3 ms·
> the kind of work we do requires creativity, thinking holistically But those are also good with WFH? I get the one task point done, then I can go for a walk i
by 8note 3y ago
> the kind of work we do requires creativity, thinking holistically
But those are also good with WFH? I get the one task point done, then I can go for a walk in the park where I can keep thinking about the problem, then go grab a coffee or a beer and write down a bit of thoughts on the topic.
People are perfectly capable of phoning it in from the office, and taking a second job that's at night.
Working from home or from office are orthogonal to how much attention somebody is paying, except that WFH has a major advantage: you and your coworkers don't arrive irritated and fatigued after 2 hour commutes through traffic, and then not getting as much time to maintain their life because it's another irritating and fatiguing commute back after work
- neilv 3y agoThat's my answer to the argument of "What do you care, if I only work 1 hour a day, so long as I get my work done?!?!?! :emoji: :emoji:". Which is a stereotypical argument made by some fringe who are ostensibly pro-WFH and responding to an argument of (also not the best idea) "How do I know you're working the full 8 hours?" So this is an example of discussions getting derailed by a lot of arguments that ideally we'd already be past. But we keep churning them out, in self-sabotaging ways. (Or, maybe not self-sabotaging, if the writer's goal is actually engagement or thought-leader self-promotion. Or if we've sunken so far on the WFH question that we're starting to get dialogue sabotage intentionally, like we do on some topics involving political power or big money.)