The perks workers want also make them more productive
fivethirtyeight.com
fivethirtyeight.com
If you can't determine an employee is productive without seeing them in the office, then I don't think you ever had a way to measure productivity. These types of managers have deluded themselves into believing that butts in seats correlates to productivity.
The only thing this might measure is time you are available to do work, but the same can be done remotely.
I am far less distracted by the random conversations people try to pull you into, or loud chatter of teams around me, when I'm at home.
I deliver so much more at home, though I do see some value in being in the office, I just find it frustrating how many people seem to rely on the office for their social life and also loudly take video calls from their desks all day now.
As soon as your job involves thought work, there is rarely any connection whatsoever between where the job is done and productivity. For example, in software development it's common that NOT writing code right now is the best choice if you haven't done the other steps. For jobs like this, productivity is a cycle that involves first learning, then planning, then finally maybe writing some code. Or maybe learning some more first and then continuing to plan.
Planning is by far the most important piece, and it can be done literally anywhere and even while performing another task as long as it isn't a mentally-demanding one. So, at least in my experience you literally cannot plan while coding. Not anymore than you could write a novel. But you can do it while lifting weights, going for a jog, eating lunch, sleeping, taking a shower etc. etc.
Where's the most comfortable place to plan? It's okay for that to be answered differently by different people. For some people that's the office. For many more people it's sitting at home in pajamas or whatever.
Only if butts-in-seats is your company's output. Anything else, and you still have to quantify productivity by looking at output.
As a manager it would be your job to identify those folks and treat them accordingly. Arguing that "I can't manage remotely" is mainly an admission that you can't manage at all.
It definitely correlates! Not 100%, but a lot better than nothing.
You can at least be sure they're not working another job!
And this was long before Zoom existed. Can someone explain to me why Zoom is such a big thing? We were using video conferencing in the last century without it.
a) Zoom is very good at reducing the number of clicks between a link in your email and being on a call
b) Zoom is easier to say and type than “video conferencing,” so people say it even when the actual application they’re using might differ
- Click the Link
- Click the "Start the meeting button", nothing happens
- Click "join meeting from browser" after waitint for it to eventually show me that option
- I'm in the meeting! 3 clicks
Number of clicks from a Google Meets email to a Zoom call:
- Click the Link
- I'm in the meeting! 1 click.
Plus you probably can't separate the jobs on two different laptops to prevent accidental crossing of the streams--where one or more of those laptops may be managed by a company. Could someone get off with letting some side consulting work bleed into work hours? I'm sure in a lot of cases--though it would be easier at home. But I have to believe that, as in the case of relationships per upthread, working full-time in-person and remote jobs at the same time must start looking to people like something is odd here.
He began working in-person as principal of Providence's E Cubed Academy on July 22, 2020. Meanwhile, he remained employed virtually as the assistant principal of Kramer Middle School in Washington D.C., a role he held since 2019.
https://www.newsweek.com/man-accused-simultaneously-working-...
I know someone who used to come in, put his coat on a chair, then go off fixing problems with desktops all over the campus. Eventually they found he was popping back to his car and doing 6 hours driving for a minicab firm.
On the other hand if you measure presenteeism in the chair I had a colleague that would sit down browsing various websites all day taking calls for some business he ran doing scaffolding or cars or something (right dodgy dealer).
Instead, I looked at a number of things. Are you making progress? Are you getting help quickly when you stop making progress? Does your code have lots of bugs later on? Do you take constructive criticism well? Do you give constructive criticism well? Do you help out your team mates? But how fast you got work done is not something I considered at all, as long as you were showing up, not wasting exorbitant amounts of time, and not putting in extra hours if there wasn't an emergency, I figure it will get done when it gets done.
Eg, I cared about work ethic instead of productivity, and that is much harder to gauge with work from home. Without it, I feel like I have to start judging based on perceived productivity and I hate that.
That said, I personally love WFH and so do my team mates, and I know them and trust them so it isn't an issue, but I wonder about how new people will work out.
If someone is making a reasonable number and quality of commits, fixing bugs, and communicating reasonably with their colleagues, does it matter if they're "showing up, putting in the hours, and not wasting too much time"?
With on-site (and open-office even more so), it was much easier to differentiate these two. I don't want to give someone a luke-warm performance review because their work was taking longer, when in reality they were solving harder problems. I also don't want to push things like pair-programing on someone who really doesn't like it (and I assume it is worse over Teams or what not than in person).
If you have an employee who is producing very little work, you're face with a decision about whether to put in a ton of effort to try to turn the situation around or put a ton of effort into firing them and hiring a replacement.
If you know the person has been showing up and doing normal office stuff that's a huge signal in favor of "this person is making a genuine effort so I need to go the extra mile on my end." It's harder to get that kind of signal remotely.
This isn't to suggest remote work is wrong. It's just that, for managers, dealing with these kind of situations was a big part of the job and now has gotten much harder.
Treat your employees/subordinates/colleagues like they're responsible adults, and they're more likely to act like it. That means, among other things, talking to them when you notice something that seems off, rather than just thinking it's your job as the Big Important Manager to solve all problems in your own head.
Treat them like they're bad children, or like they're all constantly looking for every way possible to get more money for less work, and you're more likely to get disinterested, frustrated, and rebellious employees. There's nothing more likely to make someone act like a child than treating them like one.
No one says it is easy, but it is not impossible too. It is okay to change one's estimation after several hours/days of work. But after months working on the same codebase estimations are getting better and better.
If you naively trust people, you will probably be taken advantage of.
Deliberately hurting your workers by enforcing RTO because you're jealous of who else they might be working for while WFH is wrong, is what I'm trying to say. That's not feelings of jealousy, that's an act of jealousy.
I’m not gonna try to attribute numbers but it’s clear to many that the junior members are more prone to not adapting to remote work easily. It’s a problem, for which we need to find a solution. Not necessarily going back to office tho.
Conversely I don’t much care how you get the results. As long as they’re there when you said they would be. If you can do 10h of Netflix followed by 1h of frantic work, respect. You do you.
(Found it : https://dilbert.com/strip/1995-02-06 )
The issue is with hiring. When hiring remote junior, you need to look out for above average communication skills and debugging abilities. That's often not present for a lot of new grads entering the market because of a lack of experience or relevant work. Think of three month bootcamp grads where each week's assignment was spoon fed by the instructors who themselves are students who couldn't get a real job.
Some places that hired from that pipeline are finding out it's simply impossible to bring these programmers up to speed, but places hiring real engineers have way less issues (because a serious program will include challenging work and select for people capable of debugging and reasoning independently).
So yeah, you've got to spend some time every day syncing up with them and making sure things are on track. That's true if they're remote or in the office, but if they're remote, managers need to be a bit more proactive in asking questions and following progress.
It's also "clear to many" this is not the case.
Perhaps not all "junior members" are fungible. Perhaps this is a characteristic of their employer.
I think juniors and, to some extent all technical new hires, are really vulnerable to the problems presented by remote work and these shitty tools we use like Slack, Confluence, Zoom, or God help you if you're in an org using Teams.
You need mentors and folks to on-board you who have a high EQ and can empathize with the position of the mentee/new-hire. That's hard.
For sure '9 to 5' covers this territory (eg, daycare at work for working moms), and if memory serves so do two Michael Keaton movies (Gung Ho and Mr Mom).
The old joke about Alzheimer's, "I get to meet new people every day" seems somewhat appropriate here. Forgetting things we already knew gives us lots of things to talk about.
Often, the source of the forgetting is, in fact, the assumptions made by the earlier generation that 'everyone knows' something - when the truth is that new generations were never taught those things.
So, it can be difficult for a manager to really know when their reports are working at home as much as at the office. I doubt anyone will ever be able to fully verify another without some metric, even if that's just seeing them at a desk - despite none of those methods really saying work getting done.
The other problem, correlated with this, is that when everyone is remote there will be more meetings.
It's six of one or half a dozen of an other. [1] The employees and managers all do what they can, which is never enough. In the next few years I suspect a culture will settle down around this and it will not be as suspect for people to work remote. The companies will see who works, and the remote workers will see what they need to do and not do.
[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/six_of_one,_half_a_dozen_of_t...
What managers want here is not to measure productivity, but to FEEL confident about it.
That is the issue here. Feels>Facts. And to be fair, there are few facts.
As the company started to go down he got real insistent on productivity. If you weren’t doing something you were causing the company’s downfall.
Our manager (a great guy) had to have a talk with us telling us to basically look busy to avoid the pointless heat.
That owner was not the only person I’ve seen with such an attitude. Physically doing something = productivity. Even if they can’t see you and you’re playing minesweeper.
Our shop foreman was very keen that everyone looked busy if you were clocked in, you were getting paid to work so you should be working. I was trained by my seniors in the two key activities to do to avoid standing around: spraying things with a hose, and sweeping the floor. It didn't matter if you were going over what you did five minutes ago, it just had to look like you were doing something useful.
Personally I try to avoid perpetuating a culture where looking busy is important because people will find ways to look busy.
I'm sure there's a Market for Lemons in here that explains why some companies fail, "gradually at first and then all at once".
Managers, especially has you become further abstracted from providing real value, depend on "face time". It's their currency. Remote work really hampers that. A big meeting with the boss on Teams is going to have less chit chat and really no opportunity have side conversations or get 'face time' before and after the meeting.
I think remote work is also hard for bad managers and good for good managers. Bad managers care about time rather than value and rarely understand what's actually going on. If they don't understand the value their team is creating and they don't know how much time their team is spending sitting on a computer, they really don't know anything.
Good managers on the other hand understand the value the team produces and don't really care how people spend their 40 hours, so I doubt they sweat it as much.
Pretty much all the concern from management is veiled ways of saying 'this will make it harder for me to rise in the organization as I can't build personal relationships as effectively'
A more generous take is that managers used to derive a great deal of value & information from quick/frequent/informal check-ins with a lot of different people throughout the day, and that is much harder/impossible in a remote first work environment where all interactions must be explicitly planned/scoped.
In another context: it’s the difference between an educator walking around and monitoring their students progress all the time via conversation/q&a vs sitting behind their desk and only getting progress data via weekly assessments. The former is supplemental to the later and provides a great deal (perhaps most) of the educator’s understanding of their student’s progress. (The relationship between workers/managers and teachers/students is not analogous in many other ways, of course)
I'm not sure that's true. My manager messages and asks if I'm free to talk and if I am, she gives me a call on Teams right then. Asking if someone is busy doesn't seem like a high bar.
Now, I do think its harder for them to do their daily ramble around the office to chat with everybody and interrupt their work. I agree its much harder for them to get information on office politics and relationship dynamics, which is really valuable if you are a corporate climber.
When things are remote this kind of sloppy management doesn't work anymore, which makes bad managers hate remote work rather than work on improving how they manage.
Pro athletes are maintaining their physical health just like knowledge workers; it's not like they can step onto the field to work our or compete, and it's not like they can just sit at any keyboard, and achieve optimal performance immediately. Resting well, eating good foods, stress management, and other factors that happen away from the actual event are critical for both athletes and employees!
Then it was "I pay you to sit 8 hours with your hands above your head, what is the problem?"
Now it is "We will make sure that you are stressed and have no time to regroup, we pay you, what is the problem?"
The corporate culture didnt. The existing corporate culture descends from mid 20th century corporate culture, that descends from late 19th century Victorian corporate culture, and that in turn descends from the late medieval feudal culture in which the commoners had to be 'hardworking & honest folk' who would come dutifully to the farm field every morning, work hard for the sake of their feudal lord, and be honest enough not to steal from him.
Hence, butts in seats and the expectation that you should devote your life to a company owned by your contemporary feudal lord without you having any shares or say in it...
The fundamental fact is this: if you are a manager/company that gives your worker the flexibility and freedom they need to take care of their life outside work, they will work hard, do great work and try to retain the jobs, even at a lower pay. But if you treat workers as lazy people who will while away time if you don’t constantly monitor them, then that’s what you’ll get: people doing the bare minimum and not work any moment they can get away with it. Because if you’re going to treat me like a lazy slob, I might as just be that.
Treat people like children? They will have zero incentive to put in one extra second of work.
Treat them like adults and give them flexibility? That's when they give it all during the work hours.
Maslow would like to have a word with you.
100% guaranteed to make me more productive per hour worked. On average, with 8 hours fewer of work per week I would still get the same amount of work done, but would be tremendously happier with my life and with my job.
This change can't come soon enough.
I stopped doing side jobs years ago, when I realized that the money wasn't enough to get my mind in that groove, let alone go somewhere and do something for someone. Now I'm getting to the point where I question if my FAANG salary is enough to justify 40 hours/week.
Spend Friday morning wrapping up the week, making to-dos for the next week, no meetings, minimal email, and generally shutdown for the day by lunchtime.
My wife used to work at a company who offered it and there was a lottery to get into the daycare because it was so popular. The company ran it at a slight profit so there was no cost involved to the company. People arrived on time since they didn't need to make a side trip to a third location, and could visit their kid at lunch or if they were sick or whatever. Huge, huge bonus as a parent.
Why would my organization VP want to "fucking own you and every aspect of your life"? That is extremely strong language, and I'm having a hard time taking it seriously.
In a corporation 80℅ of the work is done by 20% of the people and by design there is a lot of redundancy aroud. The worst thing that can happen is for the drones to figure out just how badly they are getting screwed.
Productivity? If you can figure out how to measure it let me know.
Here:
https://issendai.com/psychology/sick-systems.html
https://www.ribbonfarm.com/the-gervais-principle/
https://libcom.org/article/phenomenon-bullshit-jobs-david-gr...
I'm pro WFH, but it was obvious the productivity of some people had dropped significantly after the switch to WFH and were actively avoiding dodging work due to no more in-office oversight and being too close to many fun distractions at home, like their gaming rigs.
You want proof, well obviously the management or company has no proof that those employees were playing cyberpunk all day on their gaming rigs at home, since they don't have CCTV in your living room, but the guys were admitting it themselves during some calls with other colleagues, which correlated with the major drop in their productivity.
Again, I'm pro WFH, but let's not pretend that there are no slackers in this racket who would abuse every bit of trust and privilege to do very little work. I'm sure everyone met some.
It makes perfect sense for business leaders, as agents of the owner class, to continue doing as much as possible to minimize and undermine labor power.
X% less productivity is more palatable to such creatures than the risk of workers gaining a real seat at the table.
Consider a developer: what data does an employer have? Number of lines of code committed? Number Commits? Maybe if they are very diligent in collecting data the bugs found son after those commits? You know nothing about quality of code, nothing about speed, nothing about complexity, nothing about bugs avoided, nothing about value added, nothing about mentoring others or managing tasks.
You can do the same analysis for almost any role, from Sales to SecOps.
And that's without getting into Goodhart's law...
Developers get assigned tasks. A guesstimate is made by the dev over the time/effort required, which is approved as plausible by a senior dev/manager. Then the task is done or not done on time. If done, good, next task. If not, the explanation ought to be reasonable.
That’s all you really need to know.
People have this idea that modern jobs are like factory work: you can measure how many widgets I made and mine are the same as every other operator. But it wasn't even like that in factories, let alone now no two jobs are the same and output cannot be measured in any meaningful way...
I would argue that the real conspiracy theory is that those leaders have a conflict of interest - they have a stake in the real estate game either: by directly holding interest in real estate that will plummet in value if it goes unused, or by receiving kickbacks or other incentives for leasing certain office space.
Company culture, ad hoc meetings, serendipity, were the listed reasons.
So it sounds like companies are not optimizing for productivity, they are optimizing for innovation.
Whether these things contribute to innovation is still up in the air. I personally think happier employees will be more innovative, but have no data to back that up.
I still feel that "we" haven't learnt the skills or tools for great remote working, yet.
If productivity is essentially: work done divided by hours worked, then a lot of the things the article mentioned changes the denominator, not the numerator.
Productivity goes up, but the amount of work being done doesn't change. Might as well let people have that other non-working time to themselves.
If you look at the typical knowledge worker (non-manager) today, they're drowning in meetings, chat and email. Leaving tiny snippets of time to do actual work, perhaps as little as 2 hours per day.
I find it absolutely baffling how there doesn't seem to be any serious effort to address most of your productive base being spent on communication. Basically, people spent most of their time figuring out what they're even supposed to do, and when, and precious little time actually doing that.
This is why the 4 day work week works. I'll repeat it again as this is a key insight: This is why the 4 day work week works.
It's not because of a better "work life balance", as much as I love to believe that. It's because a 5 day work week has overhead as high as 50-75% where no actual work gets done. So to cut back from 5 days to 4 days, you just scrap the least useful meetings/chats/email whilst you continue to do the 25% we used to call actual work.
In other words, when your employees work a day less and still are just as productive, you should be embarrassed and have a serious issue in your organization. And sadly, this issue seems to be the norm, and somehow gets no attention at all.
Collaboration is not the solution, it's the fucking problem. In a utopian work state, you'd give me a work package that is clearly specified and I'll get to work. I wouldn't need 17 meetings to understand what you even mean, report status 3 times per day to 50 people, call 3 vendors to resolve dependencies, get a sign-off from 5 internal institutes or be pulled into 20 directions at once regarding 7 other projects.
Just like more advanced programmers worry about the worst case scenario of some code you've written rather than just the average -- with these remote working policies, sometimes the question is not just, will it make everyone on average a more productive employee, but what is the worst case that might affect your team under very tolerant remote work policies?
Because if a few people's decrease in productivity is so noticeable working remotely that the team in general suffers / no longer works well, then it's a different consideration.
There is something difficult to quantify about the notion that when a few people on a team start being less responsive /interactive, it can have a real impact to how people think of the pace of what you want the team to operate at. Especially if you're doing prototyping / early stage creative work where you're not operating by tickets, but rather looking over each others' shoulders to give live feedback and trade ideas.
Not everything about work is to be designed to simply give what the employees would naturally want.
Most workers just want to do their job well and avoid bullshit and politics
Only a small subset really take advantage of perks in a negative way
They're hourly, work three 12 hour shifts, and get paid for 40.
Both of my sisters are RNs. One is now a director at a hospital, the other has a normal RN position. The one who is still performing regular nursing responsibilities fills in at another hospital one day a week. Because she isn't getting benefits, her pay is higher, and she essentially pays her house note with that extra day a week.
I care about my health far more than my productivity. Let me advocate for myself as much as corporations do for themselves.
In Europe is a legal requirement.