency over time' does matter. It doesn't even mean fake emotional posture (you know those people who are always in a good mood!), but rather just 'doing it'. In most corporate situations, the bar for 'minimum' is actually fairly low and so pragmatically, if we want to be 'trusted' as individuals, there has to be a general expectation that we will do 'it' not the 'minimum' or it just won't work. Obviously, things will be uneven in so many ways - some people's 'minimum' will be better than other's 'best effort', but that's life - that's all part of it. It's an issue of productivity, but arguably, morality as well. It's actually a bit troubling that people would even need to ask the question, I hope this level of selfish orientation is a niche mentality and not some kind of new, secular social trend. It's also hard to even grasp that people could be so cynical - I feel sorry for people in that posture, because either they've literally never 'been on a team' and have no internalization of those dynamics, or a are just depressed or have a negative life outlook. I'm not very athletic myself, but over the years I've gravitated towards people who do play sports, especially team sports, as having more of an innate sense for those things. Even 'toxic' people are more often than not just misfits, at least they are interesting. It's a sad kind of organizational problem as well - the people who are overtly bad or toxic are easy to let go of, but the pernicious malignancy of 'do the least' is worse. 'Doing the thing' it usually doesn't cost any more material time, just focus. If you're going to do it, then do it.
- throwaway1777 3y ago
  Yes, some people like their jobs or see a way to advance their career.
- Draiken 3y ago
  Yes, the are many Clueless [1] in the world [1]: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
  - jasmer 3y ago
    Anyone who actually believes this should for the good of everyone else, leave their careers now. I mean, it's fun to read about completely arbitrarily made up characters at 'Dunder Mifflin' used as the basis some kind of deep metaphor, but then to find that people actually believe this stuff? 'Believing' this piece says more about the reader, because the piece itself doesn't say anything, it's a kind of Rorschach test.
    - Draiken 3y ago
      I'm sorry but... what? There's no believing in metaphorical realities here. It's the real life. Being an employee is a bad bargain. You sacrifice a massive chunk of the returns from your work to your employer in the form of profits in favor of a small form of stability (or you did in the past anyways). That's just how capitalism works. Naturally if you go above and beyond sacrificing yourself for this bad bargain, you are losing even more than you would by only doing the necessary to stay employed. Again, this is a fact, not some theory. The made up characters are just there for the metaphor, but the underlying discussion is not made up. I've been a Clueless for the majority of my life. I have the equivalent output of 3-4 engineers at the same level and I never got paid 3-4x the salary, even after I got promoted. It's the sad reality of capitalism. > The piece itself doesn't say anything Sorry but that must be a bad faith argument. Even if you disagree with the overall theory of how Sociopaths exploit Clueless and Losers to get rich, the individual pieces are more often than not 100% correct. In my view, it's spot on since it's simply a visualization of capitalism.
      - jasmer 3y ago
        Oh yes you are 4 times better than everyone else but treated just the same. Are you sure about that? Maybe some introspection needed? Also - the issue is not that some people are exploitative - that can happen. It’s the rest of it. The person who wrote the article is making the ‘bad faith’ argument passing on cynical stupid delusions. This idea that most orgs promote willy nilly is ridiculously wrong. It’s a contradiction of reality.
- okaram 3y ago
  Different people are different; I enjoy my work, and take pride in it. If I'm so demotivated I'm only putting the minimum effort, I start looking for the next job
silisili 3y ago
I generally agree, but only to an extent. When greenfielding something, or doing product research and design, I found in person much, much better. But after that, it feels like you get a bit pigeon holed working onto said product for months or years, where the distractions of the office are a detriment. I personally feel the best method is maintain a small office or offices for those that want it. Everyone can be remote by default, but must be able and available to travel to said offices as business needs see fit. I actually worked that way before COVID and everyone else seemed to go remote, and I liked it better than this full remote stuff. I usually was onsite for 6 to 8 weeks out of the year.
BlackjackCF 3y ago
Why should employers care about whether or not an employee is giving their all or their minimum? As long as the work is getting done, should it matter?
- JimtheCoder 3y ago
  Because not all work is "done" or "not done"? Also, if an employee is giving their best effort and their work is at the level it needs to be, maybe it is time to move that employee, or find a better position in the company for them? (Hard worker/high morale, but mismatched skillset to task) If an employee is just underperforming because they are unmotivated or lazy...same deal...
Cyph0n 3y ago
> In other words, how do we (the employer) ensure our employees aren't moonlighting on our team and only giving the minimum level of effort with us? ..by evaluating their performance? Do you not regularly evaluate the performance of your employees? Or perhaps your performance evaluation process has implicitly relied on the sacred ritual of magical hallway conversations? Anyways, I find this to be a tired, capitalist argument. The anti-remote argument often boils down to squeezing every ounce of productivity out of “human resources” (PC term for cogs). Let’s not get into how butts in seats never actually correlated with productivity.
charlieyu1 3y ago
I see plenty of people going to workplace, give minimum effort and pretend busy anyway. Physical presence has nothing to do with productivity. For me, I’m definitely going to be more productive when I’m saving 2-3 hours of commute per day
charrondev 3y ago
> In other words, how do we (the employer) ensure our employees aren't moonlighting on our team and only giving the minimum level of effort with us? The tools for properly determining this are no different remote vs in an office at least for IT work. Most dev teams work in sprints and each sprint comes with a commitment from each developer. It is very noticeable even in remote work if a developer is either: - Not making a reasonably sized commitment. - consistently failing to complete their work. - frequently turning in terrible code (don’t worry the reviewers will let you know). Whether on-site or remote you can end up with the same situation of a high skill employee putting in minimal effort but still being more valuable than multiple other developers.
- doktorhladnjak 3y ago
  I’ve worked in 6 companies over 20 years, across many teams. In none of them did devs have to commit to work in sprints. Sure, some did sprints but work rolling over was more a conversation point about priorities and scope of the work rather than a point on which to judge output. Obviously, there are companies that do this but it’s not as universal as you’re portraying it.
- jroseattle 3y ago
  > The tools for properly determining this... This isn't a logically-evaluate-output scenario. It's low-trust between employee and employer. The bullet points listed are highlighting situations where someone isn't delivering. What do you do if they ARE delivering, but not delivering as much as they could be? The "Not making a reasonably sized commitment" is implicitly an assessment of trust in someone. (I'm trying to paraphrase what I understand others are doing -- I certainly don't subscribe to this thought process.) > a high skill employee putting in minimal effort but still being more valuable than multiple other developers You're correct in evaluating value - "Hey, at least that individual is better than the others..." , Unfortunately not everyone sees it that way. If the employer's expectation is that you are DEDICATED to your role, then all of your energy goes to that role -- not another one. All this gets into nuance and legality about what you're working on, if you have more than one W-2, etc. In one company I know of, your work agreement stipulates you may not hold another full-time position in such-and-such capacity. As always, it depends from place to place.
deet 3y ago
100% agree that these general statements comparing in-person to remote are not helpful. Even within a single project of a single team, the remote vs in-office balance can change as the project evolves. Early days of a project, where everyone is figuring out what to do, white boarding, imagining what is possible ... in-person is hard to beat. Later stages where it's implementation, iteration, and more deep work (like coding) ... remote is probably more productive. Companies that aren't thinking about this in a more nuanced way and designing a more flexible culture are doing themselves a disservice
maltalex 3y ago
> huge signal they don't know how to really measure productivity It’s genuinely hard to measure productivity in some fields.
- foogazi 3y ago
  If it can’t be measured does it matter ?
  - maltalex 3y ago
    Of course.
    - foogazi 3y ago
      If it matters it must be measured If you are a high productivity person why stay at a place that can’t measure it

charlie0 3y ago

Does anyone give more than the minimum effort when they find themselves with a 2% to 4% raise, if any, in their yearly reviews, even if they are in the office?

jasmer 3y ago
Yes, definitely, for professionals anyone needing to ask the question might consider some introspection.
- ProjectArcturis 3y ago
  It seems from your answer that you have a self-image as a "professional" and that motivates you to work hard even though it may have minimal impact on your compensation. Have you considered the economic rationality of that stance?
  - jasmer 3y ago
    'Nothing good' happens by 'self-oriented individuals doing the least', in fact I would go further and say 'almost nothing' happens at all. If you've ever been on a 'decent team' you'll see that there are many 'in between' elements of an operating situation that have to be accommodated, and it takes a bit of extra focus and goodwill by everyone if it's going to work out. This applies not only to tight-knit groups, but large teams, and also to contractors, and can be extended to the system overall, aka companies working with each other, individuals, public servants etc. We generally have to keep our chins up, and 'try to do our jobs as we can' not the 'minimum we can get away with', knowing full well that it's not going to work out all the time, that some situations are better than others, and that there will be a lot of variables for which your 'expected bonus of 4%' or whatever is only one small part. This doesn't mean we 'die on a hill for someone else's cause' or work ourselves in a grind for no reason, nor does it mean accepting negative behaviour on the part of employers, and definitely 'some days are better than others' - but 'life is long' and 'consistency over time' does matter. It doesn't even mean fake emotional posture (you know those people who are always in a good mood!), but rather just 'doing it'. In most corporate situations, the bar for 'minimum' is actually fairly low and so pragmatically, if we want to be 'trusted' as individuals, there has to be a general expectation that we will do 'it' not the 'minimum' or it just won't work. Obviously, things will be uneven in so many ways - some people's 'minimum' will be better than other's 'best effort', but that's life - that's all part of it. It's an issue of productivity, but arguably, morality as well. It's actually a bit troubling that people would even need to ask the question, I hope this level of selfish orientation is a niche mentality and not some kind of new, secular social trend. It's also hard to even grasp that people could be so cynical - I feel sorry for people in that posture, because either they've literally never 'been on a team' and have no internalization of those dynamics, or a are just depressed or have a negative life outlook. I'm not very athletic myself, but over the years I've gravitated towards people who do play sports, especially team sports, as having more of an innate sense for those things. Even 'toxic' people are more often than not just misfits, at least they are interesting. It's a sad kind of organizational problem as well - the people who are overtly bad or toxic are easy to let go of, but the pernicious malignancy of 'do the least' is worse. 'Doing the thing' it usually doesn't cost any more material time, just focus. If you're going to do it, then do it.
throwaway1777 3y ago
Yes, some people like their jobs or see a way to advance their career.
Draiken 3y ago
Yes, the are many Clueless [1] in the world [1]: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
- jasmer 3y ago
  Anyone who actually believes this should for the good of everyone else, leave their careers now. I mean, it's fun to read about completely arbitrarily made up characters at 'Dunder Mifflin' used as the basis some kind of deep metaphor, but then to find that people actually believe this stuff? 'Believing' this piece says more about the reader, because the piece itself doesn't say anything, it's a kind of Rorschach test.
  - Draiken 3y ago
    I'm sorry but... what? There's no believing in metaphorical realities here. It's the real life. Being an employee is a bad bargain. You sacrifice a massive chunk of the returns from your work to your employer in the form of profits in favor of a small form of stability (or you did in the past anyways). That's just how capitalism works. Naturally if you go above and beyond sacrificing yourself for this bad bargain, you are losing even more than you would by only doing the necessary to stay employed. Again, this is a fact, not some theory. The made up characters are just there for the metaphor, but the underlying discussion is not made up. I've been a Clueless for the majority of my life. I have the equivalent output of 3-4 engineers at the same level and I never got paid 3-4x the salary, even after I got promoted. It's the sad reality of capitalism. > The piece itself doesn't say anything Sorry but that must be a bad faith argument. Even if you disagree with the overall theory of how Sociopaths exploit Clueless and Losers to get rich, the individual pieces are more often than not 100% correct. In my view, it's spot on since it's simply a visualization of capitalism.
    - jasmer 3y ago
      Oh yes you are 4 times better than everyone else but treated just the same. Are you sure about that? Maybe some introspection needed? Also - the issue is not that some people are exploitative - that can happen. It’s the rest of it. The person who wrote the article is making the ‘bad faith’ argument passing on cynical stupid delusions. This idea that most orgs promote willy nilly is ridiculously wrong. It’s a contradiction of reality.
okaram 3y ago
Different people are different; I enjoy my work, and take pride in it. If I'm so demotivated I'm only putting the minimum effort, I start looking for the next job

silisili 3y ago

I generally agree, but only to an extent. When greenfielding something, or doing product research and design, I found in person much, much better. But after that, it feels like you get a bit pigeon holed working onto said product for months or years, where the distractions of the office are a detriment. I personally feel the best method is maintain a small office or offices for those that want it. Everyone can be remote by default, but must be able and available to travel to said offices as business needs see fit. I actually worked that way before COVID and everyone else seemed to go remote, and I liked it better than this full remote stuff. I usually was onsite for 6 to 8 weeks out of the year.

BlackjackCF 3y ago

Why should employers care about whether or not an employee is giving their all or their minimum? As long as the work is getting done, should it matter?

JimtheCoder 3y ago
Because not all work is "done" or "not done"? Also, if an employee is giving their best effort and their work is at the level it needs to be, maybe it is time to move that employee, or find a better position in the company for them? (Hard worker/high morale, but mismatched skillset to task) If an employee is just underperforming because they are unmotivated or lazy...same deal...

Cyph0n 3y ago

> In other words, how do we (the employer) ensure our employees aren't moonlighting on our team and only giving the minimum level of effort with us? ..by evaluating their performance? Do you not regularly evaluate the performance of your employees? Or perhaps your performance evaluation process has implicitly relied on the sacred ritual of magical hallway conversations? Anyways, I find this to be a tired, capitalist argument. The anti-remote argument often boils down to squeezing every ounce of productivity out of “human resources” (PC term for cogs). Let’s not get into how butts in seats never actually correlated with productivity.

charlieyu1 3y ago

I see plenty of people going to workplace, give minimum effort and pretend busy anyway. Physical presence has nothing to do with productivity. For me, I’m definitely going to be more productive when I’m saving 2-3 hours of commute per day

charrondev 3y ago

> In other words, how do we (the employer) ensure our employees aren't moonlighting on our team and only giving the minimum level of effort with us? The tools for properly determining this are no different remote vs in an office at least for IT work. Most dev teams work in sprints and each sprint comes with a commitment from each developer. It is very noticeable even in remote work if a developer is either: - Not making a reasonably sized commitment. - consistently failing to complete their work. - frequently turning in terrible code (don’t worry the reviewers will let you know). Whether on-site or remote you can end up with the same situation of a high skill employee putting in minimal effort but still being more valuable than multiple other developers.

doktorhladnjak 3y ago
I’ve worked in 6 companies over 20 years, across many teams. In none of them did devs have to commit to work in sprints. Sure, some did sprints but work rolling over was more a conversation point about priorities and scope of the work rather than a point on which to judge output. Obviously, there are companies that do this but it’s not as universal as you’re portraying it.
jroseattle 3y ago
> The tools for properly determining this... This isn't a logically-evaluate-output scenario. It's low-trust between employee and employer. The bullet points listed are highlighting situations where someone isn't delivering. What do you do if they ARE delivering, but not delivering as much as they could be? The "Not making a reasonably sized commitment" is implicitly an assessment of trust in someone. (I'm trying to paraphrase what I understand others are doing -- I certainly don't subscribe to this thought process.) > a high skill employee putting in minimal effort but still being more valuable than multiple other developers You're correct in evaluating value - "Hey, at least that individual is better than the others..." , Unfortunately not everyone sees it that way. If the employer's expectation is that you are DEDICATED to your role, then all of your energy goes to that role -- not another one. All this gets into nuance and legality about what you're working on, if you have more than one W-2, etc. In one company I know of, your work agreement stipulates you may not hold another full-time position in such-and-such capacity. As always, it depends from place to place.

deet 3y ago

100% agree that these general statements comparing in-person to remote are not helpful. Even within a single project of a single team, the remote vs in-office balance can change as the project evolves. Early days of a project, where everyone is figuring out what to do, white boarding, imagining what is possible ... in-person is hard to beat. Later stages where it's implementation, iteration, and more deep work (like coding) ... remote is probably more productive. Companies that aren't thinking about this in a more nuanced way and designing a more flexible culture are doing themselves a disservice

maltalex 3y ago

> huge signal they don't know how to really measure productivity It’s genuinely hard to measure productivity in some fields.

foogazi 3y ago
If it can’t be measured does it matter ?
- maltalex 3y ago
  Of course.
  - foogazi 3y ago
    If it matters it must be measured If you are a high productivity person why stay at a place that can’t measure it