5 Habits of Highly Ineffective Remote Workers(betterprogramming.pub)
betterprogramming.pub
5 Habits of Highly Ineffective Remote Workers
https://betterprogramming.pub/5-habits-of-highly-ineffective-remote-workers-a9f5f87f3118
79 comments
> There should be no requirement to have the camera on, it really adds very little over voice alone
While I agree that people shouldn't be required to have their camera on for the first reasons you mentioned, I disagree on this point. I find that without a face to read, I have a very difficult time navigating conversations. It's the same reason phone calls give me so much anxiety. There are subtleties happening in facial expressions while a person is talking and gesticulating that communicate important information.
Maybe you've adapted to a set of circumstances throughout your life that means this doesn't affect you as much (maybe you spoke a lot on the phone when you were younger, I don't know), but I personally rely quite heavily on facial expressions for social cues. Without them, I fall apart.
While I agree that people shouldn't be required to have their camera on for the first reasons you mentioned, I disagree on this point. I find that without a face to read, I have a very difficult time navigating conversations. It's the same reason phone calls give me so much anxiety. There are subtleties happening in facial expressions while a person is talking and gesticulating that communicate important information.
Maybe you've adapted to a set of circumstances throughout your life that means this doesn't affect you as much (maybe you spoke a lot on the phone when you were younger, I don't know), but I personally rely quite heavily on facial expressions for social cues. Without them, I fall apart.
Video calls give me anxiety.
Often enough, the other party's camera is off to the side so they appear as though they're not engaged, even though they are.
I _know_ they're probably paying attention, but it's reminiscent of a face-to-face conversation where the other party is staring at their phone more than they're looking at me.
So even though I know they're engaged, my brain's circuitry keeps telling me they're not.
Often enough, the other party's camera is off to the side so they appear as though they're not engaged, even though they are.
I _know_ they're probably paying attention, but it's reminiscent of a face-to-face conversation where the other party is staring at their phone more than they're looking at me.
So even though I know they're engaged, my brain's circuitry keeps telling me they're not.
We have video by default off in all of our meetings, and here we talk about top 10 bank in the world and 80k employees. The reason might be due to the fact they didn't provide us laptops with covid (or before), or any dedicated hardware like webcam, so we have audio-only meetings via app calling our phones. Mind you, I WFH on quite high-end desktop with 32" screen and very good webcam for calls with parents.
The benefits are that I don't need to mind what clothes I wear, since comfort is a major improvement for WFH. I can have my child running around while being on mute, dedicating to him small slices of my time. Anybody who has kiddo or two knows how perfectly clean place gets into messy state in few minutes, so there are toys and stuff just lying all around. Being so corporate, 3-5 meetings/day is a norm. I can have the meeting anywhere where phone can ring if quiet enough. If we need more cooperation, sure skype/screen sharing is an option too.
There are almost always more people on the call then really need be, or their time is 5-minute slice out of 30 minutes, so we all still stay in case of sudden questions/brainstorming, but we do our other stuff (and there is endless stream of it). Actually when randomly 1-2 persons come with video, it looks a bit weird. You don't want to study their facial expressions when they do other work, and I've seen a butt crack of a very high manager once or twice on a call with 10+ very senior people. If you think video is helping you stand out and looking oh-so-well dedicated, well not in such cases.
Nobody is bothered by this lack of video, once you get used to audio-only, it works great. I mean we are all adults here, if any doubt or unclarity, why being afraid to ask? There are no stupid questions as we all know.
The benefits are that I don't need to mind what clothes I wear, since comfort is a major improvement for WFH. I can have my child running around while being on mute, dedicating to him small slices of my time. Anybody who has kiddo or two knows how perfectly clean place gets into messy state in few minutes, so there are toys and stuff just lying all around. Being so corporate, 3-5 meetings/day is a norm. I can have the meeting anywhere where phone can ring if quiet enough. If we need more cooperation, sure skype/screen sharing is an option too.
There are almost always more people on the call then really need be, or their time is 5-minute slice out of 30 minutes, so we all still stay in case of sudden questions/brainstorming, but we do our other stuff (and there is endless stream of it). Actually when randomly 1-2 persons come with video, it looks a bit weird. You don't want to study their facial expressions when they do other work, and I've seen a butt crack of a very high manager once or twice on a call with 10+ very senior people. If you think video is helping you stand out and looking oh-so-well dedicated, well not in such cases.
Nobody is bothered by this lack of video, once you get used to audio-only, it works great. I mean we are all adults here, if any doubt or unclarity, why being afraid to ask? There are no stupid questions as we all know.
> Nobody is bothered by this lack of video, once you get used to audio-only, it works great. I mean we are all adults here, if any doubt or unclarity, why being afraid to ask? There are no stupid questions as we all know.
Why do you assume I'm afraid to ask questions? I'm probably the most outspoken person at my workplace.
I suppose whenever I make a joke, I could ask "did anyone understand my joke? I just want to clarify that I was joking". Or maybe it would be safest to never make jokes at all anymore. My point is that it makes conversation more difficult. There are many more subtle human interactions, other than jokes, that are similarly hamstrung when you're not able to see a face on the other end.
Why do you assume I'm afraid to ask questions? I'm probably the most outspoken person at my workplace.
I suppose whenever I make a joke, I could ask "did anyone understand my joke? I just want to clarify that I was joking". Or maybe it would be safest to never make jokes at all anymore. My point is that it makes conversation more difficult. There are many more subtle human interactions, other than jokes, that are similarly hamstrung when you're not able to see a face on the other end.
Makes me wonder if Zoom or someone is working on an enterprise-friendly equivalent to FaceTime Memojis, so that you can show facial expressions without your actual face:
https://www.howtogeek.com/693237/how-to-use-memoji-during-a-...
Toss in some deepfake and you can map those expressions into a digital version of your face. So a touched-up, AI-generated version of your face- but not your actual face at the moment.
https://www.howtogeek.com/693237/how-to-use-memoji-during-a-...
Toss in some deepfake and you can map those expressions into a digital version of your face. So a touched-up, AI-generated version of your face- but not your actual face at the moment.
At this point, you might as well show your face. If the AI is mirroring your every mood on a deepfake, what's the reason not to?
Maybe you didn't clean yourself up as much as the AI image would indicate. Maybe you're dressed down. Maybe you want to use the simulation rather than your real image. And maybe the mood is tweakable.
> I find that without a face to read, I have a very difficult time navigating conversations.
I hear this a lot, and in my long experience I find that most people are terrible at reading others in the business world. I've seen so many misunderstandings because of people reading into others tone, body language, etc, instead of just listening to the words and interpreting them.
I hear this a lot, and in my long experience I find that most people are terrible at reading others in the business world. I've seen so many misunderstandings because of people reading into others tone, body language, etc, instead of just listening to the words and interpreting them.
Some people aren't comfortable talking to people. But if you have to talk to people for your job then you have to be uncomfortable. If you don't have a car and you need it for work, then you are going to have to figure something out. If you don't have a nice workspace then you are going to have to figure something out.
If you, and the rest of the team, turn on your cameras most of the time then it's fine if you have to turn it off some of the time. Because sure there's reasons to turn it off. But if you default to off then everyone knows you aren't turning it off because of some good reason. You can tell yourself otherwise, BUT PEOPLE KNOW YOU AREN'T ENGAGED.
I've encountered a few cases where someone who consistently kept their video off was highly engaged, but it's very uncommon. You should assume other people have noticed this as well, and know that you have something to prove if you do that.
If you, and the rest of the team, turn on your cameras most of the time then it's fine if you have to turn it off some of the time. Because sure there's reasons to turn it off. But if you default to off then everyone knows you aren't turning it off because of some good reason. You can tell yourself otherwise, BUT PEOPLE KNOW YOU AREN'T ENGAGED.
I've encountered a few cases where someone who consistently kept their video off was highly engaged, but it's very uncommon. You should assume other people have noticed this as well, and know that you have something to prove if you do that.
Most managers in enterprises will happily sit in meetings and check emails while pretending to be doing something useful in there.
I actually liked the article, but then point 5 directly contradicts itself.
Point one is what makes engagement clear. I.e. keeping people out of meetings that don't need to be there. People can happily play PS5 while on CAM, doesn't mean the meeting is any more relevant or people are any more engaged.
If CAM is what you need for measuring engagement, your metrics are completely off.
It's kinda like how people used to say that you have to keep eye contact when having a conversation. But for people like me I focus with my ears. I can pretend to care and look into your eyes, but if you want my full attention, I'm actually not looking at you, or anything else for that matter.
I actually liked the article, but then point 5 directly contradicts itself.
Point one is what makes engagement clear. I.e. keeping people out of meetings that don't need to be there. People can happily play PS5 while on CAM, doesn't mean the meeting is any more relevant or people are any more engaged.
If CAM is what you need for measuring engagement, your metrics are completely off.
It's kinda like how people used to say that you have to keep eye contact when having a conversation. But for people like me I focus with my ears. I can pretend to care and look into your eyes, but if you want my full attention, I'm actually not looking at you, or anything else for that matter.
Agreed very much. I do believe seeing someone's face makes a great difference. Audience's facial expressions helped me a lot when I was talking.
> There should be no requirement to have the camera on, it really adds very little over voice alone
I couldn’t disagree more. You can see if people are agreeing, disagreeing, confused by something someone said, even if they won’t say it out loud. There’s a million important and valuable cues that get lost when people do meetings without a camera.
Ans “work was done by voice alone for decades” is just not true in any significant way. Most teams that needed to communicate and have meetings regularly were in the same room. People flew (and still fly) around the planet to have a single meeting with a group of people.
I’m just a student and employee, and therefore in no position to make anyone behave in any particular way when it comes to Zoom calls. But I think it’s rude and uncomfortable to have work meetings or lectures to a faceless crowd because someone “isn’t comfortable on camera”. If you don’t enforce any minimum etiquette for such meetings, it all just converges on the least effort, lowest engagement, minimum communication version because every person who drops off camera makes it creepier for the remaining ones to talk to a bunch of black rectangles.
I couldn’t disagree more. You can see if people are agreeing, disagreeing, confused by something someone said, even if they won’t say it out loud. There’s a million important and valuable cues that get lost when people do meetings without a camera.
Ans “work was done by voice alone for decades” is just not true in any significant way. Most teams that needed to communicate and have meetings regularly were in the same room. People flew (and still fly) around the planet to have a single meeting with a group of people.
I’m just a student and employee, and therefore in no position to make anyone behave in any particular way when it comes to Zoom calls. But I think it’s rude and uncomfortable to have work meetings or lectures to a faceless crowd because someone “isn’t comfortable on camera”. If you don’t enforce any minimum etiquette for such meetings, it all just converges on the least effort, lowest engagement, minimum communication version because every person who drops off camera makes it creepier for the remaining ones to talk to a bunch of black rectangles.
You’re uncomfortable if cameras are off. I’m uncomfortable if cameras are on.
Someone has to lose.
Are you really going to force everyone else to look straight at the camera and pretend to be engaged for the entire meeting? Even if that means they’re shutting off their brains? Just to make you feel comfortable?
How many more people are you going to inconvenience with your demands that everyone turn on their camera and pretend to be engaged, versus me turning off my camera so that I can actually focus on what is being said?
Someone has to lose.
Are you really going to force everyone else to look straight at the camera and pretend to be engaged for the entire meeting? Even if that means they’re shutting off their brains? Just to make you feel comfortable?
How many more people are you going to inconvenience with your demands that everyone turn on their camera and pretend to be engaged, versus me turning off my camera so that I can actually focus on what is being said?
My camera points at my bathroom door behind me. Sometimes I get out of the shower and find I need to fetch a clean towel. This is an accident waiting to happen. My camera remains taped.
Turning your camera on gives you an additional channel of communication and all the benefits that come with better communication. Ask yourself: how beneficial would being a better communicator be to me?
A coworker tells a joke and sees me legitimately smile and laugh at it, what effect does that have on my coworkers opinion of me?
Someone is expressing a weird idea and I get to frown and shake my head on camera, what power does this give me in the conversation? If I'm the only one with my camera on I've got a complete monopoly on a channel of communication, and humans only have 2 or 3, one of them is all mine.
People with higher quality audio are perceived as smarter [0]. I wouldn't be surprised if those with video enabled are perceived as smarter as well, and more likeable.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26818774
A coworker tells a joke and sees me legitimately smile and laugh at it, what effect does that have on my coworkers opinion of me?
Someone is expressing a weird idea and I get to frown and shake my head on camera, what power does this give me in the conversation? If I'm the only one with my camera on I've got a complete monopoly on a channel of communication, and humans only have 2 or 3, one of them is all mine.
People with higher quality audio are perceived as smarter [0]. I wouldn't be surprised if those with video enabled are perceived as smarter as well, and more likeable.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26818774
I agree that the bulk of human communication is non-verbal. The human brain devotes an immense amount of tissue to the processing of visual information, either directly or indirectly.
But a lot of that gets lost in a sea of tiny postage-stamp size sub-screens in a video wall.
What is the remaining percentage that is valuable?
How much mental effort do those people have to put into looking at the camera and pretending to be engaged?
Are you going to force all the lefties to write in a right-handed manner? Are you going to force all the females to adopt male pronouns? Where along that spectrum do the video-averse people rank compared to those who are video-craving and at what point are you costing the company way more money by forcing everyone to adhere to your particular preferences that may not be widely shared?
I’m not saying I have any answers.
I am saying that this is a problem that is more complex than a lot of people think it is, and a lot of thought needs to go into whatever standards you choose to set.
But a lot of that gets lost in a sea of tiny postage-stamp size sub-screens in a video wall.
What is the remaining percentage that is valuable?
How much mental effort do those people have to put into looking at the camera and pretending to be engaged?
Are you going to force all the lefties to write in a right-handed manner? Are you going to force all the females to adopt male pronouns? Where along that spectrum do the video-averse people rank compared to those who are video-craving and at what point are you costing the company way more money by forcing everyone to adhere to your particular preferences that may not be widely shared?
I’m not saying I have any answers.
I am saying that this is a problem that is more complex than a lot of people think it is, and a lot of thought needs to go into whatever standards you choose to set.
I don't think people should be forced to turn on their camera. I turn mine off sometimes, sometimes just because I feel like it. That's ok.
I was only suggesting that people turn on their camera if they want to be more relatable and have more influence.
I was only suggesting that people turn on their camera if they want to be more relatable and have more influence.
In large-ish meetings (3+ attendees), I usually turn off my camera (and mute my mic) when I'm not the one talking. For less formal meetings I might relax this. But, in general, I've found that keeping cameras and mics on at all times usually derail meetings.
Agree completely. Non-verbal cues are helpful in person, but they just don't translate over webcam meetings very well at all. Instead you have a bunch of heads trying to look attentive staring off into weird directions. At one point my company asked us all to turn off video for a bit to save bandwidth while they were doing upgrades. None of the teams I'm working with turned cameras back on after the upgrades were done. Turned out that this whole time everyone was doing it because they felt like everyone else expected it of them, but on one actually wanted it.
> There should be no requirement to have the camera on, it really adds very little over voice alone and there are countless valid reasons to not want it on.
Not true. Audio only communication increases the cognitive load on the listeners, as well as giving _ample_ opportunity for distraction to any participant as they are more likely to alt-tab and begin some other task instead of paying attention to the call.
For the person speaking it's also a strain to not have visual cues from participants. Yes, even seeing a few simple nods, or confused faces, can make a difference.
Taking "camera breaks" is fine if it's a lengthy call (which is a problem itself, nobody should be having lengthy meetings of any kind IMHO, let alone remote) but otherwise just put the damn thing on.
Anyone "shaming" workspaces or whatever else is a different matter and I will wager a big chunk of money your org has far greater problems already that should be enough to warrant a new job before being shamed for your workspace is anywhere near the top of the heap.
One giant exception I have to this rule is MS Teams is so terrible at managing multiple videos that even my high end laptop wants to melt.
Not true. Audio only communication increases the cognitive load on the listeners, as well as giving _ample_ opportunity for distraction to any participant as they are more likely to alt-tab and begin some other task instead of paying attention to the call.
For the person speaking it's also a strain to not have visual cues from participants. Yes, even seeing a few simple nods, or confused faces, can make a difference.
Taking "camera breaks" is fine if it's a lengthy call (which is a problem itself, nobody should be having lengthy meetings of any kind IMHO, let alone remote) but otherwise just put the damn thing on.
Anyone "shaming" workspaces or whatever else is a different matter and I will wager a big chunk of money your org has far greater problems already that should be enough to warrant a new job before being shamed for your workspace is anywhere near the top of the heap.
One giant exception I have to this rule is MS Teams is so terrible at managing multiple videos that even my high end laptop wants to melt.
Apple solved this problem for me - the built-in camera on my MacBook Pro stopped working, as well as my Apple monitor, and no USB webcam will work either (even ones that are working on other Macs). I think it might be WebEx - when I installed WebEx on my personal MacBook Pro it's camera stopped working as well. I had to uninstall WebEx and reboot to get it working again. So I can't use a camera even when I want to!
We put a norm that non 1-1 meetings don’t need camera to be on, but if one person switches it on then it’ll be nice if someone gives company. But 1-1s without cameras are acceptable if they at least alternate with camera sessions. You’re being paid to work. Zoom can cover backgrounds. Get on the camera or don’t complain if you never get a promotion.
This is quite a hostile attitude. "My way or the highway." I hope other employers can start learning to accommodate different personalities/comforts/anxieties, not to mention the huge environmental cost to video chatting.
If an employee is never comfortable showing their face in a video chat and I’ve never met them ever, it definitely is weird for me and I’m sure I’m not alone. No one in my team had any issues with the norms I mentioned above, and this was agreed upon among people without any managers giving pressure. So perhaps we have self selected among ourselves people who like to talk to actual faces then? Glad to stay in this bubble then.
I’d also much prefer to work in such a team than one where people keep their cameras off.
So, not willing to turn on camera = lazy worker?
Not lazy, but unwilling to expose anything other than your code to others? It’s hard enough to understand who your team is when you’ve never met them in person, now you don’t want to even show your face? Why even bother with a meeting then.
How is this exactly an issue if the general consensus of the team is to mostly not turn the camera on? Meetings are there to enforce synchronous responses and to quickly clarify issues and arrive at decisions. If the meeting has so many participants that people cannot communicate without visual responses, then the meeting size and scope should probably be reconsidered. It is tiring for minimally involved participants to maintain presence, both in real life and on camera.
Now, I admit that it makes sense to request camera time or meetings in real life once in a while, to maintain that human connection. But I'd argue that it should be mandatory only in contexts where it is reasonable to expect deception or where the stakes are especially high. For example in performance meetings, job interviews or negotiations.
Now, I admit that it makes sense to request camera time or meetings in real life once in a while, to maintain that human connection. But I'd argue that it should be mandatory only in contexts where it is reasonable to expect deception or where the stakes are especially high. For example in performance meetings, job interviews or negotiations.
I think this seems kind of anti-empathetic. What the author proposes is that being an ineffective remote worker is entirely the lack of real-time comms, unless someone needs the author in real time in which case they are not available without strict time boundaries.
This is not the secret to remote work. The key to remote work is empathy towards the situations that other people are likely to be in. People come to the door, kids are home, problems arise. Flexibility is important.
To be an effective remote worker, you must have a personal queue that allows you to continue doing work when otherwise planned activities cannot happen on time. Work to make sure your calendar isn't full of dependencies, etc. Telling other people how to do their jobs (and how to behave in their jobs) is not helpful.
This is not the secret to remote work. The key to remote work is empathy towards the situations that other people are likely to be in. People come to the door, kids are home, problems arise. Flexibility is important.
To be an effective remote worker, you must have a personal queue that allows you to continue doing work when otherwise planned activities cannot happen on time. Work to make sure your calendar isn't full of dependencies, etc. Telling other people how to do their jobs (and how to behave in their jobs) is not helpful.
Self reply here. From the POV of someone who has been full remote since 2012, I will propose an alternative list of effective behaviors. Essentially, effective remote work is designed around the same principal as an API - liberal in what you accept, conservative in what you send.
1. Maintain an accurate calendar. Internally, this means marking available/working hours. Externally, this means calendly or something. You don't need to be perfect, but make it easy for other people to self-serve. When trying to meet with others, be aware of their timezone, their working blocks, etc. Try to schedule meetings that start 5 minutes after if you have to book against time that is already blocked.
2. Be flexible in your own hours to accommodate the work. If you work with people in very different time zones, you will need to make concessions to this. There will be 5am calls and 10pm ones sometimes. But, you are remote, block out the 2-4pm block to go for a walk or call your mom.
3. Manage a cadence with colleagues. It is easy to go a long time without speaking to someone if you only work tangentially. it is helpful to treat colleagues with a CRM process. Don't book pointless standing meetings, but do try to communicate either verbally or in writing with remote colleagues to ensure they are aware of what you are working on. Be available to help others, and don't only be the person asking for help.
4. Recognize the difference between business and productivity. Everyone gets overbooked, but you have to know when that impacts output. Assume others are also managing it and be flexible in how much time you consume.
5. Not everyone is going to work the way you do when remote. This is fine. Be accommodating to them when possible and communicate to them when they need to accommodate you.
1. Maintain an accurate calendar. Internally, this means marking available/working hours. Externally, this means calendly or something. You don't need to be perfect, but make it easy for other people to self-serve. When trying to meet with others, be aware of their timezone, their working blocks, etc. Try to schedule meetings that start 5 minutes after if you have to book against time that is already blocked.
2. Be flexible in your own hours to accommodate the work. If you work with people in very different time zones, you will need to make concessions to this. There will be 5am calls and 10pm ones sometimes. But, you are remote, block out the 2-4pm block to go for a walk or call your mom.
3. Manage a cadence with colleagues. It is easy to go a long time without speaking to someone if you only work tangentially. it is helpful to treat colleagues with a CRM process. Don't book pointless standing meetings, but do try to communicate either verbally or in writing with remote colleagues to ensure they are aware of what you are working on. Be available to help others, and don't only be the person asking for help.
4. Recognize the difference between business and productivity. Everyone gets overbooked, but you have to know when that impacts output. Assume others are also managing it and be flexible in how much time you consume.
5. Not everyone is going to work the way you do when remote. This is fine. Be accommodating to them when possible and communicate to them when they need to accommodate you.
I like this perspective. I work a similar way. I'm very careful about what I send out, but try to be very responsive and clear with communications. Sometimes I write, rewrite and rewrite/edit a 2 sentence slack message just to ensure clarity.
Re: timezones, I work extended hours, by my own preference, to coordinate with a team in eastern europe. I space out the hours and take many breaks during the day to ensure I don't burn out. I find it less exhausting to work a longer but chill day, than to work a shorter nonstop day.
Re: timezones, I work extended hours, by my own preference, to coordinate with a team in eastern europe. I space out the hours and take many breaks during the day to ensure I don't burn out. I find it less exhausting to work a longer but chill day, than to work a shorter nonstop day.
A different opinion:
I think that some of these habits are actually examples that regularly apply to mid-level management.
Mgmt being oversubscribed to meetings, or needing to ensure that work has someone on it, or stepping in and out because of meeting conflicts we view as normal. Additionally, a typical role of mgmt is around barrier removal, and prioritization of existing workstreams, and no novel work unless truly needed. I don't take it as highly ineffective though because it works in our system.
My work also eschews video feeds since we use Teams, and Teams performance seems so bad at scale on VPN........
I think that some of these habits are actually examples that regularly apply to mid-level management.
Mgmt being oversubscribed to meetings, or needing to ensure that work has someone on it, or stepping in and out because of meeting conflicts we view as normal. Additionally, a typical role of mgmt is around barrier removal, and prioritization of existing workstreams, and no novel work unless truly needed. I don't take it as highly ineffective though because it works in our system.
My work also eschews video feeds since we use Teams, and Teams performance seems so bad at scale on VPN........
I'm pretty sure the blog's author was referring to non-management people who want to give the false impression that they are actively involved and helping to resolve the issue.
Edit: it's a waste to send Teams video traffic via VPN and it probably goes to a Microsoft cloud server anyways. The VPN should block this traffic, and the worker's PCs should be configured to not attempt to route it via the VPN.
Edit: it's a waste to send Teams video traffic via VPN and it probably goes to a Microsoft cloud server anyways. The VPN should block this traffic, and the worker's PCs should be configured to not attempt to route it via the VPN.
Can’t say I really agree that everyone needs their camera on all the time, or that chit chat should be eliminated.
This person should try some % of async remote and then rewrite their post, it comes across as probably well intentioned but a bit inexperienced.
This person should try some % of async remote and then rewrite their post, it comes across as probably well intentioned but a bit inexperienced.
I feel like more and more Medium articles require a login now. It's a instant tab close from me. Surely there's a better way to host your text articles for free?
I was about to comment the same thing. I’ve always hated medium and refrain from reading stuff there when possible (Medium required me to unblock too much on my Adblock) but lately they’ve been outright refusing to show me the content without
“To keep reading this story, get the free app or log in.”
No thanks. I’ll pass.
Personally, nowadays, I think people should just use a static site generator like Hugo, Jekyll, mkdocs etc. They’re pretty easy to use and you can host for free on github pages, digitalocean app platform or even cloudflare worker sites. Yes it’s a little more effort getting started and I guess it’s scary for non-technical people, but at least programmer/tech people who occasionally write an article should do it.
“To keep reading this story, get the free app or log in.”
No thanks. I’ll pass.
Personally, nowadays, I think people should just use a static site generator like Hugo, Jekyll, mkdocs etc. They’re pretty easy to use and you can host for free on github pages, digitalocean app platform or even cloudflare worker sites. Yes it’s a little more effort getting started and I guess it’s scary for non-technical people, but at least programmer/tech people who occasionally write an article should do it.
It's more accurate to say the publication and the author are requiring a login. There's a huge number of authors and publications that have bundled themselves within Medium's $5/month subscription in order to get paid. I own this publication, Better Programming, and it's the money from being in the subscription bundle that allows us to publish consistently. Hacker News is an entrepreneurship community right? But sometimes it feels uncouth to say "I want to get paid for my work." Well, I do. And if Medium thinks a "metered paywall" where there's some try before you buy going on is the most effective way for us all to get paid, then that's fine by me. That's what I'm getting at about the login wall being my choice as the publication.
Same with Quora
I was hoping this article would address time management or home office organization or something else that would actually help me be a more effective worker. Instead it's just complaining about annoying coworkers. Being annoyed by your fellows is part of the human experience. Particularly his point about small talk "always being lower priority than work" struck me as misguided - forming bonds with your coworkers through normal conversations is good for your team and good for your own mental health as well.
> 1. They never communicate their agenda
> 2. They presume availability
> 3. They disappear mysteriously
> 4. They pretend to be useful
> 5. They operate undercover
Agree with all points except the last. I don't see a need for cameras on during meetings.
> 2. They presume availability
> 3. They disappear mysteriously
> 4. They pretend to be useful
> 5. They operate undercover
Agree with all points except the last. I don't see a need for cameras on during meetings.
I've been working remote in a virtual global company since '08. People in 4 disparate time zones attending most meetings - nobody uses their camera. Desktop sharing to illustrate some point is not uncommon. The necessity to see someone's face is simply not there. Being reachable, contactable during everyone's main working hours is the real pain, but that's part of being in a remote position, and very essential when it's a global operation.
Regarding #5, for me it depends on the size of the meeting. A large 100+ group meeting? Nah. Small group/team meeting? I think having it on is a good thing.
As someone who's camera shy, I prefer keeping the camera off. But then, to each his own. It depends a lot on the other person/group.
Especially when questions from point 1 are not answered.
Some of these are more annoyances than anything, but I do agree that following most of this advice will make you a more enjoyable coworker for everyone else.
As a manager, the part about not being a backseat manager hits home for me. There’s something about Slack chats that make some people feel like they need to be involved in every conversation even if they’re not contributing anything useful. I’ve had to coach a few people about how to ignore Slack conversations that aren’t relevant to their own work. Slack is hard enough to keep up with without a constant influx of unhelpful comments from unrelated people.
Another two habits that make for ineffective coworkers:
1) Trying to force everything to be synchronous. “Can we hop on a quick call?” can’t be your response to everything. You also can’t delay discussions until you can schedule a meeting slot with multiple people. Learn to leverage Slack and have productive quick discussions, escalating to a call or meeting only after you’ve tried a chat or e-mail.
2) Trying to force everything to be asynchronous. There are some people who think remote work should mean they can isolate themselves, get their work from the ticket tracker, and only respond to e-mail once per day. This doesn’t work in any collaborative environment where people’s work overlaps and depends on what other people are doing or have done. It’s important to find a balance between working in isolation and being part of discussions, but forcing everyone to work around your asynchronous work habits quickly grows old for everyone else. Be assertive about protecting your focus time, but make a point of being available and part of the conversation.
As a manager, the part about not being a backseat manager hits home for me. There’s something about Slack chats that make some people feel like they need to be involved in every conversation even if they’re not contributing anything useful. I’ve had to coach a few people about how to ignore Slack conversations that aren’t relevant to their own work. Slack is hard enough to keep up with without a constant influx of unhelpful comments from unrelated people.
Another two habits that make for ineffective coworkers:
1) Trying to force everything to be synchronous. “Can we hop on a quick call?” can’t be your response to everything. You also can’t delay discussions until you can schedule a meeting slot with multiple people. Learn to leverage Slack and have productive quick discussions, escalating to a call or meeting only after you’ve tried a chat or e-mail.
2) Trying to force everything to be asynchronous. There are some people who think remote work should mean they can isolate themselves, get their work from the ticket tracker, and only respond to e-mail once per day. This doesn’t work in any collaborative environment where people’s work overlaps and depends on what other people are doing or have done. It’s important to find a balance between working in isolation and being part of discussions, but forcing everyone to work around your asynchronous work habits quickly grows old for everyone else. Be assertive about protecting your focus time, but make a point of being available and part of the conversation.
I do not agree with #5 at all. You do not need to see your coworkers face. It is distracting, and mentally fatiguing to have to be on display for your other coworkers. Plus, not everybody has fast enough bandwidth.
Reeks of try hard blog posting. First 4 have nothing to do with remote working. Last one is about people not turning cameras on and using audio only, not weird or "ineffective" at all.
I agree with you. The article is filled with weird comparisons to real life, where the author draws these "equivalencies" that are nowhere near equivalent.
No, having your camera off is nothing like showing up to work in an anonymous mask with your initials embroidered on your clothes (point probably made tongue in cheek but the author still used it to support their argument)
No, going to lunch at noon without typing "brb" is not the same as turning around mid conversation with someone and walking away unexpectedly.
Points can be made without hyperbole.
No, having your camera off is nothing like showing up to work in an anonymous mask with your initials embroidered on your clothes (point probably made tongue in cheek but the author still used it to support their argument)
No, going to lunch at noon without typing "brb" is not the same as turning around mid conversation with someone and walking away unexpectedly.
Points can be made without hyperbole.
> For the record, this is what genuinely useful people look like: “Is there anything I can do to help?”
Maybe. As anyone who’s played Overcooked knows, if you’re the critical resource in a crisis, too many “what can I do?” requests can quickly become of negative value.
Often better is to observe the situation, use your judgment to guess what they might need, and make a specific offer.
In Overcooked, that might be, “Looks like you’re going to need some tomatoes in a sec. I’ll start bringing them over.”
In a production outage, “I see your pager’s melting; do you want me to mute the alerts you already know about?” or to get meta, “I’ll start coordinating communication about the incident so you don’t have to keep repeating yourself to #outage newcomers who keep asking what’s going on or how they can help.”
Maybe. As anyone who’s played Overcooked knows, if you’re the critical resource in a crisis, too many “what can I do?” requests can quickly become of negative value.
Often better is to observe the situation, use your judgment to guess what they might need, and make a specific offer.
In Overcooked, that might be, “Looks like you’re going to need some tomatoes in a sec. I’ll start bringing them over.”
In a production outage, “I see your pager’s melting; do you want me to mute the alerts you already know about?” or to get meta, “I’ll start coordinating communication about the incident so you don’t have to keep repeating yourself to #outage newcomers who keep asking what’s going on or how they can help.”
> They never communicate their agenda
AKA schedule unfocused meetings. Unfocused meetings have been a problem for years, or perhaps centuries. Has nothing to do with remote work, or even being an "effective worker" in the general sense.
> They presume availability
The body text for this section has nothing to do with presuming availability. In any case, neither the section header or the examples have anything to do with remote work or being an "effective worker". Sure, they're annoying, but that's about it.
> They disappear mysteriously
If you need synchronous collaborative time with me, let's schedule it. Otherwise, asynchronous communication should have no default expectation of availability. Obviously it would be polite to mention that you have to step out for a bit.
Also, again, has nothing to do with remote work or being an "effective worker". Most of us communicate digitally sometimes, even when we're in the office. I haven't suddenly become ineffective because you incorrectly assumed that you had my undivided attention for an unspecified amount of time.
> They pretend to be useful.
AKA they chime in pointlessly in issue threads. While annoying or pointless, this also has nothing to do with remote work or being an "effective worker".
> They operate undercover
AKA turn off their camera. Plenty of comments here already about this. Also has nothing to do with being an effective worker.
> 5 Habits of Highly Ineffective Remote Workers
This is a short, low-quality list of personal pet peeves about communication and expectations, under a click-bait title. Effective workers solve problems and add value to the company. People can be quite effective despite poor communication skills. At the same time, everyone could probably benefit from improving their workplace communication skills. The payoff for improved communication is greater when everyone is remote, or at least communicating digitally.
A lot has been written about what does and does make for effective meetings and workplace communication, and this doesn't contribute much to that discussion.
Really, I should conclude with a personal list that actually does relate to effective remote work. I've been remote for 7 years. But I haven't found it to be complicated or significanly different from effective work in the office.
AKA schedule unfocused meetings. Unfocused meetings have been a problem for years, or perhaps centuries. Has nothing to do with remote work, or even being an "effective worker" in the general sense.
> They presume availability
The body text for this section has nothing to do with presuming availability. In any case, neither the section header or the examples have anything to do with remote work or being an "effective worker". Sure, they're annoying, but that's about it.
> They disappear mysteriously
If you need synchronous collaborative time with me, let's schedule it. Otherwise, asynchronous communication should have no default expectation of availability. Obviously it would be polite to mention that you have to step out for a bit.
Also, again, has nothing to do with remote work or being an "effective worker". Most of us communicate digitally sometimes, even when we're in the office. I haven't suddenly become ineffective because you incorrectly assumed that you had my undivided attention for an unspecified amount of time.
> They pretend to be useful.
AKA they chime in pointlessly in issue threads. While annoying or pointless, this also has nothing to do with remote work or being an "effective worker".
> They operate undercover
AKA turn off their camera. Plenty of comments here already about this. Also has nothing to do with being an effective worker.
> 5 Habits of Highly Ineffective Remote Workers
This is a short, low-quality list of personal pet peeves about communication and expectations, under a click-bait title. Effective workers solve problems and add value to the company. People can be quite effective despite poor communication skills. At the same time, everyone could probably benefit from improving their workplace communication skills. The payoff for improved communication is greater when everyone is remote, or at least communicating digitally.
A lot has been written about what does and does make for effective meetings and workplace communication, and this doesn't contribute much to that discussion.
Really, I should conclude with a personal list that actually does relate to effective remote work. I've been remote for 7 years. But I haven't found it to be complicated or significanly different from effective work in the office.
One behavior that I desperately wish had been called out: individuals who, seeing a back-and-forth over Slack, fail to realize that the communication is effective, and post a single message containing a Zoom link. In spite of this sounding like a pointy-haired boss type behavior, I've seen all sorts of engineers do it.
The intent is obvious: stop everything else that you are doing and join, so that it's the only thing that you are doing.
The intent is obvious: stop everything else that you are doing and join, so that it's the only thing that you are doing.
Or, relatedly, you ask someone a question while juggling several conversations or projects, and they reply by initiating an unprompted call, throwing away all the value of the asynchronous-communications platform you’re trying to leverage.
(Even worse is the ones who reply to a chat by sneaking up behind your desk and tapping your shoulder while you’re wearing headphones.)
(Even worse is the ones who reply to a chat by sneaking up behind your desk and tapping your shoulder while you’re wearing headphones.)
Effective remote work is about prioritizing. Work and Work/Life balance breaks down when you lose intention with how you spend your time.
Work from home can be less structured and as a result requires more intention. This can involve communicating Deep Work and Deep Breaks (e.g. with Slack Status [1]) so that teammates know when you're unavailable.
I've learned to set a clear intent each morning. I allocate and protect Deep Work time for my Main Thing and don't let almost anything pre-empt it. As different tasks from Work and Home come up, I capture them quickly in such a way that I can deal with them later.
(full disclosure - building bytebase.io to make it really fast to get things down to come back to later).
[1] https://bytebase.io/blog/slack-status-remote-work
Work from home can be less structured and as a result requires more intention. This can involve communicating Deep Work and Deep Breaks (e.g. with Slack Status [1]) so that teammates know when you're unavailable.
I've learned to set a clear intent each morning. I allocate and protect Deep Work time for my Main Thing and don't let almost anything pre-empt it. As different tasks from Work and Home come up, I capture them quickly in such a way that I can deal with them later.
(full disclosure - building bytebase.io to make it really fast to get things down to come back to later).
[1] https://bytebase.io/blog/slack-status-remote-work
> Hey, how’s it going? Do you know where I can find X?”
This is BAD advice. Always start with something generic. 99.99% of the time it doens't matter, but you need to be in the habit. Otherwise you will be in that .001% of the time where you send "Hey, how’s it going? About the plan to fire lay off Joe" and it turns out Joe is physically standing next to your target and sees the message. Maybe it never happens to you, but better to give the other person time to respond "in a meeting" letting you know not to discuss a sensitive topic right now.
This is BAD advice. Always start with something generic. 99.99% of the time it doens't matter, but you need to be in the habit. Otherwise you will be in that .001% of the time where you send "Hey, how’s it going? About the plan to fire lay off Joe" and it turns out Joe is physically standing next to your target and sees the message. Maybe it never happens to you, but better to give the other person time to respond "in a meeting" letting you know not to discuss a sensitive topic right now.
This isn't a justification to lead with something inane and generic. It's simply a reason why sensitive topics should be discussed in planned circumstances, like a phone call, meeting, etc.
Getting pinged with generic 'hi', 'you there', 'hello' messages that have zero context are one of the most disruptive things that one can be subjected to with real time messaging. If a message clearly states a need or intent, the recipient can glance at it and make an instant determination about prioritization of any response/change in workflow.
Getting pinged with generic 'hi', 'you there', 'hello' messages that have zero context are one of the most disruptive things that one can be subjected to with real time messaging. If a message clearly states a need or intent, the recipient can glance at it and make an instant determination about prioritization of any response/change in workflow.
https://www.nohello.com/ explains why that particular point is actually good advice.
Not in all cultures. When I work with some I need to "hello", "hi", "how are you" and so on for small talk before we get down to business. Some people are down to business, some will decide you are impolite for not making small talk first. This type of thing is important when you have international conversations.
When I worked in sales, I do think small talks were helpful.
But if we are talking about in-house teams, my experience was always better to address issue immediately.
However I never had international in-house teams before though.
But if we are talking about in-house teams, my experience was always better to address issue immediately.
However I never had international in-house teams before though.
A real life pro tip is to turn off desktop notifications for chat messages so this sort of thing is impossible.
This criticisim is slightly misguided. Let's say you have email notifications turned on too, and Joe could be standing next to you. Do you expect everybody to start email conversations with "whats up?" just so you can establish a confidential environment?
It's all about the topic discussed. Most of the time you just need to get the question out there. It's not confidential but you don't want to waste time with an extra round trip. So just write it down. No matter chat or email.
And sometimes something sensitive comes up. Then you take precautions, like booking a meeting, or having an understanding within management that your mail inbox/chat contents/.. are considered confidential (which they should) or similar.
It's all about the topic discussed. Most of the time you just need to get the question out there. It's not confidential but you don't want to waste time with an extra round trip. So just write it down. No matter chat or email.
And sometimes something sensitive comes up. Then you take precautions, like booking a meeting, or having an understanding within management that your mail inbox/chat contents/.. are considered confidential (which they should) or similar.
https://www.animalz.co/blog/bottom-line-up-front/ is the blog post that I can most credit with changing my written communication style. Knowing what's expected of me prior to engaging in a full-fledged conversation helps me triage, and also helps me prime the discussion when I context switch over to it.
This is why it peeves me when people constantly just go "hey do you have a few minutes to chat?". Just tell me what you want, there's no good reason to keep me in suspense.
Isn't that exactly the technique made infamous by the "Lumberg" character in Office Space? He would walk up with his coffee cup..."what's happening? did you get the memo?"
Didn't read TFA due to paywall.
Didn't read TFA due to paywall.
[deleted]
> Please, put your camera on and end this creepy behaviour.
This is plain stupid. I never put my camera on unless there is a specific need, usually for small meetings when I actually participate instead of just listening someone talking for an hour. One of the best aspects of remote work is that you can actually be very productive during these corporate rituals without offending anyone (except the guy who insists everybody should turn on the cameras).
This is plain stupid. I never put my camera on unless there is a specific need, usually for small meetings when I actually participate instead of just listening someone talking for an hour. One of the best aspects of remote work is that you can actually be very productive during these corporate rituals without offending anyone (except the guy who insists everybody should turn on the cameras).
> If you’re undercover with your camera off in a meeting, how do you think a lone person with their camera on feels?
Like they should probably turn off their camera too?
Like they should probably turn off their camera too?
I am so triggered by this.
The author is a prime example of a person with one nuero-type expecting every other person they work with to operate the same way as them. It is anti-empathetic to folks with a neurodiverse background. The mentality is hostile to everyone that you work with.
Let me address each point.
1. Some folks do well in an environment that is just to "catch up" or "hangout". This is called an unstructured meeting and it has value. It is impossible to ascertain if an unstructured meeting is going to have value to you or anyone else. Sometimes it's just going to be about getting people in the same room to chat (or even just to hang out and have fun -- and yes, fun and camaraderie is important and has value). You should not expect every meeting to be structured.
2. Asyncronous communication... or even just communication with other members on your team is important. Someone dropping into your DMs and asking you a question is... normal. How else are people supposed to communicate with you? Are you expecting them to call you? Are you going to be upset if they email you? Come on! -- You aren't going to be expected to respond immediately, and if you are just tell the person you are busy and will get back to them later.
3. Some people... a lot of people actually... are perfectly fine with dropping a conversation when it has finished. You don't have to cap every conversation with "goodbye". Again, remote communication is asynchronous by default. People have other things going on. They could be driving. They could be dealing with their kids. They could have been called by a higher-up to an inpromptu meeting. They might even... GASP... think differently than you do, or process information and communication differently than you do. Can you believe it? Some people are different!!!
4. There are a great many types of people out there who are terrible at "deep work" (i.e. programming / design / whatever), but excellent at organizing people and tracking tasks / removing blockers, and helping people "get shit done". These people are valuable. If you don't recognize this value... I really question your engineering prowess overall.
5. Some people are introverts, have social anxiety, are autistic, or otherwise self-conscious. As someone who is openly autistic the author's mentality here is... frankly disgusting and offensive to me. Not everything is about you, brah. Have you ever considered how the person not turning on their camera is feeling? Did it ever cross your mind that maybe that has a debilitating effect on them -- or otherwise harms or hinders them?
People are different. Fucking deal with it.
This author...Daniel Yefet... sounds like a total ass to work with. Daniel, it's not others that need to grow and change. It's you. You are the problem.
The author is a prime example of a person with one nuero-type expecting every other person they work with to operate the same way as them. It is anti-empathetic to folks with a neurodiverse background. The mentality is hostile to everyone that you work with.
Let me address each point.
1. Some folks do well in an environment that is just to "catch up" or "hangout". This is called an unstructured meeting and it has value. It is impossible to ascertain if an unstructured meeting is going to have value to you or anyone else. Sometimes it's just going to be about getting people in the same room to chat (or even just to hang out and have fun -- and yes, fun and camaraderie is important and has value). You should not expect every meeting to be structured.
2. Asyncronous communication... or even just communication with other members on your team is important. Someone dropping into your DMs and asking you a question is... normal. How else are people supposed to communicate with you? Are you expecting them to call you? Are you going to be upset if they email you? Come on! -- You aren't going to be expected to respond immediately, and if you are just tell the person you are busy and will get back to them later.
3. Some people... a lot of people actually... are perfectly fine with dropping a conversation when it has finished. You don't have to cap every conversation with "goodbye". Again, remote communication is asynchronous by default. People have other things going on. They could be driving. They could be dealing with their kids. They could have been called by a higher-up to an inpromptu meeting. They might even... GASP... think differently than you do, or process information and communication differently than you do. Can you believe it? Some people are different!!!
4. There are a great many types of people out there who are terrible at "deep work" (i.e. programming / design / whatever), but excellent at organizing people and tracking tasks / removing blockers, and helping people "get shit done". These people are valuable. If you don't recognize this value... I really question your engineering prowess overall.
5. Some people are introverts, have social anxiety, are autistic, or otherwise self-conscious. As someone who is openly autistic the author's mentality here is... frankly disgusting and offensive to me. Not everything is about you, brah. Have you ever considered how the person not turning on their camera is feeling? Did it ever cross your mind that maybe that has a debilitating effect on them -- or otherwise harms or hinders them?
People are different. Fucking deal with it.
This author...Daniel Yefet... sounds like a total ass to work with. Daniel, it's not others that need to grow and change. It's you. You are the problem.
I don't agree with everyone written in the post. I work remotely for the last 6 years. But i think it's valuable for the beginner
> Just say goodbye! If you’re partial to a bit of 90s internet slang, say “gtg” or “brb” or… “asl”?
Did the author mean "afk"?
Did the author mean "afk"?
"asl", or alternatively "A/S/L", was short for "Age/Sex/Location". This was a pretty common way of kicking off a 1-on-1 conversation on IRC back in the day.
Yes, and it doesn't make sense in this context.
Arguably it does make sense in the context of making a joke about 90's Internet slang as the author appears to be doing, but I agree it doesn't make sense as something you'd actually say to pause a conversation. On the other hand, it might actually have that effect...
I would add YouTube to the list.
I think you don't need to turn on your camera, especially if you're going to have a huge company meeting. The other habits are quite accurate; some people disappear mysteriously even though you're in a middle of a chat discussion.
Some people aren’t comfortable being on camera. Some people don’t have a nice workspace and don’t want to feel shame over it. There should be no requirement to have the camera on, it really adds very little over voice alone and there are countless valid reasons to not want it on.
> how do you think a lone person with their camera on feels?
If you don’t like being the only one on camera, by all means shut yours off. Work was done by voice alone aka by phone for decades.