4 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- xboxnolifes 3y ago
  > What do you do if they ARE delivering, but not delivering as much as they could be? Doesn't matter. What matters is if they are delivering as much as they are expected to.
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  Why accept that expectation in our industry? The ability for employers to require it is negotiated, not a natural law
- sangnoir 3y ago
  > What do you do if they ARE delivering, but not delivering as much as they could be? Isn't this the role of line-managers? Employees are happy to do more when adequately motivated (money, prestige, opportunity or being acknowledged). The problem is that employers want to maximize on employee potential without giving anything in return.

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.

xboxnolifes 3y ago
> What do you do if they ARE delivering, but not delivering as much as they could be? Doesn't matter. What matters is if they are delivering as much as they are expected to.
wahnfrieden 3y ago
Why accept that expectation in our industry? The ability for employers to require it is negotiated, not a natural law
sangnoir 3y ago
> What do you do if they ARE delivering, but not delivering as much as they could be? Isn't this the role of line-managers? Employees are happy to do more when adequately motivated (money, prestige, opportunity or being acknowledged). The problem is that employers want to maximize on employee potential without giving anything in return.