4 ms·

> unspecific vibes that it must be bad if employees like it I read it as the feeling that they know somehow that the employees are not putting in 100% of their

by chii 1y ago

> unspecific vibes that it must be bad if employees like it I read it as the feeling that they know somehow that the employees are not putting in 100% of their attention at home on the work assigned. And i do believe it to be true - lots of people claim that WFH means they can "do the laundry" and/or go to the post office. The fact is that there's very few self-starters and intrinsically motivated employees. Most are just there for the pay cheque, and will do the minimum work that is required of them - esp. if not under strict supervision. Not to mention the fact that it is indeed much harder to have collaborative discussions that are spontaneous and unplanned in a WFH setting, compared to the office.

wpm 1y ago
> Not to mention the fact that it is indeed much harder to have collaborative discussions that are spontaneous and unplanned in a WFH setting, compared to the office. This is a culture thing that is easily fixed by mandating cameras on, buying everyone good microphones, and a consensus that you can ping someone with a question, go back and forth, and know that you aren't imposing by throwing a /zoom into the Slack DM and saying "let's just meet about this". My team is small, sure, but we are cameras on 100%, we know to pause a sec after someone stops talking for latency, and have a spoken agreement "fuck slack just open a room i'll hop in". We have met in person numerous times and each time it feels identical to work in person as we do remote. When I meet with other teams, people are in their fucking cars driving, cameras off the whole time (but chewing into the mic), can't figure out how to share their screen (still!), like, no shit that isn't productive, you're putting no effort into it!
- ecshafer 1y ago
  I have found the same with remote. Cameras ON is a huge improvement in how much people are in on the game. Constant communication, frequent ad hoc meetings, screen sharing. Its totally doable, but most people don't do it. There is no feeling worse than presenting an idea to a meeting room of 10 people with all cameras off, and when you ask a question you get crickets. Too many people are phoning it in.
- chii 1y ago
  > cameras on 100% i hate the idea of camera on 100% of the time. I am not presentable when WFH. That's the point. I might also be on the toilet - which otherwise is dead time!
  - thedevilslawyer 1y ago
    Cameras off is a drain for collaboration. Frankly, I think your productivity would benefit from RTO. Professionalism does help in collaboration.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - lucketone 1y ago
      When I solve problems, I need text, I need diagrams, I need demos (i.e. screen sharing). I don’t need faces, unless I’m interrogating somebody.
      - thedevilslawyer 1y ago
        > I .. I .. I.. I.. I.. In all seriousness: you've outlined what you need. Perhaps you should reflect on what any collaborator needs.
        cebert 1y ago
        Why does anyone need to see my face. Work is transactional. Few if any coworkers are actually your friend. We’re getting paid to get a job done.
        wpm 1y ago
        Because I need to see if how I'm explaining something is hitting. I need to see if you are listening. I need to know you're actually there and not distracted. It's a job. Not a confessional booth.
        1y ago
- LtWorf 1y ago
  So bring all the constant interruptions and inability to focus that is in the office at home as well? The fact that you think is good tells me you're probably some kind of middle manager with too little actual work to do.
  - wpm 1y ago
    Nope, just an IC. I have plenty of work to do.
- wiseowise 1y ago
  Hahahaha, my sides. Jesus. That’s the funniest I’ve heard in this thread.
- dml2135 1y ago
  Wow I’m surprised at the heavy downvoted here. I don’t think mandating cameras on and insisting on 100% is the right move, but I definitely think you want to aim for a team culture where camera-on is a default and most people have them on 80-90% of the time. Otherwise, yea participation and engagement seems to take a major hit.
  - wpm 1y ago
    I think some people are misinterpreting 100% as "even when you aren't on a call/Zoom/huddle" which is batshit. Some people are just unhappy they're being called out for taking meetings while they take a dump. The latter is precisely why attempting for 100% cameras on during meetings is a good idea. If you're uncomfortable being on camera in a meeting doing it, its a good sign you shouldn't be doing it.
anon22981 1y ago
Those lazy employees need that strict supervision! Maybe these c suites and other employee hating assholes are projecting their own lazyness. Or maybe they think they are so superior compared to ”common” people that the ”common” people must be lazy trash. I don’t know, but it is weird to assume most people won’t do their job without ”strict supervision”. Like super weird. (Btw, anecdotally, most people I know work more efficiently from home with fewer breaks)
- hobs 1y ago
  Because they know they are creating unfulfilling low paying jobs with shitty objectives, who wouldn't fuck off in that scenario?
- throwaway2037 1y ago
  > Those lazy employees need that strict supervision! This comment is a bit reactionary. It would be more balanced to say that lower motivation employees will benefit from a more structured working environment.
LtWorf 1y ago
You know what's a good way to make people less motivated? Impose useless corporate policies like having to go to the office, for no reason whatsoever. > Most are just there for the pay cheque, and will do the minimum work that is required of them That's just capitalism? Every player is supposed to optimise.
tpxl 1y ago
Daily reminder that if a manager can't tell if their employees are effective working from home, that manager is incompetent. There are a million ways to check if someone is actually working, and butt-in-seat isn't one of them.
- steveBK123 1y ago
  Also given many orgs are distributed across buildings, cities, and countries.. a manager admitting they need to physically see butts in seats is telling on themselves re: ability to do their job.
throwaway2037 1y ago
> lots of people claim that WFH means they can "do the laundry" and/or go to the post office I mostly work from the office. Since the end of COVID-19, my teams are always mixed where some people WFH. One issue that I frequently encounter: People do their chores at random times in the middle of day, so frequently you cannot corral a group of people to quickly discuss something. In the office, this is trivial: Turn around in your chair. Over time, I find that I reach out to WFH staff less and less and work more closely with in-office teammates. I'm not rewarded for overcoming this friction with WFH teammates, so why would I try?
- simoncion 1y ago
  > People do their chores at random times in the middle of day... When I was in-office, people I needed to speak to would be away from their desk (god only knows where) several times a day. Perhaps they were off taking a shit, or getting food, or having a long think in a quiet corner, or crying in the nap closet, or who knows what, but they weren't at their desk and I had no idea how to contact them. If your coworkers are regularly inaccessible for extended periods, then you're gonna have to do what has been done since way before widespread WFH: talk to your manager to establish core working hours during which everyone is expected to be easily accessible to other folks in the company. If your manager doesn't see the need to establish and enforce core working hours and neither does their manager, then either stop thinking of it as a problem, or go work for a place that is a better fit for your theory of work. If you've already established core working hours and these remote employees are ignoring them, then complain to your manager. If their behavior is seriously getting in the way of you getting your work done, it's your manager's job to fix that.
arkh 1y ago
> will do the minimum work that is required of them So... doing their job? When I read people wanting to have 100% uptime on their human resources I feel like I'm reading "The goal" again and how machines have to be 100% used in the mind of some managers. And even when doing chore (or posting on HN), people tend to think about other things. Like their current task. Why do you think people find solutions to problems in the shower or just before sleeping? Because you can think about work (and so for most office jobs, working) even when not on your computer.
- cutemonster 1y ago
  > > will do the minimum work that is required of them > So... doing their job? Can also mean working 5 h instead of 8, but not so little so you'd get fired. That's not doing one's job completely (if paid for working 8 h), just that no one notices.
steveBK123 1y ago
It's called performance management. If middle management can't figure it out for remote or in-office employees, they need a new line of work. The people that are slackers at home have low output in the office and are probably the annoying gabber distracting the rest of the team in-office. Collective punishment isn't a solution, and the best will walk.

by chii 1y ago

wpm 1y ago

> Not to mention the fact that it is indeed much harder to have collaborative discussions that are spontaneous and unplanned in a WFH setting, compared to the office. This is a culture thing that is easily fixed by mandating cameras on, buying everyone good microphones, and a consensus that you can ping someone with a question, go back and forth, and know that you aren't imposing by throwing a /zoom into the Slack DM and saying "let's just meet about this". My team is small, sure, but we are cameras on 100%, we know to pause a sec after someone stops talking for latency, and have a spoken agreement "fuck slack just open a room i'll hop in". We have met in person numerous times and each time it feels identical to work in person as we do remote. When I meet with other teams, people are in their fucking cars driving, cameras off the whole time (but chewing into the mic), can't figure out how to share their screen (still!), like, no shit that isn't productive, you're putting no effort into it!

ecshafer 1y ago
I have found the same with remote. Cameras ON is a huge improvement in how much people are in on the game. Constant communication, frequent ad hoc meetings, screen sharing. Its totally doable, but most people don't do it. There is no feeling worse than presenting an idea to a meeting room of 10 people with all cameras off, and when you ask a question you get crickets. Too many people are phoning it in.
chii 1y ago
> cameras on 100% i hate the idea of camera on 100% of the time. I am not presentable when WFH. That's the point. I might also be on the toilet - which otherwise is dead time!
- thedevilslawyer 1y ago
  Cameras off is a drain for collaboration. Frankly, I think your productivity would benefit from RTO. Professionalism does help in collaboration.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - lucketone 1y ago
    When I solve problems, I need text, I need diagrams, I need demos (i.e. screen sharing). I don’t need faces, unless I’m interrogating somebody.
    - thedevilslawyer 1y ago
      > I .. I .. I.. I.. I.. In all seriousness: you've outlined what you need. Perhaps you should reflect on what any collaborator needs.
      - cebert 1y ago
        Why does anyone need to see my face. Work is transactional. Few if any coworkers are actually your friend. We’re getting paid to get a job done.
        wpm 1y ago
        Because I need to see if how I'm explaining something is hitting. I need to see if you are listening. I need to know you're actually there and not distracted. It's a job. Not a confessional booth.
      - 1y ago
LtWorf 1y ago
So bring all the constant interruptions and inability to focus that is in the office at home as well? The fact that you think is good tells me you're probably some kind of middle manager with too little actual work to do.
- wpm 1y ago
  Nope, just an IC. I have plenty of work to do.
wiseowise 1y ago
Hahahaha, my sides. Jesus. That’s the funniest I’ve heard in this thread.
dml2135 1y ago
Wow I’m surprised at the heavy downvoted here. I don’t think mandating cameras on and insisting on 100% is the right move, but I definitely think you want to aim for a team culture where camera-on is a default and most people have them on 80-90% of the time. Otherwise, yea participation and engagement seems to take a major hit.
- wpm 1y ago
  I think some people are misinterpreting 100% as "even when you aren't on a call/Zoom/huddle" which is batshit. Some people are just unhappy they're being called out for taking meetings while they take a dump. The latter is precisely why attempting for 100% cameras on during meetings is a good idea. If you're uncomfortable being on camera in a meeting doing it, its a good sign you shouldn't be doing it.

anon22981 1y ago

Those lazy employees need that strict supervision! Maybe these c suites and other employee hating assholes are projecting their own lazyness. Or maybe they think they are so superior compared to ”common” people that the ”common” people must be lazy trash. I don’t know, but it is weird to assume most people won’t do their job without ”strict supervision”. Like super weird. (Btw, anecdotally, most people I know work more efficiently from home with fewer breaks)

hobs 1y ago
Because they know they are creating unfulfilling low paying jobs with shitty objectives, who wouldn't fuck off in that scenario?
throwaway2037 1y ago
> Those lazy employees need that strict supervision! This comment is a bit reactionary. It would be more balanced to say that lower motivation employees will benefit from a more structured working environment.

LtWorf 1y ago

You know what's a good way to make people less motivated? Impose useless corporate policies like having to go to the office, for no reason whatsoever. > Most are just there for the pay cheque, and will do the minimum work that is required of them That's just capitalism? Every player is supposed to optimise.

tpxl 1y ago

Daily reminder that if a manager can't tell if their employees are effective working from home, that manager is incompetent. There are a million ways to check if someone is actually working, and butt-in-seat isn't one of them.

steveBK123 1y ago
Also given many orgs are distributed across buildings, cities, and countries.. a manager admitting they need to physically see butts in seats is telling on themselves re: ability to do their job.

throwaway2037 1y ago

> lots of people claim that WFH means they can "do the laundry" and/or go to the post office I mostly work from the office. Since the end of COVID-19, my teams are always mixed where some people WFH. One issue that I frequently encounter: People do their chores at random times in the middle of day, so frequently you cannot corral a group of people to quickly discuss something. In the office, this is trivial: Turn around in your chair. Over time, I find that I reach out to WFH staff less and less and work more closely with in-office teammates. I'm not rewarded for overcoming this friction with WFH teammates, so why would I try?

simoncion 1y ago
> People do their chores at random times in the middle of day... When I was in-office, people I needed to speak to would be away from their desk (god only knows where) several times a day. Perhaps they were off taking a shit, or getting food, or having a long think in a quiet corner, or crying in the nap closet, or who knows what, but they weren't at their desk and I had no idea how to contact them. If your coworkers are regularly inaccessible for extended periods, then you're gonna have to do what has been done since way before widespread WFH: talk to your manager to establish core working hours during which everyone is expected to be easily accessible to other folks in the company. If your manager doesn't see the need to establish and enforce core working hours and neither does their manager, then either stop thinking of it as a problem, or go work for a place that is a better fit for your theory of work. If you've already established core working hours and these remote employees are ignoring them, then complain to your manager. If their behavior is seriously getting in the way of you getting your work done, it's your manager's job to fix that.

arkh 1y ago

> will do the minimum work that is required of them So... doing their job? When I read people wanting to have 100% uptime on their human resources I feel like I'm reading "The goal" again and how machines have to be 100% used in the mind of some managers. And even when doing chore (or posting on HN), people tend to think about other things. Like their current task. Why do you think people find solutions to problems in the shower or just before sleeping? Because you can think about work (and so for most office jobs, working) even when not on your computer.

cutemonster 1y ago
> > will do the minimum work that is required of them > So... doing their job? Can also mean working 5 h instead of 8, but not so little so you'd get fired. That's not doing one's job completely (if paid for working 8 h), just that no one notices.

steveBK123 1y ago

It's called performance management. If middle management can't figure it out for remote or in-office employees, they need a new line of work. The people that are slackers at home have low output in the office and are probably the annoying gabber distracting the rest of the team in-office. Collective punishment isn't a solution, and the best will walk.