this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
241 points (96.2% liked)
Technology
58011 readers
3340 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I know people who work in IT at places they have installed surveillance on wfh machines and the stats show that people really aren’t working as hard from home.
I’ve been wfh with optional in-office work for over a decade and I know it can be done well. But I know there are a lot of people that you have to stay on top of who would be fine in an office.
So I don’t think these companies are going back into the office for no reason.
That said, I think this will backfire because the best employees will find work at places where they can work remote unless compensated far better than they can get at remote shops.
A lot of the complaints about people "being lazy" while working from home comes from managers that don't know how to deal with WFH.
Management and team leads don't need to unduly spy on people or micromanage them. They need to figure out a reasonable measure of productivity and track it, i.e. "What did an employee get done today/this week/etc?" The employees would probably be happy to help figure it out if it means they don't have to come back in to the office.
From there, basic management skills apply. If it looks like someone is slacking off verify that's actually the case, then go from there.
Agreed. And that’s why a lot of smaller companies will stick with remote work. But you can also get your productivity back by just calling everyone back into the office, and these big companies already have all the resources they need to do it. So they are.
I think there's some critical information they're missing. They need to establish a control group by using that same surveillance software for in office employees. And it's pretty easy to tell when people are inattentive from home, but not as much when they're in the office. You still need to find a way quantify that data though. Otherwise it really isn't a fair comparison.
They did use it during wfh and after work from home. So it didn’t inform their decisions to call people back, but it did validate it.
It's a good thing it's impossible to goof off at the office!
No one said it wasn’t. I said they have evidence that people don’t work as much when they work from home.
Care to show that evidence?
Ah the old "let's measure our workers", I'm a programmer and I have seen them all or at least a whole bunch of stupid ways to try to measure our "effectiveness". None that works.
Spoiler alert: hitting away on a keyboard for 9h straight per day is not productive.
So what does work? You can set up sprints with what seams like reasonable amounts of work and engineers will still miss their target occasionally. Sometimes weeks in a row. And sometimes for very good reasons. It’s a lot easier to gauge if someone is actually working when you can actually see them and give them the benefit of the doubt.
But even if your only metric is how much people are banging away on a keyboard, then you would have to be being purposely obtuse to not be suspicious when a company working from home does way less than they do in the office and they get significantly more story points complete in the office than they did working from home.
One thing that works is having faith in the people working and being a good leader. Treating people like numbers in a spreadsheet never does.
The slacker will slack everywhere he's just a good excuse, everyone else will be most productive depending on what they like and need, and that is obviously not the same for everyone so the whole thing about everybody has to be in the office for productivity is so BS and backwards.
Are they still getting done what needs to be done in an appropriate amount of time? Because that should be the only metric that matters for WFH employees as far as I can tell. "You aren't working hard enough" is "Protestant Work Ethic" capitalist bullshit.
Determining what people should be able to get done is not simple and will always be imprecise. In a lot of professional jobs, you aren’t paid to get x done. You’re paid to get as much s as you reasonably can during working hours and that’s nearly impossible to determine when everyone is remote.
So when everyone who works for you works remote, there are some tough situations that come up. The biggest one is if someone isn’t getting many tasks completed over a free weeks. Is it because they aren’t working or because a lot of roadblocks really did come up or is it because they aren’t really working? It’s easier to give that person the benefit of the doubt if they’ve been at the office and you can see them working.
I’ve worked remote for over a decade so I know it’s possible for a team to get work done, but it would definitely be easier and more effective to manage people in office. And some people who have fallen behind may have been given more leniency in office than they get while wfh. So I get why some businesses don’t want to deal with that. I think they’ll lose out on the best workers unless they’re willing to pay significantly more for them to work in office though. But we’ll see how it goes.