4 ms·

Your skepticism is unsolvable, as it is for the majority of managers who have this data, individually. Imagine, for a moment, that I have collected metrics on

by hug 3y ago

Your skepticism is unsolvable, as it is for the majority of managers who have this data, individually. Imagine, for a moment, that I have collected metrics on the members of the teams that I manage that measure productivity against work from home, things like sprint burn down versus work from home, and things of that nature. Suppose that I have this information for 50 people. I can’t share it externally due to corporate policy, and I can’t extend its scope to other teams that don’t use Jira in the way we do. I can use it to try to discuss WFH with my teams directly, but even starting this conversation is liable to upset WFH stalwarts, but if I do I cannot present this information in a way that is both deidentifiable and satisfyingly comprehensive. If I aggregate it I get something like “we’re 10% better at task completion while in the office”, I have people who claim to be an exception to the rule (and the loudest complainers are disproportionately actually the worst when it comes to WFH productivity), and if I present it unaggregated then I have people complaining about being called out publicly as under-performers (rightfully so) and people complaining since their productivity didn’t slip 10% they should be able to work from home. I cannot manage 50 different WFH policies due to incoming complaints about fairness, mandating RTO upsets the team, allowing unrestricted WFH nets a productivity loss, and anyone who says “fire the people who are underperforming from home” knows nothing about management. So my personal response here is to just allow the productivity loss: 10% productivity means less to me than the major impact on the happiness of the teams, but it must be recognised that this pick is the “best of bad options”, if you’re trying to maximise business output. Clearly, at some level of management, the happiness is less important that the profit, but that’s beyond my pay grade.

voisin 3y ago
> Clearly, at some level of management, the happiness is less important that the profit, but that’s beyond my pay grade. It isn’t beyond your pay grade. If your team underperforms because of your decision, then you risk the entire team being let go in the next downturn.
ethanbond 3y ago
Yeah this is a thoughtful comment rooted in the (complicated) reality of management. I’m curious in your specific experience: do you feel like you have that data and what type of data are you looking at? (Without sharing the figures of course)
- hug 3y ago
  By virtue of my role I have access to all sorts of data, even down to how many emails a day any given person might be reading or how many Teams calls they're in. I don't ever dig into this on an individually-recognisable level (because that is overreach), although I do look into anonymised trends & aggregates, because it is useful and interesting to know these trends across teams. I also have access to other more obvious task-tracking metrics like the number of pull requests, or Jira task completion, or stack deploys. I also have team calendars where team members plug in whether they're working from home or from the office. It's fairly trivial to punch a bunch of this data into BI tooling to get an approximation of how work from home makes a difference to how much actually gets done. Is it 100% accurate? Certainly not. Would I ever use it for an actual performance conversation? Nope. But it does help as a component of the gestalt that is my understanding of WFH performance. The other major component of my understanding is more direct. I go out for lunch with my teams or for beers with my teams, and I listen to what they have to say. I know that a reasonable number of my team members head out at 3PM to pick their kids up from school every time they work from home, because they tell me that to my face. The guy with the new baby is not 100% focused on work when he's home, because he's got tiny human to deal with. It's also very important to note that performance is squishy and hard to quantify at the best of times, before you even get into things like Goodhart's Law. For example. employee retention is important and as a rate of turnover fairly easy to measure, and is a significant factor for total velocity, but causes of turnover are almost always orthogonal to the root cause of job dissatisfaction... More importantly, though, do we decrease the negative impacts of turnover commensurate to the loss of productivity by allowing WFH? Who knows! I have way way way more that I could say on the topic, but I might be being a bit hypocritical by continuing to talk about it while at work. ;]

by hug 3y ago

voisin 3y ago

> Clearly, at some level of management, the happiness is less important that the profit, but that’s beyond my pay grade. It isn’t beyond your pay grade. If your team underperforms because of your decision, then you risk the entire team being let go in the next downturn.

ethanbond 3y ago

Yeah this is a thoughtful comment rooted in the (complicated) reality of management. I’m curious in your specific experience: do you feel like you have that data and what type of data are you looking at? (Without sharing the figures of course)

hug 3y ago
By virtue of my role I have access to all sorts of data, even down to how many emails a day any given person might be reading or how many Teams calls they're in. I don't ever dig into this on an individually-recognisable level (because that is overreach), although I do look into anonymised trends & aggregates, because it is useful and interesting to know these trends across teams. I also have access to other more obvious task-tracking metrics like the number of pull requests, or Jira task completion, or stack deploys. I also have team calendars where team members plug in whether they're working from home or from the office. It's fairly trivial to punch a bunch of this data into BI tooling to get an approximation of how work from home makes a difference to how much actually gets done. Is it 100% accurate? Certainly not. Would I ever use it for an actual performance conversation? Nope. But it does help as a component of the gestalt that is my understanding of WFH performance. The other major component of my understanding is more direct. I go out for lunch with my teams or for beers with my teams, and I listen to what they have to say. I know that a reasonable number of my team members head out at 3PM to pick their kids up from school every time they work from home, because they tell me that to my face. The guy with the new baby is not 100% focused on work when he's home, because he's got tiny human to deal with. It's also very important to note that performance is squishy and hard to quantify at the best of times, before you even get into things like Goodhart's Law. For example. employee retention is important and as a rate of turnover fairly easy to measure, and is a significant factor for total velocity, but causes of turnover are almost always orthogonal to the root cause of job dissatisfaction... More importantly, though, do we decrease the negative impacts of turnover commensurate to the loss of productivity by allowing WFH? Who knows! I have way way way more that I could say on the topic, but I might be being a bit hypocritical by continuing to talk about it while at work. ;]