3 ms·

Then that should be addressed with the specific individuals, not a global policy.

by Uvix 3y ago

j45 3y ago
Hybrid seems interesting
dutchbrit 3y ago
Try telling one person they can work from home and someone else they can’t, it’s hard for some people to accept.
- Tade0 3y ago
  Set them productivity targets and allow for WFH if they are met. It's what's being done with junior employees anyway.
- smcl 3y ago
  I don't think it'd work like that. If anyone's underperforming should they be identified and handled through the process you'd normally follow, not by specifically retracting home-office priviledges as a punishment. From what I've seen (anecdotally of course, a few friends) these "no more home office" orders don't tend to come as a response to any objectively measured drop in productivity, they come from CEOs and managers who benefit from being able to control things or crack the whip in-person.
- BaseballPhysics 3y ago
  Eh, if you treat it as a perk for good performance, like a salary increase, bonus, or additional PTO, then I don't see the problem? Either you earn it or you don't.
crlln 3y ago
If it was the case of some individual contributors' productivity dropping because of WFH then yes, you can pinpoint that person, return him to the office and put a manager next to him to make him work But recent years brought me to conclusion that many people have a need for in person communication, and your morale, productivity and even mental health going down little by little every day you interact with others only digitally. You can not fix this, if you bring back to office only selected few. You have to bring back the whole teams — so if a person goes to the office, everyone he works with and interacts with are also there
- michaelmrose 3y ago
  At that point doesn't it make more sense to fire the person?
  - concordDance 3y ago
    When they don't make up 30% of your work force.
- midasuni 3y ago
  So you want to lower everyone else’s mental health and productivity?

Then that should be addressed with the specific individuals, not a global policy.

by Uvix 3y ago

Then that should be addressed with the specific individuals, not a global policy.

j45 3y ago

Hybrid seems interesting

dutchbrit 3y ago

Try telling one person they can work from home and someone else they can’t, it’s hard for some people to accept.

Tade0 3y ago
Set them productivity targets and allow for WFH if they are met. It's what's being done with junior employees anyway.
smcl 3y ago
I don't think it'd work like that. If anyone's underperforming should they be identified and handled through the process you'd normally follow, not by specifically retracting home-office priviledges as a punishment. From what I've seen (anecdotally of course, a few friends) these "no more home office" orders don't tend to come as a response to any objectively measured drop in productivity, they come from CEOs and managers who benefit from being able to control things or crack the whip in-person.
BaseballPhysics 3y ago
Eh, if you treat it as a perk for good performance, like a salary increase, bonus, or additional PTO, then I don't see the problem? Either you earn it or you don't.

crlln 3y ago

If it was the case of some individual contributors' productivity dropping because of WFH then yes, you can pinpoint that person, return him to the office and put a manager next to him to make him work But recent years brought me to conclusion that many people have a need for in person communication, and your morale, productivity and even mental health going down little by little every day you interact with others only digitally. You can not fix this, if you bring back to office only selected few. You have to bring back the whole teams — so if a person goes to the office, everyone he works with and interacts with are also there

michaelmrose 3y ago
At that point doesn't it make more sense to fire the person?
- concordDance 3y ago
  When they don't make up 30% of your work force.
midasuni 3y ago
So you want to lower everyone else’s mental health and productivity?