4 ms·

This reads like yet another autocratic, micro-managing HR document. "Have a room with a door that shuts." Seriously? How about this: hire smart people you trus

by sigre 13y ago

This reads like yet another autocratic, micro-managing HR document. "Have a room with a door that shuts." Seriously? How about this: hire smart people you trust, give them whatever tools and support they need to do their jobs most productively, then get out of the way.

legutierr 13y ago
Rules like this usually exist because there were people who did the opposite at some time in the past. It's a simple enough requirement; isn't having it better than disallowing remote work, or disciplining someone for problems created by not having a door (kid runs in in the middle of a staff or client meeting) when no such requirement was previously specified? I would say one of the tools required to be productive as a programmer is a focused work space. You can give that tool to people who come to the office. But if someone works from home, that's the one tool they have to provide themselves.
jacques_chester 13y ago
> "Have a room with a door that shuts." Seriously? Yes. Seriously: http://www.dorsethouse.com/books/pw.html http://www.dorsethouse.com/books/pw.html > How about this: hire smart people you trust, give them whatever tools and support they need to do their jobs most productively, then get out of the way. Good idea: http://www.dorsethouse.com/books/pw.html http://www.dorsethouse.com/books/pw.html
- parennoob 13y ago
  I don't understand -- if you could give some rational, reasoned argument or study that shows that smart people are very less productive on an average if they are working remotely instead of repeatedly chanting the link to a book whose reviews read "Bill Gates has built a company full of managers who read Peopleware" (that is supposed to be a plus?), your argument might make more sense.
  - jacques_chester 13y ago
    Firstly I was pointing to the origin of "a door that shuts". It's not an example of micromanagement, it's an example of a finding from a study performed by IBM that programmers in private offices were more productive on any measure. Secondly I was pointing out that the same book also tells managers to recruit bright people, give them goals, enable their work, and then go away. I suspect Peopleware is the most widely not-actually-read book in this industry.
ISL 13y ago
One co-founder of Fog Creek has this to say, as a goal for the company [1]: "* great work environment, with the goal of every engineer having an office with a door that closes" And, in an oft-cited "Joel Test" [2]: "8. Do programmers have quiet working conditions?" Furthermore, the company itself says [3]: "The average Fog Creek developer has 694 square inches of screen real-estate, 2 desktop computers, and an Aeron chair. Most have private offices with windows and doors." Googling for "Joel on software door that shuts" will turn up similar results. A shutting door is clearly important to the management, remote or no. [1] http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000038.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000038.html [2] http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000043.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000043.html [3] http://fogcreek.com/about/ http://fogcreek.com/about/
- mistermann 13y ago
  From reading the comments in this thread, I don't think very many people in this thread know who Joel Spolsky is.
  - lacksconfidence 13y ago
    Or the alternate explanation, most of the people in this thread disagree with Joel Spolsky. Given occam's razor and his fairly high profile, which is more likely?
    - slantyyz 13y ago
      Disagreeing with Spolsky's writing is one thing, but unless you've seen or heard a lot of Fog Creek employees calling it a horrible place to work, then I would say that any speculation about how horrible a place Fog Creek must be because of the tone and content of the OP would suggest that Mistermann is right.
    - mistermann 13y ago
      > Given occam's razor and his fairly high profile, which is more likely? I'll hazard a guess that you're "older", like me. I don't think Joel Spolsky has a high profile at all with forum active programmers, I mean, when did he drop out of public writing, it was many years ago. At least to me, most of the criticism here is generally of the nature "you're wrong"....not subtle, considering the variety of things involved, just that programmers are, without exception, incredibly productive, and all work should be able to be performed asynchronously (or you're doing it wrong). I just don't find the comments in this thread very reasonable, it seems like a bunch of young and very smart/competent kids assuming everyone is as smart and competent as them. Do you get a sense of humility from very many of the comments here?
OldSchool 13y ago
Well said!
tghw 13y ago
Do you really think this is a literal rule? "Can I work remotely?" "Will you have a room to work in?" "Yes" "But does it have a door?" "Well, no, it's a desk in the living room, but I'll be home alone all day." "Sorry, no door, no remote work." Consider, Fog Creek has spent substantial funds making sure that their on-site devs have offices with doors that close. Is it unreasonable, then, to expect a remote worker to have a distraction-free work environment?

by sigre 13y ago

legutierr 13y ago

Rules like this usually exist because there were people who did the opposite at some time in the past. It's a simple enough requirement; isn't having it better than disallowing remote work, or disciplining someone for problems created by not having a door (kid runs in in the middle of a staff or client meeting) when no such requirement was previously specified? I would say one of the tools required to be productive as a programmer is a focused work space. You can give that tool to people who come to the office. But if someone works from home, that's the one tool they have to provide themselves.

jacques_chester 13y ago

> "Have a room with a door that shuts." Seriously? Yes. Seriously: http://www.dorsethouse.com/books/pw.html http://www.dorsethouse.com/books/pw.html > How about this: hire smart people you trust, give them whatever tools and support they need to do their jobs most productively, then get out of the way. Good idea: http://www.dorsethouse.com/books/pw.html http://www.dorsethouse.com/books/pw.html

parennoob 13y ago
I don't understand -- if you could give some rational, reasoned argument or study that shows that smart people are very less productive on an average if they are working remotely instead of repeatedly chanting the link to a book whose reviews read "Bill Gates has built a company full of managers who read Peopleware" (that is supposed to be a plus?), your argument might make more sense.
- jacques_chester 13y ago
  Firstly I was pointing to the origin of "a door that shuts". It's not an example of micromanagement, it's an example of a finding from a study performed by IBM that programmers in private offices were more productive on any measure. Secondly I was pointing out that the same book also tells managers to recruit bright people, give them goals, enable their work, and then go away. I suspect Peopleware is the most widely not-actually-read book in this industry.

ISL 13y ago

One co-founder of Fog Creek has this to say, as a goal for the company [1]: "* great work environment, with the goal of every engineer having an office with a door that closes" And, in an oft-cited "Joel Test" [2]: "8. Do programmers have quiet working conditions?" Furthermore, the company itself says [3]: "The average Fog Creek developer has 694 square inches of screen real-estate, 2 desktop computers, and an Aeron chair. Most have private offices with windows and doors." Googling for "Joel on software door that shuts" will turn up similar results. A shutting door is clearly important to the management, remote or no. [1] http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000038.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000038.html [2] http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000043.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000043.html [3] http://fogcreek.com/about/ http://fogcreek.com/about/

mistermann 13y ago
From reading the comments in this thread, I don't think very many people in this thread know who Joel Spolsky is.
- lacksconfidence 13y ago
  Or the alternate explanation, most of the people in this thread disagree with Joel Spolsky. Given occam's razor and his fairly high profile, which is more likely?
  - slantyyz 13y ago
    Disagreeing with Spolsky's writing is one thing, but unless you've seen or heard a lot of Fog Creek employees calling it a horrible place to work, then I would say that any speculation about how horrible a place Fog Creek must be because of the tone and content of the OP would suggest that Mistermann is right.
  - mistermann 13y ago
    > Given occam's razor and his fairly high profile, which is more likely? I'll hazard a guess that you're "older", like me. I don't think Joel Spolsky has a high profile at all with forum active programmers, I mean, when did he drop out of public writing, it was many years ago. At least to me, most of the criticism here is generally of the nature "you're wrong"....not subtle, considering the variety of things involved, just that programmers are, without exception, incredibly productive, and all work should be able to be performed asynchronously (or you're doing it wrong). I just don't find the comments in this thread very reasonable, it seems like a bunch of young and very smart/competent kids assuming everyone is as smart and competent as them. Do you get a sense of humility from very many of the comments here?

OldSchool 13y ago

Well said!

tghw 13y ago

Do you really think this is a literal rule? "Can I work remotely?" "Will you have a room to work in?" "Yes" "But does it have a door?" "Well, no, it's a desk in the living room, but I'll be home alone all day." "Sorry, no door, no remote work." Consider, Fog Creek has spent substantial funds making sure that their on-site devs have offices with doors that close. Is it unreasonable, then, to expect a remote worker to have a distraction-free work environment?