7 ms·

It's also naïve to assume that the work people do when supervised is always valuable and not optimizing for the appearance of work, rather than work itself.

deprecative 3y ago
It's also naive to assume that optimizing for productivity is some goal we should work toward when zero reward structures are in place for it. The thing to optimize for is just enough productivity.
- imbnwa 3y ago
  Particularly when pay increases in this craft are largely found by job hopping until you possibly land a FAANG job or approximate
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  > when zero reward structures are in place for it. we used to have them. Pension is long dead, however. Hell, promotions and raises are arguably dead as well in certain industries. It's practically common knowledge that it's easier for tech jobs to change jobs for a 20% raise than to ask the current company for a 5% raise. And then that company you left after 2 years proceeds to pay someone a 20% raise in order to ramp up someone doing your same job. Companies need to reward tenure and actually budget for employee bonuses if they don't want to keep doing this. But from what I've read, they don't care and HR may even be incentivize to do this song and dance: https://old.reddit.com/r/datascience/comments/uo589a/why_are_companies_willing_to_spend_so_much_on/i8cut6w/ https://old.reddit.com/r/datascience/comments/uo589a/why_are... or if you want a TL;DR for the TL;DR: >HR / recruiting "wins" when hiring, and does not "lose" when employees leave. Their incentives are in most cases at the fastest possible rotation of people.
jayd16 3y ago
Would those people be working significantly more without supervision? I find it hard to believe.
- MBCook 3y ago
  I don’t think that’s their point. The kind of person who isn’t going to work when not stared at all day by a manager is also probably the kind of person who is going to try to LOOK busy at the office without actually having to do a lot of REAL work. Surfing the web, playing games, chatting with their friends, whatever they can get away with when someone’s not watching. Or maybe doing their real tasks really slow. They’re just not a hard worker. Where is an employee who tends to do a good job is going to try to do it whether they’re in the office or not (assuming that’s possible for their position). They don’t really need to be monitored at home or at work. They would do basically the same either way. So all you’re left with is you need to check real productivity instead of the appearance of productivity. THAT’S what matters, not where the employee is physically located during the day. Some people are exceptions and will work significantly better in one environment or the other. But if you have an employee who took remote work to mean “watch TV and occasionally jiggle my mouse“ i’m willing to bet they weren’t a good employee in the first place.
  - jayd16 3y ago
    I've definitely seen juniors who need attention to succeed.
  - commonlisp94 3y ago
    > is also probably the kind of person who is going to try to LOOK busy at the office I disagree. The vast majority of people benefit from basic supervision and accountability.
  - mikhailfranco 3y ago
    This is a long comment section, with many good viewpoints, but your summary is the most insightful: WFH spreads the performance distribution of pre-existing traits for attitude to work.
- sdiupIGPWEfh 3y ago
  The question for management is, are you hiring, cultivating, and retaining the best people? And are you defining "best" appropriately? If management's concerns around remote employees slacking off are at all valid, it's management's own fault in the first place.

deprecative 3y ago

It's also naive to assume that optimizing for productivity is some goal we should work toward when zero reward structures are in place for it. The thing to optimize for is just enough productivity.

imbnwa 3y ago
Particularly when pay increases in this craft are largely found by job hopping until you possibly land a FAANG job or approximate
johnnyanmac 3y ago
> when zero reward structures are in place for it. we used to have them. Pension is long dead, however. Hell, promotions and raises are arguably dead as well in certain industries. It's practically common knowledge that it's easier for tech jobs to change jobs for a 20% raise than to ask the current company for a 5% raise. And then that company you left after 2 years proceeds to pay someone a 20% raise in order to ramp up someone doing your same job. Companies need to reward tenure and actually budget for employee bonuses if they don't want to keep doing this. But from what I've read, they don't care and HR may even be incentivize to do this song and dance: https://old.reddit.com/r/datascience/comments/uo589a/why_are_companies_willing_to_spend_so_much_on/i8cut6w/ https://old.reddit.com/r/datascience/comments/uo589a/why_are... or if you want a TL;DR for the TL;DR: >HR / recruiting "wins" when hiring, and does not "lose" when employees leave. Their incentives are in most cases at the fastest possible rotation of people.

jayd16 3y ago

Would those people be working significantly more without supervision? I find it hard to believe.

MBCook 3y ago
I don’t think that’s their point. The kind of person who isn’t going to work when not stared at all day by a manager is also probably the kind of person who is going to try to LOOK busy at the office without actually having to do a lot of REAL work. Surfing the web, playing games, chatting with their friends, whatever they can get away with when someone’s not watching. Or maybe doing their real tasks really slow. They’re just not a hard worker. Where is an employee who tends to do a good job is going to try to do it whether they’re in the office or not (assuming that’s possible for their position). They don’t really need to be monitored at home or at work. They would do basically the same either way. So all you’re left with is you need to check real productivity instead of the appearance of productivity. THAT’S what matters, not where the employee is physically located during the day. Some people are exceptions and will work significantly better in one environment or the other. But if you have an employee who took remote work to mean “watch TV and occasionally jiggle my mouse“ i’m willing to bet they weren’t a good employee in the first place.
- jayd16 3y ago
  I've definitely seen juniors who need attention to succeed.
- commonlisp94 3y ago
  > is also probably the kind of person who is going to try to LOOK busy at the office I disagree. The vast majority of people benefit from basic supervision and accountability.
- mikhailfranco 3y ago
  This is a long comment section, with many good viewpoints, but your summary is the most insightful: WFH spreads the performance distribution of pre-existing traits for attitude to work.
sdiupIGPWEfh 3y ago
The question for management is, are you hiring, cultivating, and retaining the best people? And are you defining "best" appropriately? If management's concerns around remote employees slacking off are at all valid, it's management's own fault in the first place.