6 ms·

While I can feel for the employees, this struck me as odd: >Complaints on the internal social-media platform included those from workers who said they decided

by bumby 3y ago

While I can feel for the employees, this struck me as odd: >Complaints on the internal social-media platform included those from workers who said they decided to home-school their children and take care of elderly relatives based on the assumption they could keep working from home. This seems to imply they are multi-tasking work and home duties and there's enough evidence that multi-tasking doesn't really work well. On the other hand, though, the employees claim their productivity is higher than pre-pandemic, so it's hard to gauge the truth here. Edit: I don't care about the downvotes but it would be helpful to the discussion if you add why you disagree. Do you think multitasking is feasible? Do you think the employees are not being honest about their productivity levels?

smeej 3y ago
Depending on the age of the kids, "homeschooling" often means "set them up with some books and a video playlist and check in every few hours." "Caring for elderly relatives" also often means no more interruptions than the number of coworkers who walk by your desk/cubicle and interrupt you on a daily basis. I don't think one set of interruptions is inherently worse for productivity than another. And honestly the most interruptive thing for me is meetings that could easily have been emails, so...
- bumby 3y ago
  I get there is a distribution, and there are also the other side of the spectrum. But I don't think it's unreasonable for an employer to question whether that is appropriate during normal working hours. It's not unlike an employee who wants to work remote so they can manage a side-hustle. Maybe that side gig only takes a few moments of the day but I think most employers would have reservations about hiring someone who's trying to juggle multiple jobs. I think most people would agree there is a tipping point where your side hustle comes at the expense of contributing to your main gig. The coworker interruptions may make you less productive personally, but the team more productive is it’s a work related interruption. Also, research seems to show that “small talk” interruptions contribute to overall performance. I don’t think that same tradeoff is apparent with home interruptions. I think my position is that it's up to the employer/employee to manage that expectation and there probably should be hard expectations based on what seems to be a weakly formed agreement.
MattPalmer1086 3y ago
I think it's challenging to multi task but perfectly possible to maintain decent productivity. It was the business that claimed productivity was better with remote working, not the employees.
- bumby 3y ago
  >Employees said that they were told that productivity equaled or exceeded prepandemic levels It's an unsourced claim from the employees. And I agree on the "decent" productivity piece.
  - MattPalmer1086 3y ago
    Yes, I guess the claims did come from the employees. I'm inclined to believe them, as I had similar experiences. We were also told that remote working was a great success and productivity had actually risen over a couple of years. Now of course they want us back in the office a few days a month because reasons. Since our whole job involves talking with people spread across the US, the UK, India and external partners (not with other members of our team), I'm not convinced there is any boost to commuting into a noisy office filled with people on WebEx calls...
blakesterz 3y ago
> Do you think multitasking is feasible? Of course it is. I have no idea how I would've handled the last decade of my life if I wasn't working from home. I am sure that some people can't multitask, some people just work less from home. I am also sure that for most adults with kids/homes/parents to take care of, working from home means getting WORK done and also managing all that other stuff. It just would NOT be possible working from an office.
- bumby 3y ago
  Ok, but how do you square this with the troves of research that shows multi-tasking is really just task switching and tends to erode performance across specific types of work? (I'm not talking about walking and chewing gum, but tasks that typically have a larger mental overhead). At some point, I think you have to acknowledge that multitasking worsens performance. It's really up to the employer to determine if that is still a net benefit to keeping someone on.
  - helij 3y ago
    Maybe there's a middle ground somewhere where performance doesn't have to be 100% for all work.
  - harshalizee 3y ago
    Multitasking is not optimal is true. But If the quality and quantity of work is deemed acceptable to the company, why does the employee need to work at a higher level of performance than required? I run a couple of marathons a year, but I sure wouldn't try to finish one every week.
    - bumby 3y ago
      This is what I'm getting at. It seems to indicate they aren't meeting a minimum standard and they think working in person will get them there. It's why performance standards exist. The difference is I'm acknowledging that the performance standards of the company matter too, not just the individual. So if the company thinks they need to raise their standard of work* (rightly or wrongly) by making people work in person, it's still a valid action (depending on the exact nature of the remote agreement). It's like the comment above that equated familial interruptions to coworker interruptions. The former is generally a net negative to the company while the latter is not. The comment seems to view everything from the lens of the individual. * there's probably a valid argument as to why they feel compelled to that matters and the article doesn't exactly put a fine point on it

by bumby 3y ago

smeej 3y ago

Depending on the age of the kids, "homeschooling" often means "set them up with some books and a video playlist and check in every few hours." "Caring for elderly relatives" also often means no more interruptions than the number of coworkers who walk by your desk/cubicle and interrupt you on a daily basis. I don't think one set of interruptions is inherently worse for productivity than another. And honestly the most interruptive thing for me is meetings that could easily have been emails, so...

bumby 3y ago
I get there is a distribution, and there are also the other side of the spectrum. But I don't think it's unreasonable for an employer to question whether that is appropriate during normal working hours. It's not unlike an employee who wants to work remote so they can manage a side-hustle. Maybe that side gig only takes a few moments of the day but I think most employers would have reservations about hiring someone who's trying to juggle multiple jobs. I think most people would agree there is a tipping point where your side hustle comes at the expense of contributing to your main gig. The coworker interruptions may make you less productive personally, but the team more productive is it’s a work related interruption. Also, research seems to show that “small talk” interruptions contribute to overall performance. I don’t think that same tradeoff is apparent with home interruptions. I think my position is that it's up to the employer/employee to manage that expectation and there probably should be hard expectations based on what seems to be a weakly formed agreement.

MattPalmer1086 3y ago

I think it's challenging to multi task but perfectly possible to maintain decent productivity. It was the business that claimed productivity was better with remote working, not the employees.

bumby 3y ago
>Employees said that they were told that productivity equaled or exceeded prepandemic levels It's an unsourced claim from the employees. And I agree on the "decent" productivity piece.
- MattPalmer1086 3y ago
  Yes, I guess the claims did come from the employees. I'm inclined to believe them, as I had similar experiences. We were also told that remote working was a great success and productivity had actually risen over a couple of years. Now of course they want us back in the office a few days a month because reasons. Since our whole job involves talking with people spread across the US, the UK, India and external partners (not with other members of our team), I'm not convinced there is any boost to commuting into a noisy office filled with people on WebEx calls...

blakesterz 3y ago

> Do you think multitasking is feasible? Of course it is. I have no idea how I would've handled the last decade of my life if I wasn't working from home. I am sure that some people can't multitask, some people just work less from home. I am also sure that for most adults with kids/homes/parents to take care of, working from home means getting WORK done and also managing all that other stuff. It just would NOT be possible working from an office.

bumby 3y ago
Ok, but how do you square this with the troves of research that shows multi-tasking is really just task switching and tends to erode performance across specific types of work? (I'm not talking about walking and chewing gum, but tasks that typically have a larger mental overhead). At some point, I think you have to acknowledge that multitasking worsens performance. It's really up to the employer to determine if that is still a net benefit to keeping someone on.
- helij 3y ago
  Maybe there's a middle ground somewhere where performance doesn't have to be 100% for all work.
- harshalizee 3y ago
  Multitasking is not optimal is true. But If the quality and quantity of work is deemed acceptable to the company, why does the employee need to work at a higher level of performance than required? I run a couple of marathons a year, but I sure wouldn't try to finish one every week.
  - bumby 3y ago
    This is what I'm getting at. It seems to indicate they aren't meeting a minimum standard and they think working in person will get them there. It's why performance standards exist. The difference is I'm acknowledging that the performance standards of the company matter too, not just the individual. So if the company thinks they need to raise their standard of work* (rightly or wrongly) by making people work in person, it's still a valid action (depending on the exact nature of the remote agreement). It's like the comment above that equated familial interruptions to coworker interruptions. The former is generally a net negative to the company while the latter is not. The comment seems to view everything from the lens of the individual. * there's probably a valid argument as to why they feel compelled to that matters and the article doesn't exactly put a fine point on it