4 ms·
> It’s time to admit that remote work doesn’t work. WFH Friday is a four-day work week. Full WFH is a two-day workweek. When people are not in the office, every
by kdmccormick 3y ago
> It’s time to admit that remote work doesn’t work. WFH Friday is a four-day work week. Full WFH is a two-day workweek. When people are not in the office, every interaction has to be planned in advance. And that means a lot of information-sharing doesn’t happen. Remote is a great lifestyle, not a way to build a great company
If you're starting an article with a strong, absolute, data-devoid, and highly opinion-based quote from an executive (not an engineer or direct manager), then I'm not going to take much stock in your writing.
Look, I'm not saying remote is better or worse. But I will say that as an engineer, a hybrid model works excellent for my personal productivity. If anything, I spend more hours focused when I'm at home or at my local coffee shop. I am fully aware that I am missing social interaction, serendipitous productive conversation, yada yada, when I'm not in the office. I am aware that my company might be more productive if we were all in-person. But statements like this?
> Full WFH is a two-day workweek.
Yeah, fuck off. Why are we trusting executives' opinions on day-to-day lives of their line workers anyway? Their work is different: it's largely based on connections and debates and presentations and deal-making. My work is centered around focused writing and refinement of code and prose. Obviously our ideal work environments might differ.
Also, tangentially, every image in this article seems to be a stock photo of someone stressed out in an office :)
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ThrowawayR2 3y ago> "Yeah, fuck off. Why are we trusting executives' opinions on day-to-day lives of their line workers anyway?" 'cause executives are the ones whose neck is on the line for success of their business division so they are extremely motivated to keep a close eye on profitability and progress on business goals, particularly when the economy looks wobbly. [mic drop] (Yes, there are examples of executives who are incompetent and/or just plain dumb, but they are the minority.) And, of course, before I get attacked as pro-RTO, I myself WFH and only go to the office when circumstances require it.
- hdjjhhvvhga 3y ago> 'cause executives are the ones whose neck is on the line for success of their business division so they are extremely motivated to keep a close eye on profitability and progress on business goals, particularly when the economy looks wobbly. ...so? What is the conclusion? You force people to do what they hate and hope for better results? It really makes no sense.
- true_religion 3y agoYou can definitely hate stuff and be more productive when it occurs. Imagine how high productivity would be if managers were allowed to literally crack the whip at engineers who slow down after working for 10 hours a day. We don’t allow that because it’s inhumane. I think a similar principle applies to WFH. Even if it’s less productive it’s still better for society.
- bitcharmer 3y agoAre you serious or just trolling? > Imagine how high productivity would be if managers were allowed to literally crack the whip at engineers who slow down after working for 10 hours a day. I'll tell you what would happen. The engineers would quit on the spot and you'd end up with a sea of empty desks. Why are some managers so dense? Is this an ego thing?
- flir 3y agoIt's hyperbole.
- hdjjhhvvhga 3y agoOK, so if you reduce this hyperbole to a normal statement, the parent says you can make people work harder by using negative reinforcement such as harsh words, for example. Well, it might work for some people, but I guess only short term and they will leave at the first opportunity.
- bitcharmer 3y agoI think this is just rage/click bait. No one seriously would have a deranged opinion like that.