People love working remotely(usefyi.com)
usefyi.com
People love working remotely
https://usefyi.com/remote-work-report/
368 comments
Happened to me. What I did was go into the office and constantly talk to the vp's and ceo. Not about anything important really boring weather/how are you doing? The more removed the person from my department the more
I would go out of my way to talk to them. Start asking difficult questions at the all staff forums. Always threw in doubts in meetings with non-tech people.
I asked for a special chair for my back. Started challenging our processes.
Funny thing happened. People started to see me as an important person.. an expert. I started to work from home again slowly.. then never came back. A year later others were encouraged to wfh because of office space concerns.
Get in there and make sure they regret pulling you back. Show your face everywhere. Make your voice heard. Take on all issues and then drop them.
I asked for a special chair for my back. Started challenging our processes.
Funny thing happened. People started to see me as an important person.. an expert. I started to work from home again slowly.. then never came back. A year later others were encouraged to wfh because of office space concerns.
Get in there and make sure they regret pulling you back. Show your face everywhere. Make your voice heard. Take on all issues and then drop them.
This is straight out of the CIA Simple Sabotage Field Manual, see Section 4.11 General Interference with Organizations and Production.
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/...
Re: a special chair for your back... "Order high-quality materials which are hard to get. If you don't get them argue about it. Warn that inferior materials will mean inferior work."
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/...
Re: a special chair for your back... "Order high-quality materials which are hard to get. If you don't get them argue about it. Warn that inferior materials will mean inferior work."
> "Order high-quality materials which are hard to get. If you don't get them argue about it. Warn that inferior materials will mean inferior work."
Memories work in funny ways. The first thing that jumped to my mind was the Asterix book where the Romans capture the druid (Getafix, in the English versions) and want him to make the magic potion. He insists that he must have fresh strawberries to make it, which are out of season. He doesn't really need them, it turns out, but it delays the whole project as the Romans dispatch someone to points far to the south to try and fetch some and bring them back while they're still fresh.
Memories work in funny ways. The first thing that jumped to my mind was the Asterix book where the Romans capture the druid (Getafix, in the English versions) and want him to make the magic potion. He insists that he must have fresh strawberries to make it, which are out of season. He doesn't really need them, it turns out, but it delays the whole project as the Romans dispatch someone to points far to the south to try and fetch some and bring them back while they're still fresh.
Off-topic, but, it's very interesting how they translate the Asterix and Obelix character names across languages.
In Spanish the druid is called Panoramix for whatever reason :)
In Spanish the druid is called Panoramix for whatever reason :)
For those who are non native English speakers: Getafix can be read as Get A Fix, meaning getting drugs that you need if you’re addicted to something. Getafix deals in potions. Always thought that was amusing (coincidence or not).
Almost all the names are plays on words that relate to the character, like 'Geriatrix', the village elder. I posted a list of the names on wikipedia elsewhere
It's also Panoramix in the original French, isn't it?
I remember this! It is quite hilarious.
I find it fascinating that the word «quisling» was already in use, coined after the Norwegian traitor from WW2.
Im looking forward to your new book, Machiavelli.
Well played!
In the TV show "What we do in the shadows" this is called an energy vampire. (you suck out other energy) Also a great show.
In the TV show "What we do in the shadows" this is called an energy vampire. (you suck out other energy) Also a great show.
Waste their time... quite diabolical. ((tips hat))
This sort of sabotage wouldn't get past the management where I work. They'd see right through it and fire me.
But maybe that same competence would prevent them from making self-sabotaging decisions like cancelling a long-standing WFH policy.
That's precisely what the did though. The new VP is a frightening mix of extreme competence and pointy haired boss.
Do you need that kind of sabotage, then?
They must be either good, or you need to run away, fast.
They must be either good, or you need to run away, fast.
Sounds like you could try one of my favorite strategies from the same source:
'When possible, refer all matters to committees, for "further study and consideration." Attempt to make the committees as large as possible - never less than five'
'When possible, refer all matters to committees, for "further study and consideration." Attempt to make the committees as large as possible - never less than five'
Ah, the noble psychopath way.
> The big boss said "a 15 minute fact-to-face is better than a multi-day email chain"
I can't believe that people who are so out of touch with reality are still given so much responsibility at companies which they effectively unknowingly misuse to make everyone's life miserable.
There's nothing wrong about a multi day email chain. Sometimes it's the best communication tool, because non-critical/important things can be more efficiently being discussed in an email chain which doesn't disrupt everyone's work day. Secondly it is a nice way of keeping a log of ideas, thoughts and compromises which essentially lead to the final conclusion/solution. This gets documented for free and people can reference back to that email chain in the future which is hugely valuable, especially when the "big boss" conveniently likes to forget his own decisions.
Face to face lacks all of those nice features.
Secondly... there's A LOT more alternatives and other options inbetween F2F and long email chains. People can work 99% remotely and travel into an office one every couple weeks or per month for team bonding time.
Video conferencing is another great way of getting a F2F conversation done without the hassle of everyone being in the same physical place. More often video conferencing calls can even be more productive, because people are more conscious about the time spent in the call and also about the people who frequently contribute and those who just got invited along but never really participate. Makes it easier to trim attendees down to the ones who really need to be there and those who just can be sent a summary afterwards.
I can only hope that your new big boss will quickly get sacked and replaced by some young blood who has heard of instant messaging and video conferencing. Good luck!
I can't believe that people who are so out of touch with reality are still given so much responsibility at companies which they effectively unknowingly misuse to make everyone's life miserable.
There's nothing wrong about a multi day email chain. Sometimes it's the best communication tool, because non-critical/important things can be more efficiently being discussed in an email chain which doesn't disrupt everyone's work day. Secondly it is a nice way of keeping a log of ideas, thoughts and compromises which essentially lead to the final conclusion/solution. This gets documented for free and people can reference back to that email chain in the future which is hugely valuable, especially when the "big boss" conveniently likes to forget his own decisions.
Face to face lacks all of those nice features.
Secondly... there's A LOT more alternatives and other options inbetween F2F and long email chains. People can work 99% remotely and travel into an office one every couple weeks or per month for team bonding time.
Video conferencing is another great way of getting a F2F conversation done without the hassle of everyone being in the same physical place. More often video conferencing calls can even be more productive, because people are more conscious about the time spent in the call and also about the people who frequently contribute and those who just got invited along but never really participate. Makes it easier to trim attendees down to the ones who really need to be there and those who just can be sent a summary afterwards.
I can only hope that your new big boss will quickly get sacked and replaced by some young blood who has heard of instant messaging and video conferencing. Good luck!
> There's nothing wrong about a multi day email chain.
Email chains can work for some things, but they mostly suck compared to face to face meetings. You never know if someone else is silent because they agree, they haven't read the whole email, or they haven't taken time to write a response.
Most things able to be solved by email chains are better off in some sort of issue tracking or wiki system.
Email chains can work for some things, but they mostly suck compared to face to face meetings. You never know if someone else is silent because they agree, they haven't read the whole email, or they haven't taken time to write a response.
Most things able to be solved by email chains are better off in some sort of issue tracking or wiki system.
Face to face meetings also suck because the extroverts own the floor. You don't know if people didn't pipe up because they agree, or because they aren't rude enough to stop Bob talking, and now it's too late.
The same thing happens in email chains as well.
A good meeting lead can make sure they get everyone's input in a face to face without necessarily putting them on the spot. Sadly those are few and far in between.
I worked with one and they were excellent meetings. They got ideas out, and predicted possible issues better than any other meetings I've been part of.
A good meeting lead can make sure they get everyone's input in a face to face without necessarily putting them on the spot. Sadly those are few and far in between.
I worked with one and they were excellent meetings. They got ideas out, and predicted possible issues better than any other meetings I've been part of.
I know both extroverts and introverts who are really bad at email type text communication.
Fair point.
I was mostly just making the counter point, however to expand on this, at least with the email thread you can take longer to compose your response or go talk to someone about it if you think it's important. It's viewed a bit weirder to follow up a face-to-face meeting with your counter points in an email.
But I actually just think communication is hard for a lot of people. Locking people in a room and expecting them to come up with a decision is a pretty poor way to work. Combining both text and talking, and giving enough time between discussion and decisions is probably a winner.
I was mostly just making the counter point, however to expand on this, at least with the email thread you can take longer to compose your response or go talk to someone about it if you think it's important. It's viewed a bit weirder to follow up a face-to-face meeting with your counter points in an email.
But I actually just think communication is hard for a lot of people. Locking people in a room and expecting them to come up with a decision is a pretty poor way to work. Combining both text and talking, and giving enough time between discussion and decisions is probably a winner.
Communication is a fundamentally hard problem. How to tell if a given semantic state has been replicated in the brain of the others. Really until people repeat back in their own words you have no idea; even then, they may have alarming different versions of some of the concepts used in the semantic state.
Equal playing field.
You’re missing it. Check your textually-adept privilege.
Seriously. I’ve always been a very good writer but people in STEM often aren’t.
Seriously. I’ve always been a very good writer but people in STEM often aren’t.
And then when it's face to face, you have people who aren't lingually adept, what then? Take someone who speaks English as a second language. They may not be able to process what's being said in a face to face as fast as the topic is moving, but in an email thread they can take their time to read it all, and compose a response (which may take longer for them due to English being a second language). It's not as simple as either of you make it seem.
> Most things able to be solved by email chains are better off in some sort of issue tracking or wiki system.
In my experience, nothing except "bugs" and "customer support issues" are better in an issue tracking system. Issue trackers add too much overhead for end users, and the "structured data" features encourage people to adopt processes that require every user to think about what level of the hierarchy some issue belongs at, what tags to assign, who "owns" the issue, etc. For most communication, there ends up being a serious impedance mismatch between the structure of the data in the issue tracker and the natural flow of communication.
In my experience, nothing except "bugs" and "customer support issues" are better in an issue tracking system. Issue trackers add too much overhead for end users, and the "structured data" features encourage people to adopt processes that require every user to think about what level of the hierarchy some issue belongs at, what tags to assign, who "owns" the issue, etc. For most communication, there ends up being a serious impedance mismatch between the structure of the data in the issue tracker and the natural flow of communication.
A face to face meeting is no silver bullet either. I've been to many meeting where someone with a strong opinion and with the manager's blessing takes over the conversation/agenda.
What I like about an email is that it allows you time to digest the information and then respond to someone.
What I like about an email is that it allows you time to digest the information and then respond to someone.
It’s almost like both approaches have their pros, cons, and appropriate times when they should be used.
I like a combined arms approach. Start an email thread and if there is no timely reply, or consensus is getting hard to reach, walk over to the other person’s desk for a chat or call a meeting.
I like a combined arms approach. Start an email thread and if there is no timely reply, or consensus is getting hard to reach, walk over to the other person’s desk for a chat or call a meeting.
Exactly. The ‘best’ communication method for an issue is entirely contextual.
if only we could instantly message each other...
I haven't found any mode of communication that's as effective for building trust as face-to-face interaction. Video conferencing, email, tickets, etc. all work well for the "Let's make a decision on this issue" or "Let's get this specific thing done" use-case, but it's much harder to actually get to know someone and build trust over those mediums. That's unfortunate, because trust between people on a team is a huge force multiplier for getting things done.
And this is why you have occasional gatherings. To help establish trust and a better sense of community. Every remote position I've held has had at least a yearly get-together for just this reason.
Also you can have small remote social gatherings. Have a lunch together from time to time (video, online) and chat about non-work things. Have an unlisted #team-offtopic channel. Things like that work in my experience if they're just available and not forced.
and... if you start 2 weeks after the last yearly get together... you're on the outs for a long time.
nothing against yearly meetings, but would hope people have ways of getting together more often if the group decides its necessary.
nothing against yearly meetings, but would hope people have ways of getting together more often if the group decides its necessary.
You can have different forms of meet-ups as well. My current company has the yearly gathering, plus the employees who live locally have a monthly lunch. None of them are on my team, but it still makes for some nice work-oriented socializing.
I've chatted online (in text) virtually my entire life, way more than I've actually talked, face-to-face or otherwise. My reading/writing comprehension's really developed as a result. Not only do people like me (even in my age range) seem relatively rare though, but it feels like talking IRL has some... weird clarity to it.
Maybe it's because the lower info bandwidth but higher emotional bandwidth (?) forces a kind of expedience you can't get otherwise. This seems especially useful in open-ended, "planning" conversations.
Maybe you can hold on to a lot of that with video/audio conferencing, but lag and tech issues are always salient. (But I'm technologically proficient and physically lazy, so I'd still rather deal with those than going somewhere.)
Maybe it's because the lower info bandwidth but higher emotional bandwidth (?) forces a kind of expedience you can't get otherwise. This seems especially useful in open-ended, "planning" conversations.
Maybe you can hold on to a lot of that with video/audio conferencing, but lag and tech issues are always salient. (But I'm technologically proficient and physically lazy, so I'd still rather deal with those than going somewhere.)
How's the typing speed and habits of those opposed to text chat? It's not often asked about in interviews, but I've noticed some co-workers do not view typing as being fast and effortless like I do.
A non-trivial number of very senior people simply cannot read or write. They can process information about other people very quickly in f2f interactions, but when things are written down they are at sea. Video is also significantly less useful for these people.
I have seen it in dozens, maybe hundreds, of execs I have interacted with over the years, including people I have worked very closely with.
Sometimes it is varieties of dyslexia, sometimes ADD. Could be any number of other "disorders."
It's not a preference/policy. It's just how they engage. Often it is best to recognize it, and engage with them on the terms that work best for them.
And of course this is not new. Illiterate leaders have been with us since there has been literacy.
I have seen it in dozens, maybe hundreds, of execs I have interacted with over the years, including people I have worked very closely with.
Sometimes it is varieties of dyslexia, sometimes ADD. Could be any number of other "disorders."
It's not a preference/policy. It's just how they engage. Often it is best to recognize it, and engage with them on the terms that work best for them.
And of course this is not new. Illiterate leaders have been with us since there has been literacy.
As remote work increases (and capital starts flowing consistently to remote-oriented companies), I think we're going to see a shift in the personality types and skill sets of successful managers. Specifically, touchy-feely socializers are going to have a harder time because a) more documentation of previous communication makes backtracking more difficult and b) social manipulation is distinctly different when verbal vs text.
I get 100+ emails per day. I'm almost certainly not reading the multi day email chain unless someone IMs me to ask for my input on it.
Anyone ever had a company forum? Like Discourse or similar? That seems like a better format. Chat + forum.
I think that's what Slack is supposed to be - especially with Threads. So far it's just IRC with gifs where I work.
Slack has nothing in common with forums except that they named that feature "threads." It's only to pull a chat convo aside in a chat app.
That's what email rules are for. If there is a long email chain and I am not directly @mentioned in the body of the email, it automatically gets filtered away into a separate folder and stays unread there, while my inbox stays clean and up to date.
If my participation is actually needed in the thread, I will be inevitably @mentioned by someone, and the email stays in my main inbox folder.
If my participation is actually needed in the thread, I will be inevitably @mentioned by someone, and the email stays in my main inbox folder.
Managers meet - that's what they do. They can be profoundly out of touch with what engineers do. Thus, stupid statements like that one.
I'm on my 2nd week back on-site after being remote for nearly 2 years, it's been a tough transition. On-top of getting what feels like a large pay-cut (1 hour commute, car maintenance/fuel, etc) and having to deal with a cramped cubicle in a noisy area, I feel that my family life is also suffering. My office hours end later than I like (5pm) and with my commute I am home just in time for dinner and to put my young kids to bed. I feel awful burdening my Wife with ALL Doctor appointments, getting kids off to school, making dinner, picking them up from daycare all while having a full-time job. We've discussed moving but that would improve my situation at the cost of the rest of my family (switching schools, further from family, etc).
Why did we end up coming back on-site? My manager (who works in Finance!?) couldn't explain to the higher-ups what we have been up to (very non-technical person) and they decided we were too disconnected from the rest of the company. Never even had a chance to plead our case or discuss alternative options... not sure how much longer I will be here.
Why did we end up coming back on-site? My manager (who works in Finance!?) couldn't explain to the higher-ups what we have been up to (very non-technical person) and they decided we were too disconnected from the rest of the company. Never even had a chance to plead our case or discuss alternative options... not sure how much longer I will be here.
That's why you need some sort of productivity journal.
Show that you were completing X number of tasks per month, and after a couple months show them that your productivity is down 10-20% in terms of tasks completed.
Make it extremely easy to present, and if your Manager agrees to work with you on it, make it look like the work to compile this report was all theirs. In other words make them look good and do their job for them.
My FAVORITE EXAMPLE in the road map for Star Citizen. That game's development is at an agonizingly slow pace, but if you were the Manager who put together their roadmap it would be instant promotion. It's goddamn BEAUTIFUL. And their is no way the team could be fucking up if the Roadmap looks this good.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/roadmap/board/1-Star-Citi...
Show that you were completing X number of tasks per month, and after a couple months show them that your productivity is down 10-20% in terms of tasks completed.
Make it extremely easy to present, and if your Manager agrees to work with you on it, make it look like the work to compile this report was all theirs. In other words make them look good and do their job for them.
My FAVORITE EXAMPLE in the road map for Star Citizen. That game's development is at an agonizingly slow pace, but if you were the Manager who put together their roadmap it would be instant promotion. It's goddamn BEAUTIFUL. And their is no way the team could be fucking up if the Roadmap looks this good.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/roadmap/board/1-Star-Citi...
I've actually begun doing this now, but the company has decided to eliminate all future remote jobs (our department was the experiment I suppose). I would like to pass this journal keeping idea to anyone else remote. It likely would have saved me.
25 years of this and not once has someone responsible for implementing the open plan included themselves in that plan. Sales and marketing somehow require offices as well. I've heard of the mythical "president in a cubicle" but never seen it.
I would really have more respect if they just came out and said, "we're going cheap."
I would really have more respect if they just came out and said, "we're going cheap."
Ours do sit in the same open-plan desks the rest of us do, but naturally (as others have remarked) they spend all of their time in meetings anyway and don't actually USE their desks. And again, naturally, they have a whole bunch of meeting rooms and 'private collaboration spaces' marked off for their exclusive use.
I actually did see it. The CEO and VPs all had noise-canceling headphones.
Actually saw it in practice, I toured KnowBe4's office, their entire C-suite is right there in the open office, a few at standing desk, but all right there in the open
Our structure is low-level employees, like me -> squad lead -> tribe lead -> VP -> SVP -> CTO. VP and above have offices. SVP was the one who cancelled WFH. The open plan office thing predates the SVP and CTO, who are the main part of the new "leadership" that came in over the last year.
Not true of any of the four places I've worked, startup and FAANG. Directors (at FAANG) and CEOs (at startups) sat at the same kind of desk the rest of us did (though of course, spent the vast majority of time in meetings)
For us, everyone except HR and Accounts are on the open floor. Even the executives/VPs have to look for seating.
When I was an intern at Mozilla 2 years ago the open floorplan included the CEO.
Our sales and marketing is in an open floor plan actually. HR, however, is not.
Same, HR and c level are the only ones left with real offices.
This has basically been the story of every job I've had, except instead of being 100% remote I was wfh once or twice per week.
I'd join a company under the condition that they allowed flexible hours and wfh. Then 6 months later managers would change and all of a sudden the way we'd been operating would no longer be acceptable. Always the person leading the charge towards eliminating wfh and remote work is some non-technical idiot who wants to make his mark by demonstrating his "leadership skills" and has no idea what engineers actually do.
So D don't even take promises for flexible hours and remote work seriously anymore unless it's a fully distributed team. I hope the trend of increasingly distributed workforces continues to rise so that developers don't have to deal with this "ass-in-seat" nonsense anymore.
I'd join a company under the condition that they allowed flexible hours and wfh. Then 6 months later managers would change and all of a sudden the way we'd been operating would no longer be acceptable. Always the person leading the charge towards eliminating wfh and remote work is some non-technical idiot who wants to make his mark by demonstrating his "leadership skills" and has no idea what engineers actually do.
So D don't even take promises for flexible hours and remote work seriously anymore unless it's a fully distributed team. I hope the trend of increasingly distributed workforces continues to rise so that developers don't have to deal with this "ass-in-seat" nonsense anymore.
I've never understood these sorts of posts - surely at that point you just leave? You've effectively been fired anyway?
I mean, I've taken remote jobs for which I could well be living 200+ miles away. Saying 'come in to the office' - lol, sure, perhaps once a week or something for a catch up.
What gives?
If my boss suddenly decided to no longer employ me as a software developer and instead "pivoted" to making hand grenades or something equally random, well, yeah, bye then?
I mean, I've taken remote jobs for which I could well be living 200+ miles away. Saying 'come in to the office' - lol, sure, perhaps once a week or something for a catch up.
What gives?
If my boss suddenly decided to no longer employ me as a software developer and instead "pivoted" to making hand grenades or something equally random, well, yeah, bye then?
In the US, that could be construed as "Constructive Dismissal," where your job changes so much you have to resign. In California, at least, you'd have a strong claim for unemployment while you looked for your next (remote!) job.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal
Well yea, that's why I eventually quit both jobs.
Although that's not the attitude of the managers at my current company, the result is the same: remote work is discouraged to the point of being exceptional. Which makes me want to look for remote-only jobs, that unfortunately are relatively rare in Europe.
Get it in writing.
We're also "Agile" now, so we spend a ton of time in useless meetings.
Might be lost in translation - but agile shouldn't require a ton of meeting time and should work fine remotely. And hey, one of the principles is that you give teams the environment they need to get the job done, not the environment management thinks they deserve.
Unless you mean "Agile" as, say, UK government terms it, also known as waterfall. In which case, yes, you can expect to be required to be in meetings all day in a terrible office space. Feel my pain.
Might be lost in translation - but agile shouldn't require a ton of meeting time and should work fine remotely. And hey, one of the principles is that you give teams the environment they need to get the job done, not the environment management thinks they deserve.
Unless you mean "Agile" as, say, UK government terms it, also known as waterfall. In which case, yes, you can expect to be required to be in meetings all day in a terrible office space. Feel my pain.
Agile introduces and requires meeting time. If you were doing Just Shut Up And Get It Done before, Agile is definitely meeting-heavy. Agile is agile compared to Waterfall, but overall it’s a process of no one trusting the workers to take on work and hit deadlines if they’re not in meetings telling you about it.
The only constant between every Agile organization I’ve been in is the forced meetings. Everything else was up to interpretation.
The only constant between every Agile organization I’ve been in is the forced meetings. Everything else was up to interpretation.
> but overall it’s a process of no one trusting the workers to take on work and hit deadlines if they’re not in meetings telling you about it.
I mean... sometimes you need to course-correct, no? And cross pollination is useful, isn't it?
"Just Shut Up And Get It Done" workflow means that people might be spinning their wheels building the wrong thing (or duplicate things) in their silos.
Come on, there's got to be a few meetings to synchronize vision, scope, etc. within a team.
I mean... sometimes you need to course-correct, no? And cross pollination is useful, isn't it?
"Just Shut Up And Get It Done" workflow means that people might be spinning their wheels building the wrong thing (or duplicate things) in their silos.
Come on, there's got to be a few meetings to synchronize vision, scope, etc. within a team.
Meetings? Sure. Rituals? No. We have meetings because we're supposed to have meetings, whether we need them or not.
It's practically impossible to get rid of that bit of the cargo-cult thinking. It's funny because it's not even really a part of "Agile", just Scrum. The best Scrum team I've ever worked with (and best team really, that's probably part of it) decided to drop daily meetings and it was great. We did keep the end/start of sprint stuff, because that was important to us.
One thing mentioned in Sutherland's book on Scrum I rarely see repeated is the idea of also delivering happiness, and the sprint "kaizen" (or "improvement").
One person on our team suggested the daily standups were dumb, and we should try dropping them as next sprint's kaizen idea. Everyone else disagreed, but he felt really strongly against meetings, so we did it, it was only one sprint. And it turns out he was entirely right, at least for our team. We kept it that way until eventually that project was completed and the team was shifted around to other teams. We can't convince any of our new teams to try any of these things, but the same dynamic also isn't there to really encourage that.
One thing mentioned in Sutherland's book on Scrum I rarely see repeated is the idea of also delivering happiness, and the sprint "kaizen" (or "improvement").
One person on our team suggested the daily standups were dumb, and we should try dropping them as next sprint's kaizen idea. Everyone else disagreed, but he felt really strongly against meetings, so we did it, it was only one sprint. And it turns out he was entirely right, at least for our team. We kept it that way until eventually that project was completed and the team was shifted around to other teams. We can't convince any of our new teams to try any of these things, but the same dynamic also isn't there to really encourage that.
We unfortunately have some Agile/Scrum cultists who bring everything to a grinding halt with their mindless adherence to their view of how it should be done. Completely paralyzes our team when they start bloviating.
The usual Agile Methodologies (the manifesto had something to say about methodologies) have all the wrong meetings. The only ones that can correct the developers course are a sprint away or after the feature is complete, while all the daily or weekly ones are pure bullshit where nobody present can decide anything.
People keep talking about "waterfall", but I have not seen real, actual "waterfall" in the last 15 years, anywhere. Last time I've seen it was at Microsoft in early 00s, and even there it wasn't super-strict, people just spent their "planning" time prototyping stuff so as not to have to work as hard when the "design" phase ends.
Moreover, for certain types of work (such as, for instance, building platforms) a forced "design" and specification phase would probably be a net benefit. As they say, "half a year of coding can save you two weeks of planning". Except when you also release your shit to users you can't fix your old design mistakes because everyone depends on them now.
Moreover, for certain types of work (such as, for instance, building platforms) a forced "design" and specification phase would probably be a net benefit. As they say, "half a year of coding can save you two weeks of planning". Except when you also release your shit to users you can't fix your old design mistakes because everyone depends on them now.
I mean "Agile" as in, whatever stupid thing our current "leadership" wants it to be. regardless of what "agile" should stand for, it was immediately corrupted at our workplace to be "business as usual with a new name".
Wish I had a fix for that.
I've started rotating agile manifesto principles in my email signature as a slightly passive aggressive way of trying to get the message across. It's not working.
I've started rotating agile manifesto principles in my email signature as a slightly passive aggressive way of trying to get the message across. It's not working.
Wow, I’m definitely doing that from now on, brilliant idea.
I had 10 wonderful years. You also save money on food. I'm too lazy to pack a lunch so working in the office means buying lunch every day. At home I just grab some leftovers in the fridge and heat it up. My favorite part is doing my shopping in the morning on a weekday when no one is there versus on a Saturday when its nuts. I was doing freelance work my schedule was totally flexible.
> We're also "Agile" now, so we spend a ton of time in useless meetings.
One of the crazier things that has happened.
When the XP folk said "we do a standup", the idea was that meetings are useless and awful, you shouldn't have them, but if you're going to have them, then let's "encourage" brevity by having everyone stand.
Add a few decades of agile certified consultants, sc(r)umification and now "agile" means "lots of meetings".
Sigh.
One of the crazier things that has happened.
When the XP folk said "we do a standup", the idea was that meetings are useless and awful, you shouldn't have them, but if you're going to have them, then let's "encourage" brevity by having everyone stand.
Add a few decades of agile certified consultants, sc(r)umification and now "agile" means "lots of meetings".
Sigh.
We recently spent weeks doing a backlog grooming meeting every day to get work lined up, only to have our priorities completely changed and all of the work discarded.
Why would you spend weeks doing backlog grooming meetings every day? We do a single one-hour backlog grooming meeting before each sprint, to plan the work for that sprint. If you're planning out much further than that, that's not agile.
True agile teams never need to do backlog grooming. If a team has a backlog which is so big that it needs grooming, then they are not agile. An agile team build something, releases it to its users, and afterwards react to the immediate feedback/next important request.
Teams which constantly re-prioritise items which some fake product manager came up with a few months ago is not agile.
Teams which constantly re-prioritise items which some fake product manager came up with a few months ago is not agile.
> Teams which constantly re-prioritise items which some fake product manager came up with a few months ago is not agile.
I don't disagree with this. However,
>True agile teams never need to do backlog grooming. If a team has a backlog which is so big that it needs grooming, then they are not agile. An agile team build something, releases it to its users, and afterwards react to the immediate feedback/next important request.
This is like saying the first test should always fail because the tested code doesn't exist. While that's a good start, it usually takes a few sprints to release anything useful; especially if you have any hardware involved. Therefore, having a number of stories in a backlog really helps, especially if you do have to re-prioritize because hardware is delayed, etc.
I don't disagree with this. However,
>True agile teams never need to do backlog grooming. If a team has a backlog which is so big that it needs grooming, then they are not agile. An agile team build something, releases it to its users, and afterwards react to the immediate feedback/next important request.
This is like saying the first test should always fail because the tested code doesn't exist. While that's a good start, it usually takes a few sprints to release anything useful; especially if you have any hardware involved. Therefore, having a number of stories in a backlog really helps, especially if you do have to re-prioritize because hardware is delayed, etc.
The backlog is not large and we don't use this meeting for prioritization.
Our team uses backlog grooming to point tasks and assign them "definitions of done". This is done to solve two problems: getting everyone on the same page as far as how the task will be done, which also speeds up diff reviews, and to determine if the task should be split up into smaller tasks.
When would you perform these tasks?
> Teams which constantly re-prioritise items which some fake product manager came up with a few months ago is not agile.
This is not at all what we do with this meeting.
Our team uses backlog grooming to point tasks and assign them "definitions of done". This is done to solve two problems: getting everyone on the same page as far as how the task will be done, which also speeds up diff reviews, and to determine if the task should be split up into smaller tasks.
When would you perform these tasks?
> Teams which constantly re-prioritise items which some fake product manager came up with a few months ago is not agile.
This is not at all what we do with this meeting.
We had had our priorities completely shifted, we changed POs twice in just a few weeks, and our previous work plans were tossed out. We met daily to build up the backlog, then had our priorities changed completely again, and invalidated all of the planning.
I agree 100% that it's not Agile.
I agree 100% that it's not Agile.
I'm so glad my team is distributed across different offices and we do our stand-ups at our desks. Having hypermobility in my knees, and most other joints, I get tired from standing still more than 2-3 minutes...
...and only have those stand for whom it's not a burden.
It seems nowadays the "standing" up has become some weird ritual that one must undergo, without questioning, as a sacrifice to the gods of "Agile".
Bizarre.
All the practices have a purpose. If they don't fit, don't do them. Figure out what works for you. Adjust, adapt. Think!
No, the planes of productivity will not come to your fauxgile wooden landing strip.
It seems nowadays the "standing" up has become some weird ritual that one must undergo, without questioning, as a sacrifice to the gods of "Agile".
Bizarre.
All the practices have a purpose. If they don't fit, don't do them. Figure out what works for you. Adjust, adapt. Think!
No, the planes of productivity will not come to your fauxgile wooden landing strip.
Next time someone insists on standing, I'll counter with do pushups while you're talking instead. Should shut most people up fast enough.
Agile and stand up meetings get a bad rap when poorly performing companies adopt the practices. There's no such thing as having just half of your house on fire. If a fundamental business element like customers or leadership is missing, everything else will be bad. Waterfall and agile methods are equally damned when the something else is causing a company to under perform.
> Agile and stand up meetings get a bad rap when poorly performing companies adopt the practices.
I was talking to the CTO of a large non-tech company and he was so excited how the whole development organization had adopted agile. Later he told me that after the conference he had to fly to a huge meeting where they plan and schedule out the next 6 months to a year of development work.
I was talking to the CTO of a large non-tech company and he was so excited how the whole development organization had adopted agile. Later he told me that after the conference he had to fly to a huge meeting where they plan and schedule out the next 6 months to a year of development work.
Are you sure he wasn't referring to roadmapping? You can plan what projects to take on in the next quarter or two with a product team while the engineering team remains agile in their operations.
Nope. It was a multi-day meeting where the entire development organization waterfall planned the next 6-12 months of work. This included due dates and all. For their org size, maybe that's how they have to do development, but it was nothing like any agile I've ever done.
> a 15 minute fact-to-face is better...
Good thing we have better tools for videoconferencing than ever. I can have a 15 minute face-to-face with anyone in my company, no matter where in the world they are.
Good thing we have better tools for videoconferencing than ever. I can have a 15 minute face-to-face with anyone in my company, no matter where in the world they are.
They cite this particular bit of idiocy from the Agile Manifesto:
> The most efficient and effective method of conveying information to and within a development team is face-to-face conversation.
They fail to realize that when it was written in 2001, communication technologies were far inferior to what we have now. So that face to face should be updated to something like "immediate" or "real time".
> The most efficient and effective method of conveying information to and within a development team is face-to-face conversation.
They fail to realize that when it was written in 2001, communication technologies were far inferior to what we have now. So that face to face should be updated to something like "immediate" or "real time".
What they also failed to realize, which was also true then, is that the person I need a face-to-face conversation with is neither in the desk next to me nor at my employer's site the next country over: he was in my desk last year, works somewhere else now, and didn't write anything down because Agile™ told him it wasn't ‘effective’.
This is a poor understanding of "comprehensive documentation."
You should absolutely be keeping documentation. However, you should not require hundreds of pages of specs and design documents before a single line of code is written.
Instead, documentation should be written at the same time as the code, and should follow what is actually needed for and by developers and the organization rather than being subject to a "gate".
It's about writing the right documentation. Some of that documentation is harder to write: For example, writing a specification that can literally run against the software, like in behavior driven development. (This is one of many potential tools. It may not be applicable for you.) It may look like a wiki. It may look like a set of UML diagrams and a formal spec. It depends on the team and the domain of the problem.
The problem that the manifesto was talking about was one of documentation as a deliverable that was not properly updated and only written to pass a requirement of the process.
You should absolutely be keeping documentation. However, you should not require hundreds of pages of specs and design documents before a single line of code is written.
Instead, documentation should be written at the same time as the code, and should follow what is actually needed for and by developers and the organization rather than being subject to a "gate".
It's about writing the right documentation. Some of that documentation is harder to write: For example, writing a specification that can literally run against the software, like in behavior driven development. (This is one of many potential tools. It may not be applicable for you.) It may look like a wiki. It may look like a set of UML diagrams and a formal spec. It depends on the team and the domain of the problem.
The problem that the manifesto was talking about was one of documentation as a deliverable that was not properly updated and only written to pass a requirement of the process.
I wish the agile manifesto had included a bullet point that said 'favor working code over comprehensive documentation%'
% where working code != the code will work if all stars align and no invalid data is input and comprehensive documentation != a single typed character more than what is forced out of your tortured fingers by those who have to support your code at 2AM
I love my job :)
% where working code != the code will work if all stars align and no invalid data is input and comprehensive documentation != a single typed character more than what is forced out of your tortured fingers by those who have to support your code at 2AM
I love my job :)
* "while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more" suggests that you should do enough of the items on the left such that the job gets done.
* "Build projects around motivated individuals. Give them the environment and support they need, and trust them to get the job done." implies that the ops team also needs to be given the environment and support they need from development.
* "Continuous attention to technical excellence and good design enhances agility." where "technical excellence" implies an understanding of working code that isn't dependent on valid data.
* "At regular intervals, the team reflects on how to become more effective, then tunes and adjusts its behavior accordingly." means that if ops can't do its job, then the development team needs to reflect and adjust its behavior accordingly.
So, sadly, they tried. We just went too far in the other direction in some organizations, and that needs to be stopped. If it isn't working, change it - agile shouldn't be in the way.
* "Build projects around motivated individuals. Give them the environment and support they need, and trust them to get the job done." implies that the ops team also needs to be given the environment and support they need from development.
* "Continuous attention to technical excellence and good design enhances agility." where "technical excellence" implies an understanding of working code that isn't dependent on valid data.
* "At regular intervals, the team reflects on how to become more effective, then tunes and adjusts its behavior accordingly." means that if ops can't do its job, then the development team needs to reflect and adjust its behavior accordingly.
So, sadly, they tried. We just went too far in the other direction in some organizations, and that needs to be stopped. If it isn't working, change it - agile shouldn't be in the way.
This is a problem with reading documents without understanding the time and context they were written in. If you’re a twentysomething developer who’s never worked in a process and documentation-heavy organization, the agile manifesto will sound like it is advocating something it is not. It was a reaction to the prevailing thinking of the time.
On top of that, they were looking for brevity over writing a novel, considering that it came out of a group of like-minded people over a long weekend.
They also fail to realize one of the most important bits of the Agile Manifesto is you're supposed to tear it apart and over time redesign it to work for your own org.
Anyone who just says "We do X, because that's how Agile recommends it" is not actually doing Agile.
Anyone who just says "We do X, because that's how Agile recommends it" is not actually doing Agile.
I actually still think face-to-face meetings are the best way to communicate. That does not, however, outweigh the disadvantages of forcing people to commute to an office.
Videoconferencing is OK, but it is still common to have issues with it. Bad image quality, setup by lowest common denominator etc. Often you use that 15 minutes just by trying to make it work properly.
https://www.owllabs.com/see-it-in-action
My neighbor owns a consultancy. They’ve started shipping the Meeting Owl camera to their bigger clients to improve their meeting experience. It’s has a 360 degree camera, eight directional mics.
The camera stitches together a full view of the conference room up top, with the bottom 2/3 intelligently shifting the focus across multiple speakers. It will even put a whiteboard into the focus of the frame, if someone starts drawing. I thought it was pretty cool.
Disclaimer: I just thought the product looked cool after my neighbor mentioned it. Nothing more.
My neighbor owns a consultancy. They’ve started shipping the Meeting Owl camera to their bigger clients to improve their meeting experience. It’s has a 360 degree camera, eight directional mics.
The camera stitches together a full view of the conference room up top, with the bottom 2/3 intelligently shifting the focus across multiple speakers. It will even put a whiteboard into the focus of the frame, if someone starts drawing. I thought it was pretty cool.
Disclaimer: I just thought the product looked cool after my neighbor mentioned it. Nothing more.
Yeah, agreed. Even places I've worked with wonderful internal IT still have problem users who can't figure videoconferencing, or have damaged/misconfigured their device in a way that prevents it.
It often comes down to the one person who actually knows the specific flavor of videoconferencing walking around and fixing everything for everyone, and everyone remote just mumbling and leaving the meeting.
As I work at an Apple shop, I wish Apple would come up with some decent videoconferencing application that would work with our Apple TVs and MacOS (no, Facetime does not count, neither does Zoom and it's glaring vulnerabilities)
It often comes down to the one person who actually knows the specific flavor of videoconferencing walking around and fixing everything for everyone, and everyone remote just mumbling and leaving the meeting.
As I work at an Apple shop, I wish Apple would come up with some decent videoconferencing application that would work with our Apple TVs and MacOS (no, Facetime does not count, neither does Zoom and it's glaring vulnerabilities)
Video conferencing is a problem that cannot be solved with software alone. I like to call it the 'last meter problem', as video conference issues are almost always caused by crappy consumer grade equipment.
Wireless routers are the biggest culprit. Convince people to use a wired connection and be amazed how much better video conferencing suddenly becomes.
Wireless routers are the biggest culprit. Convince people to use a wired connection and be amazed how much better video conferencing suddenly becomes.
It's probably a software problem at heart though, if you include firmware level. Since VGA-connectors went out of fashion I'm still to use a projector that Just Works without having to use it 10 times before figuring out all its quirks.
Not if you use it every day, like remote workers do. It is a standard mechanism for communication, and becomes reliable for the team.
I work remotely and have a minimum of 1 morning video meeting, often more in a day. Cannot agree with this comment. The only thing that's gotten reliable is when certain things fail we kind of know what it is from past experience. "Jim. Please plug in your headphones or mute yourself, this happens once a week. JIIIM. JIIIIIM. Can we kick Jim from the call? Who has permission to kick someone from a call here?"
To the conferencing software's credit, it's generally user error. But when you have 10 people in a call, and only 2 of them really understand or even care about their conferencing software setup, things break a lot. I have to explain the concept of changing your recording device more than once a week. Usually to the same people again and again.
To the conferencing software's credit, it's generally user error. But when you have 10 people in a call, and only 2 of them really understand or even care about their conferencing software setup, things break a lot. I have to explain the concept of changing your recording device more than once a week. Usually to the same people again and again.
Well, this is the same kind of people who just drop stupid jokes and stuff on the floor during meeting, don't care about what happens in the meeting and are generally poor coworkers.
The only problem with remote is that incompetence is much more visible.
The only problem with remote is that incompetence is much more visible.
All you need to do is standardize quality equipment so everyone on your team has a similar setup and make sure your internet connection is good.
It's a relatively simple problem to solve. The amount of conference call failures I've experienced working remotely for an all-remote team is substantially lower than when I was working in-office, despite I'm probably on 5x the number of conference calls now.
It's a relatively simple problem to solve. The amount of conference call failures I've experienced working remotely for an all-remote team is substantially lower than when I was working in-office, despite I'm probably on 5x the number of conference calls now.
This has not been my experience for years. The tech has matured greatly.
At least in our company, it works pretty much flawlessly. We rarely have technical issues, and if we do it's a wider outage from our conferencing provider.
Those sound like issues with your IT department, employer, and/or video conference provider rather than issues with working from home. Any company with remote employees should require a consistent, stable solution
What videoconferencing software are you using? We have this issue with some software, but Zoom has been excellent.
We just use Google Hangouts now. We rarely have meeetings with people outside our team but it always works fine.
Funny coincidence because just few days ago I was using zoom for the first time long time. The image/sound quality for sure was crappy and it was lagging/spotty multiple times. On the other hand there was like 7 participants. I also don't like how you have to install separate app to use it - and I heard the OS X version had vulnerability issues.
When I'm hosting a video call I prefer google hangouts. Works OK without installing apps.
When I'm hosting a video call I prefer google hangouts. Works OK without installing apps.
> "a 15 minute fact-to-face is better than a multi-day email chain".
It could be they really believe that. But it is often one of these real reasons:
1) They want some people to quit, but they don't want to lay them off explicitly to avoid looking bad. The idea being some employees won't relocate or enjoy driving to the office every day so they'll just leave.
2) They think people are lazy and don't work when they are at home. So they want them in the office to supervise them.
3) It makes them feel important walking around and seeing all their subordinates right there in one place. Sometimes it is just as simple as that.
It could be they really believe that. But it is often one of these real reasons:
1) They want some people to quit, but they don't want to lay them off explicitly to avoid looking bad. The idea being some employees won't relocate or enjoy driving to the office every day so they'll just leave.
2) They think people are lazy and don't work when they are at home. So they want them in the office to supervise them.
3) It makes them feel important walking around and seeing all their subordinates right there in one place. Sometimes it is just as simple as that.
>white noise over the speakers
W-what? I know some people swear that white noise makes them concentrate better, but forcing everyone to listen to white noise? Wtf. I'm not even sure that's legal from an occupational health & safety standpoint.
W-what? I know some people swear that white noise makes them concentrate better, but forcing everyone to listen to white noise? Wtf. I'm not even sure that's legal from an occupational health & safety standpoint.
It's the most common kneejerk reaction to employees that complain that the open office is too noisy - that loud conversations in the room or, hell, right over your shoulder are distracting you from focusing properly on your work.
Instead of investigating the social fixes to the problem (asking people to take phone calls in private rooms, having arguments/meetings in private rooms, enabling sidetone in noise-cancelling headphones so people don't scream into conference calls), the proposed answer is a Simple Little Widget(tm) they can buy that will fix everything: the white noise generator.
Except now you have a layer of white noise on top of all the loud conversations. And white noise doesn't mask human speech at all unless it's louder than the speech itself. So nothing is fixed.
Instead of investigating the social fixes to the problem (asking people to take phone calls in private rooms, having arguments/meetings in private rooms, enabling sidetone in noise-cancelling headphones so people don't scream into conference calls), the proposed answer is a Simple Little Widget(tm) they can buy that will fix everything: the white noise generator.
Except now you have a layer of white noise on top of all the loud conversations. And white noise doesn't mask human speech at all unless it's louder than the speech itself. So nothing is fixed.
It is common. You have likely experienced it without even realizing it. The point of the white noise is to reduce the distance voices carry in open environments so they are less distracting. Some places crank it pretty loud, though, to the point where it becomes an irritant.
NASA Enterprise Applications Competency Center (yes, that's a thing), Marshall Space Flight Center Bldg. 4601.
Offices for the important people, high cubicles for semi-important people, shorter cubicles for the peons. White noise generators to reduce the excess conversation interruptions. (It didn't help me, my cube was outside one of the few large, unallocated meeting rooms, which got used by everyone at MSFC. I got to listen to the meetings until I started working from home.) Oh, and the AC goes off at 3:00p.m. to save money. By 5:00, everyone still working is rather sweaty.
Offices for the important people, high cubicles for semi-important people, shorter cubicles for the peons. White noise generators to reduce the excess conversation interruptions. (It didn't help me, my cube was outside one of the few large, unallocated meeting rooms, which got used by everyone at MSFC. I got to listen to the meetings until I started working from home.) Oh, and the AC goes off at 3:00p.m. to save money. By 5:00, everyone still working is rather sweaty.
I had a very similar experience at a previous company. Leave, management does not value you or your inputs to the business. You will be much much happier at another company that embraces remote work instead of grudgingly tolerating it. It's easier than ever to find remote first companies.
Don't make the mistake of thinking management is mistaken and just needs to be educated. The big shake up, changing WFH and open office plans are all giant neon signs that say management is attempting to line their pockets off the misery of their employees.
Don't make the mistake of thinking management is mistaken and just needs to be educated. The big shake up, changing WFH and open office plans are all giant neon signs that say management is attempting to line their pockets off the misery of their employees.
Time to find a new job. I've worked fully remote my whole career, first by necessity and then by choice. There are lots of companies out there.
how do you find those companies?
* Search "Who's Hiring?" for remote - https://hnjobs.emilburzo.com/#%22remote%22
https://weworkremotely.com
https://remoteok.io/
and of course, word-of-mouth / loose social connections.
https://weworkremotely.com
https://remoteok.io/
and of course, word-of-mouth / loose social connections.
Adding on to this;
Linked-in recruiters. Say what you will about the constant cold emailing, if you set sane guidelines for them (only interested in 99-100% remote positions with comp above $x, using y or z technologies) there is an entire industry of people who will go and do a lot of the work for you. Just make a copy/pasta of your desires and reply to their copy/pasta with it; ask for job descriptions up front along with comp ranges, once they show something you like you can move forward with actually getting on the phone with them.
This shouldn't be your only lead generation tool during a job search, but it is a ruthlessly effective force multiplier.
Linked-in recruiters. Say what you will about the constant cold emailing, if you set sane guidelines for them (only interested in 99-100% remote positions with comp above $x, using y or z technologies) there is an entire industry of people who will go and do a lot of the work for you. Just make a copy/pasta of your desires and reply to their copy/pasta with it; ask for job descriptions up front along with comp ranges, once they show something you like you can move forward with actually getting on the phone with them.
This shouldn't be your only lead generation tool during a job search, but it is a ruthlessly effective force multiplier.
FYI: I would also add angel.co/jobs
AngelList has the largest amount of remote jobs right now out there
(Disclaimer: work at AngelList)
AngelList has the largest amount of remote jobs right now out there
(Disclaimer: work at AngelList)
What's a good strategy for hunting on AngelList? During a recent job search for remote roles, AngelList was one places I searched.
I found a less serious crowd compared to indeed or linked-in about hiring now. Previously when working full time I connected with a founder over a two year period and ended up working on a year long project.
What's the best way of connecting through AngelList? Are most people connecting over a period of time or do you find most are using it like a job board where they try to fill a position asap?
I found a less serious crowd compared to indeed or linked-in about hiring now. Previously when working full time I connected with a founder over a two year period and ended up working on a year long project.
What's the best way of connecting through AngelList? Are most people connecting over a period of time or do you find most are using it like a job board where they try to fill a position asap?
Networking with people who manage/hire for distributed teams is really helpful.
Also having a good reputations with other engineers who also work remotely, they'll get you in places you wouldn't have heard of otherwise.
Also having a good reputations with other engineers who also work remotely, they'll get you in places you wouldn't have heard of otherwise.
>white noise over the speakers
I'm fine with open spaces, but this would be the final straw for me
I'm fine with open spaces, but this would be the final straw for me
I know it seems crazy, but I've been in several offices that had this. It most cases it worked well and I never noticed it until it would occasionally quit working.
The offices where it's worked best were not open, though. They had thin doors/walls and a small speaker (also doubled for the fire alarm/etc) in the ceiling of each office. The white noise was unnoticeable until it was off or you really looked for it.
The main advantage was that you no longer heard every conversation on the floor. You'd still overhear bits of things in the adjacent rooms, but that's hard to avoid. When the white noise stopped working (happened every few months), you could hear every voice on the floor and every phone call...
All in all, it sounds like torture, but done well, it's actually a really nice way of damping distracting ambient conversations/etc.
The offices where it's worked best were not open, though. They had thin doors/walls and a small speaker (also doubled for the fire alarm/etc) in the ceiling of each office. The white noise was unnoticeable until it was off or you really looked for it.
The main advantage was that you no longer heard every conversation on the floor. You'd still overhear bits of things in the adjacent rooms, but that's hard to avoid. When the white noise stopped working (happened every few months), you could hear every voice on the floor and every phone call...
All in all, it sounds like torture, but done well, it's actually a really nice way of damping distracting ambient conversations/etc.
My partial hearing loss is such that I can understand conversations in an otherwise quiet room, but if someone turns on a fan, or intentionally plays white noise through overhead speakers, the conversation needs to be about twice as loud in order for me to understand it. Normal speaking volume isn't quite enough any more. That tiny bit of white noise overwhelms those frequencies that I can still hear to differentiate between similar speech sounds.
For me, blowing fans are unpleasant. Piped in white noise would be torture. Like gratuitously flashing strobe lights into the eyes of someone with night-blindness.
Maybe this could be used as the basis for ADA complaints against open offices? I can't understand why anyone would think that's a good idea, but then again, I don't understand open offices either.
(I also prefer 2-day email chains to face-to-face conversations, because I can both understand what I read much faster than I can understand listening to speech, and refer back to it later.)
For me, blowing fans are unpleasant. Piped in white noise would be torture. Like gratuitously flashing strobe lights into the eyes of someone with night-blindness.
Maybe this could be used as the basis for ADA complaints against open offices? I can't understand why anyone would think that's a good idea, but then again, I don't understand open offices either.
(I also prefer 2-day email chains to face-to-face conversations, because I can both understand what I read much faster than I can understand listening to speech, and refer back to it later.)
Our ventilation system seems like it's purposely loud enough that you can't hear someone clipping their nails. I
like it a lto. It's not white noise and easy to ignore.
I interviewed at a place with open offices and their ventilation system was so loud that it made it hard to hear myself think.
Everybody seemed to like me except the PM who was either a little Kruger Dunning or straight up Peter Principle. He wanted very much for me to know how smart he (thought he) was. Pessimism != smart (something I have to remind myself of regularly). In an interview I'm supposed to be convincing you how smart I am, not comparing dick sizes.
I have no doubts that particular brand of insecurity that looks an awful lot like ageism cost me that job. But dealing with a boss who is uncomfortable around anyone who has more experience than them, especially with that tin roof of an office space would have been torture. Bad fit all around.
But it's rare that I find a place whose business model is terribly engaging. The hazard of experience is that a lot of problems start to look similar, a lot of verticals sound more meaningful than they really are, and you won't devote the rest of your life to making up for how you got the money in the first place. If you even get the money (I've skipped step 1 and gone onto step 2), which statistically you will not.
Everybody seemed to like me except the PM who was either a little Kruger Dunning or straight up Peter Principle. He wanted very much for me to know how smart he (thought he) was. Pessimism != smart (something I have to remind myself of regularly). In an interview I'm supposed to be convincing you how smart I am, not comparing dick sizes.
I have no doubts that particular brand of insecurity that looks an awful lot like ageism cost me that job. But dealing with a boss who is uncomfortable around anyone who has more experience than them, especially with that tin roof of an office space would have been torture. Bad fit all around.
But it's rare that I find a place whose business model is terribly engaging. The hazard of experience is that a lot of problems start to look similar, a lot of verticals sound more meaningful than they really are, and you won't devote the rest of your life to making up for how you got the money in the first place. If you even get the money (I've skipped step 1 and gone onto step 2), which statistically you will not.
I like the white (or pink?) noise. I expected to hate it and found the idea ridiculous, but it helped focus in an open space office.
Yeah, that sounds like actual torture.
Especially when they turn it on and off randomly. So weird...
> a 15 minute fact-to-face is better than a multi-day email chain
What if it takes you 4 hours to come up with a good answer?
What if it takes you 4 hours to come up with a good answer?
I've had plenty of face-to-face conversations with my boss demanding an answer to an immediately problem that basically ended with me saying, "I need to look into this," repeatedly until the conversation ended and I could actually work on it.
Ugh. I have to go through this all the time. Boss asks for estimates for things I haven't looked into. I tell him I don't know. He pesters me for a guess, which I refuse. Round and round we go...
It's not going to put your life back together, but these earmuffs really changed my quality of life for the better when I was working in offices; particularly those offices where people say things like "it's just white noise".
https://amazon.com/dp/B00CPCHBCQ/
https://amazon.com/dp/B00CPCHBCQ/
> Contractors are packed like sardines, the noise is insane. We're also "Agile" now, so we spend a ton of time in useless meetings.
Contractors in general might be better off working in an office if they aren't in a gig which is well paying. As remote work takes off, a greater percentage of those people may not be getting paid enough to make working from home a viable option, yet they'll still have to fake it. Sure, you might have the problem of your car breaking down on your way to the office because you can't afford maintenance. But at home you can still run into computer issues or a spouse who makes your life difficult. I think we tend to imagine WFH scenarios as being well paid and cushy, but there's that other side as well. WFH could still put up barriers between people who can afford it and those who can't? OTOH, affording working from home is way cheaper than affording to move.
Contractors in general might be better off working in an office if they aren't in a gig which is well paying. As remote work takes off, a greater percentage of those people may not be getting paid enough to make working from home a viable option, yet they'll still have to fake it. Sure, you might have the problem of your car breaking down on your way to the office because you can't afford maintenance. But at home you can still run into computer issues or a spouse who makes your life difficult. I think we tend to imagine WFH scenarios as being well paid and cushy, but there's that other side as well. WFH could still put up barriers between people who can afford it and those who can't? OTOH, affording working from home is way cheaper than affording to move.
> We're also "Agile" now, so we spend a ton of time in useless meetings.
So true.
So true.
> "a 15 minute fact-to-face is better than a multi-day email chain"
This truism seems to never get old. It's carelessly tossed about but never proven. It's mostly just accepted as-is and hardly ever challenged:
Why is it better?
Do you really have be in the office every day, the whole day, just because a situation where a "15 minute face-to-face" is required might come up?
If so how often does this happen?
Why does this need arise?
If you have to clarify matters in personal conversations all the time doesn't that tell you that your company's processes and communication behaviour are lacking?
This truism seems to never get old. It's carelessly tossed about but never proven. It's mostly just accepted as-is and hardly ever challenged:
Why is it better?
Do you really have be in the office every day, the whole day, just because a situation where a "15 minute face-to-face" is required might come up?
If so how often does this happen?
Why does this need arise?
If you have to clarify matters in personal conversations all the time doesn't that tell you that your company's processes and communication behaviour are lacking?
There are times when a face to face sorts out problems like nothing else, but there are a lot of people who value face-to-face over all else who are using those situations in bad faith. They know some social engineering tricks and they use little meetings as a stopgap for big deficiencies in other areas.
Developers are smart. You might con them into a bad idea in that 15 minute meeting, but someday they'll figure out they've been had. Most won't take it lying down.
In my experience, and talking to my peers, engineers don't come straight at you when they feel slighted. Especially if you're a big talker. They may not even gloat when they feel that the odds have been evened up. Not all 'bad luck' in companies is just bad luck. Some of it is work stoppage or malicious compliance by someone with a grievance who doesn't enjoy confrontation.
Developers are smart. You might con them into a bad idea in that 15 minute meeting, but someday they'll figure out they've been had. Most won't take it lying down.
In my experience, and talking to my peers, engineers don't come straight at you when they feel slighted. Especially if you're a big talker. They may not even gloat when they feel that the odds have been evened up. Not all 'bad luck' in companies is just bad luck. Some of it is work stoppage or malicious compliance by someone with a grievance who doesn't enjoy confrontation.
> Why is it better?
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but being remote does not exclude having face to face meetings. There is (finally) easy and reliable technology that facilitates that very thing.
Highly diverse timezones can be a problem, but I've never know anybody working remotely to resist attending a relatively rare video conference call in order to quickly hash something out.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but being remote does not exclude having face to face meetings. There is (finally) easy and reliable technology that facilitates that very thing.
Highly diverse timezones can be a problem, but I've never know anybody working remotely to resist attending a relatively rare video conference call in order to quickly hash something out.
> The big boss said "a 15 minute fact-to-face is better than a multi-day email chain"
The big boss[0] would not like me. I follow up all conversations with an email. It eliminates the he said/he said conversations. I have an email that I can refer to as needed.
[0] Boss seems to be appropriate here as opposed to manager or something. Doesn't sound like they manage well.
The big boss[0] would not like me. I follow up all conversations with an email. It eliminates the he said/he said conversations. I have an email that I can refer to as needed.
[0] Boss seems to be appropriate here as opposed to manager or something. Doesn't sound like they manage well.
In so many ways, your direct management team influences heavily your quality of life at work.
If you're not tight with your manager (or whoever else is a strong dotted-line with power over your employment situation) then it's time to move (or at least make your discomfort known).
If you're not tight with your manager (or whoever else is a strong dotted-line with power over your employment situation) then it's time to move (or at least make your discomfort known).
>The big boss said "a 15 minute fact-to-face is better than a multi-day email chain".
If only we had some sort of technology that allowed us to be able to get ahem FaceTime ahem while remote.
What a wondrous world that could be!
If only we had some sort of technology that allowed us to be able to get ahem FaceTime ahem while remote.
What a wondrous world that could be!
I'm not sure about the 15 minute meetings that could have been emails, however, I will say that pair programming and XP are useful tools. I'm not sure how easy that is to replicate in a fully remote office.
Super easy remote. Hard in an office because people feel like they have to find a conference room. It’s weird people blab loudly all day about nothing but look at you weird if you are talking quietly to someone about actual work on a video chat.
It's easier in a fully remote office. I've paired with people across the ocean using tools like Zoom and committing continuously. When specialty software is required, I've also worked on a common AWS instance used as a desktop with the driver connecting to the instance to type.
To be honest, that doesn't sound easier to me.
I've never understood how people think pair programming is a good thing. Unless you're working with a junior and training them, it's ridiculous to have two people sharing a single keyboard and trying to code together.
> a 15 minute fact-to-face is better than a multi-day email chain
I agree with that. But 15 minutes phone or video call works just as well as a meeting in person.
Speaking from experience, I’ve been working from home for 8 years now.
I agree with that. But 15 minutes phone or video call works just as well as a meeting in person.
Speaking from experience, I’ve been working from home for 8 years now.
Why are open-plan offices being pushed so hard, relentlessly, everywhere, all the time - when nearly everybody hates working in them, and all evidence points to them being unproductive and harmful?
real estate is expensive?
What's this about white noise over the speakers? To sort of drown out other people's talking?
> We're also "Agile" now, so we spend a ton of time in useless meetings.
Haha about sums it up
Its not supposed to be that way though
Haha about sums it up
Its not supposed to be that way though
Elephant in the room: how many of these people would prefer it to having a private office? Strangely, this article/survey/infographic never mentions that option.
I'd prefer remote work, too, over sitting in an open floorplan office, but I'd much prefer an actual office to either one. The easy "why" is: despite all the drawbacks, a lot of us will do pretty much anything to get out of an open floorplan.
I'd prefer remote work, too, over sitting in an open floorplan office, but I'd much prefer an actual office to either one. The easy "why" is: despite all the drawbacks, a lot of us will do pretty much anything to get out of an open floorplan.
Many would for sure like a private office!
But, there are big advantages of remote work over private offices:
1. Lower cost to the company. Private offices are expensive to build and maintain.
2. Less commute time to the employee. Private offices still require commuting which impacts the environment and the employees personal time.
3. Job flexibility. Home workers have (or will have) more options for employment.
4. No relocation expenses. Relocating an employee costs a few thousand dollars, hiring them and letting them stay put is cheaper.
5. Maintain ties to community.
6. Distribute income geographically. Offices concentrate incomes into a small geographic area. The effect is compounded by global companies as the worlds revenue streams feed into a single area. Think about how inflation and costs are out of hand in Silicon Valley.
But, there are big advantages of remote work over private offices:
1. Lower cost to the company. Private offices are expensive to build and maintain.
2. Less commute time to the employee. Private offices still require commuting which impacts the environment and the employees personal time.
3. Job flexibility. Home workers have (or will have) more options for employment.
4. No relocation expenses. Relocating an employee costs a few thousand dollars, hiring them and letting them stay put is cheaper.
5. Maintain ties to community.
6. Distribute income geographically. Offices concentrate incomes into a small geographic area. The effect is compounded by global companies as the worlds revenue streams feed into a single area. Think about how inflation and costs are out of hand in Silicon Valley.
#6 might be the only real chance the US has of having less divisive politics. Moving the upper middle class and wealthy out of cities could change the game entirely by making the political extremes less concentrated geographically.
rural broadband would need to be improved for this to work in general.
I'm extremely hopeful for Starlink and similar services. <100ms ping rural internet would change the game in a lot of significant ways.
5G may help to at least some degree. Most people don't need Gigabit or anything like that. But it's nice to have a better alternative to satellite and (sometimes) hotspots which are your only options if you can't get broadband today.
There are disadvantages too, though:
- Accountants/lawyers are also expensive to employ, and remote workers that live in N different states will require accountants/lawyers that are experts in tax/employment laws of said N states.
- Requires much higher quality of team communication and coordination (of requirements, workload, work scope, expectations, etc), which can be hard to achieve.
- Accountants/lawyers are also expensive to employ, and remote workers that live in N different states will require accountants/lawyers that are experts in tax/employment laws of said N states.
- Requires much higher quality of team communication and coordination (of requirements, workload, work scope, expectations, etc), which can be hard to achieve.
> 1. Lower cost to the company. Private offices are expensive to build and maintain.
You're just pushing that cost to the employee. Are you paying them the amount saved, to furnish their own private offices? Or are you just penalizing the worker to save a buck?
> 3. Job flexibility. Home workers have (or will have) more options for employment.
I have not seen this. Most companies still don't offer remote work.
> 4. No relocation expenses. Relocating an employee costs a few thousand dollars, hiring them and letting them stay put is cheaper.
Again, maybe it's different now, but I've worked at several tech companies, and never been offered "relocation expenses".
> 5. Maintain ties to community.
What does this mean? The company? The worker? It seems like the company not employing local workers, and the worker not leaving their house, would be worse for community all around.
You're just pushing that cost to the employee. Are you paying them the amount saved, to furnish their own private offices? Or are you just penalizing the worker to save a buck?
> 3. Job flexibility. Home workers have (or will have) more options for employment.
I have not seen this. Most companies still don't offer remote work.
> 4. No relocation expenses. Relocating an employee costs a few thousand dollars, hiring them and letting them stay put is cheaper.
Again, maybe it's different now, but I've worked at several tech companies, and never been offered "relocation expenses".
> 5. Maintain ties to community.
What does this mean? The company? The worker? It seems like the company not employing local workers, and the worker not leaving their house, would be worse for community all around.
> What does this mean? The company? The worker? It seems like the company not employing local workers, and the worker not leaving their house, would be worse for community all around.
No, like an actual community. Like people who live near each other and don't necessarily share a corporate brand but take care of each other and share memories and build traditions. People naturally have communities based on place, so getting hired and forced to move for that job disrupts communities. It's better for the everyone's social and psychological well-being to stay put.
No, like an actual community. Like people who live near each other and don't necessarily share a corporate brand but take care of each other and share memories and build traditions. People naturally have communities based on place, so getting hired and forced to move for that job disrupts communities. It's better for the everyone's social and psychological well-being to stay put.
> 1. Lower cost -> You're just pushing that cost to the employee.
This one does seem to be a relatively common thing, at least in recent job posts I've seen. I can imagine it's not all that common if you take a step back, but quite a few companies have given what I consider very generous monthly stipends for use in personal offices or (co-)workspace expenses.
I agree with the rest.
This one does seem to be a relatively common thing, at least in recent job posts I've seen. I can imagine it's not all that common if you take a step back, but quite a few companies have given what I consider very generous monthly stipends for use in personal offices or (co-)workspace expenses.
I agree with the rest.
If you're actually working from home as opposed to a co-working space, home office expenses are usually easily offset by commuting expenses, lunches, even clothes that you incur by going into an office.
I mostly work from home and incremental work-related expenses are pretty small. Maybe I buy some computer gear I wouldn't have if I worked at home less. But the expenses are pretty much trivial relative to commuting.
I mostly work from home and incremental work-related expenses are pretty small. Maybe I buy some computer gear I wouldn't have if I worked at home less. But the expenses are pretty much trivial relative to commuting.
> 5. Maintain ties to community. What does this mean?
I have gotten to know my neighbours from nearby houses much better after starting to work remotely, because I spend much more time on the nearby park.
I have gotten to know my neighbours from nearby houses much better after starting to work remotely, because I spend much more time on the nearby park.
This just goes to show you how path dependent things are. I have been given an equipment budget for home office (not to mention the cost savings of no commute), and I have also had relocation expenses covered for multiple moves, including international.
Not me. Not most of my remote team. Most of them do have a private office, in their own home. The flexibility to work when you want, where you want, live where you want, visit family without needing to take vacation, etc. That all adds up to a great working life. One of our guys even spent the summer road tripping out of a custom camper van, and working the whole time from various parks.
The problem people have with remote work is when they don't change their lives to embrace its flexibility. When they try to emulate their office life, just in their home. Not only does that not help them reach their peak efficiency, it completely misses out on the opportunities of remote work.
The problem people have with remote work is when they don't change their lives to embrace its flexibility. When they try to emulate their office life, just in their home. Not only does that not help them reach their peak efficiency, it completely misses out on the opportunities of remote work.
How do you visit family without needing to take vacation?
I guess you're blurring the line between "full-time from a stable remote (home/coworking/etc.) office" and full on "digital nomad".
I work full-time remote and I think there's a huge difference between working from a stable office and wandering around working from a camper van or ducking out for personal travel while on the clock? It's hard to imagine that the latter type of employee would be ready to quickly respond to incidents, to sync with their team on short notice, etc.
I guess you're blurring the line between "full-time from a stable remote (home/coworking/etc.) office" and full on "digital nomad".
I work full-time remote and I think there's a huge difference between working from a stable office and wandering around working from a camper van or ducking out for personal travel while on the clock? It's hard to imagine that the latter type of employee would be ready to quickly respond to incidents, to sync with their team on short notice, etc.
Everyone I visit has an internet connection and a quiet place I can work. I spend much of the day working, and then walk out and spend time with family. And yes, I am blurring those lines. That was kind of my point - that working remote can be far more than just locking yourself to an office in your home and working the same as you would in an office.
Sure, if you take business days off to fly across the country, that could go badly. But I tend to travel on weekends. And my family understands that I might get a message and go hop onto work for an hour or two.
Most of the remote workers I know would turn down a job that expected 8 hour shifts of "butt-in-seat"-style working environments. The whole concept of "on the clock" is alien to how my teams work.
Sure, if you take business days off to fly across the country, that could go badly. But I tend to travel on weekends. And my family understands that I might get a message and go hop onto work for an hour or two.
Most of the remote workers I know would turn down a job that expected 8 hour shifts of "butt-in-seat"-style working environments. The whole concept of "on the clock" is alien to how my teams work.
Not the person you're replying to, but my family works too, so I can visit them and then we hang out on the evenings and weekends. Everyone is still working during the day.
Where I work, we have core hours (12-4 Eastern) that everyone is supposed to be online, but otherwise your schedule is up to you, so it allows considerable flexibility. In practice though, it's even more flexible. Part of remote work is that you're no longer glued to your desk. Your output is what matters, not where your butt is.
Where I work, we have core hours (12-4 Eastern) that everyone is supposed to be online, but otherwise your schedule is up to you, so it allows considerable flexibility. In practice though, it's even more flexible. Part of remote work is that you're no longer glued to your desk. Your output is what matters, not where your butt is.
I do it by working during the day and spending time with my family and friends at night. I typically "work from home" for a week around Thanksgiving and Christmas where "home" is my home town instead of my personal residence. The day is spent working, the evenings are spent with family and friends I wouldn't otherwise get to see. I can even use my lunch hour to take my nephew to the park. I'm no less available than I would be in the office or at my apartment.
Depends on the role. Some dev jobs don't have a support role where one has to "quickly respond to incidents". Or if they do, those incidents are rare. Regardless, you can always call the person if something urgent arises. I have found remote workers more likely to be available than "office" employees, because the latter are in more likely to be in meetings, or at lunch off site.
I had a private office with a door (clouded glass) for five years. It wasn't large but it was quiet, interruptions where rare. It was great and I preferred it to working from home (I've done four years working from a home office).
I don't know. For me commute is the most pointlessly wasted time a person could do. And I have played lineage.
So as long as your commute is 10 seconds home office beats real any time. At least until we get the whole teleportation thing nailed down.
So as long as your commute is 10 seconds home office beats real any time. At least until we get the whole teleportation thing nailed down.
I thought so too, but now, after WFH for 2+ years, I'd tolerate up to 2h commute a day total - assuming I'm not driving - for a private office at the workplace. Home is much more conductive to focused work than an open plan, but it comes with its own set of distractions.
I dislike commute in general, but as long as I can read a book or use a laptop over it, it can be even more productive time than spending it at home.
I dislike commute in general, but as long as I can read a book or use a laptop over it, it can be even more productive time than spending it at home.
Yes, I have a baby here. My ideal imaginary working condition changed from 'working from home' to 'working from a place that is a 10-20 minutes walk from home', and maybe with some colleagues. (And talking to people by typing gives me almost none of that human connection...)
It depends a lot. When I commuted from Redmond to Seattle, that was just a ridiculous amount of time to fill, and transportation options are limited (bus, car, or a really long bike ride). Now I work seven miles from the house, I ride an electric push scooter (Boosted Rev) or the bicycle. If I decide to whip back into ultra marathon shape, I can run to work. I'm not the type to just take the scooter out for a joy ride, so it gives me the opportunity every day to go for a ride along the river. Probably would not have even purchased the scooter if I had no commute, which means I'd still be driving the car three miles down the road for milk. But now I just take the solar-charged scooter if I need something from the store, et. al.
But that same commute in a car sucks ass, so your point stands.
But that same commute in a car sucks ass, so your point stands.
A benefit no one has mentioned, afternoon delights with the wife.
Or with Mr. Right
I like combining my commute with workout. Cycle, run or walk to work. Especially running to work in the morning gives me very nice energy for the day.
This is only an option for most people if there are locker/shower facilities at the office (most do not have this)
Every company I have worked for has had showers. Even the lousiest office I was working in back in the days had this kind of shower installed in the cleaning room. Did the trick.
The commute at my last job was around 2 minutes (walking), 5 if I stopped at Starbucks on the way. Not as low as 10 seconds, but still a great life.
I'm a ~20 minute walk away, and it's perfect - it's just far enough that I can decompress or get my mind in gear.
A while back I could go from my apartment's front door to my desk in my office in under 4 minutes if I hustled. That was pretty great. Had to move for family reasons and my commute was almost reaching 2 hours one-way on bad days. Couldn't do it anymore.
Not to discredit your opinion, we're all different. For me the commute is worth the benefit of human interactions, seeing my coworkers for lunch and I also go to the gym next to my office. If I could only have my own private office it'd be great...
What prevents you from going out on a lunch with someone or the gym while working remotely? You just have to live in a metro area, not suburbs. I generally have done that for the last 13 years.
Well, you answered the question for me "You just have to live in a metro area, not suburbs".
I'm not saying I couldn't do both of those things when working from home, merely that as an added bonus of working out of an office I end up doing those things more often.
I'm not saying I couldn't do both of those things when working from home, merely that as an added bonus of working out of an office I end up doing those things more often.
I had a private office for a couple of years. I've also worked in open plan landscapes as well as offices with 4-8 people.
This year, however, I've started working from home a lot. I like it much more than any of the above and generally get so much more done. I can relax and breathe in my own home. Make some tea and sit in the garden when I need to think. My focus, productivity and well being have been through the roof. It also helps that connecting from home saves me an hour's commute each way.
Some things can't be done effectively over VPN (mainly working on Xbox or PS4 specific bugs), but for most tasks it's great.
This year, however, I've started working from home a lot. I like it much more than any of the above and generally get so much more done. I can relax and breathe in my own home. Make some tea and sit in the garden when I need to think. My focus, productivity and well being have been through the roof. It also helps that connecting from home saves me an hour's commute each way.
Some things can't be done effectively over VPN (mainly working on Xbox or PS4 specific bugs), but for most tasks it's great.
Maybe I'm missing it, but these still sound like variations on the theme of "my office is lousy so working from home is relatively nicer".
An hour commute is just nuts. According to statistics I found, that's more than double the average. I've worked at places with a 5 minute commute, and they're great. I realize not everyone has infinite flexibility in where they live, but a workplace would have to be pretty amazing in every other way to make me spend an hour every day getting there.
I've worked at places that had a garden or park right outside, and it's terrific to go out there and think. Why don't all knowledge worker offices have this? When I look at what the big tech companies are building, it's certainly not that they can't afford a garden.
We used to know this. Do an image search for "university campus" (those other places where people sit around and think) and you'll see buildings in a sea of grass and trees. Yet do an image search for "company campus" and it's all steel and glass, with greenery only to fill in the small useless spaces between the parking lot and the building.
What good is a workplace for thinkers, if it doesn't include good places for thinking?
An hour commute is just nuts. According to statistics I found, that's more than double the average. I've worked at places with a 5 minute commute, and they're great. I realize not everyone has infinite flexibility in where they live, but a workplace would have to be pretty amazing in every other way to make me spend an hour every day getting there.
I've worked at places that had a garden or park right outside, and it's terrific to go out there and think. Why don't all knowledge worker offices have this? When I look at what the big tech companies are building, it's certainly not that they can't afford a garden.
We used to know this. Do an image search for "university campus" (those other places where people sit around and think) and you'll see buildings in a sea of grass and trees. Yet do an image search for "company campus" and it's all steel and glass, with greenery only to fill in the small useless spaces between the parking lot and the building.
What good is a workplace for thinkers, if it doesn't include good places for thinking?
You have a few valid points, but seem to be missing a few things, as well.
You say an hour is terrible and talk about an average. Average for whom and where? I live in Sweden, 30km outside of Gothenburg. It's a nice 15 minute walk through a wooded area and along a stream, then a 25 minute ride with the commuter train. On the train I read the latest articles while listening to music or play on the Switch. Once in Gothenburg it's a ten minute walk from the station to the office.
The office isn't terrible and has a lot of good things going for it, including a beautiful rooftop terrace. It's also quite social, filled with people who very passionately share my interests and with whom I play magic over lunch.
The main issue is that it's very busy and I often need peace and quiet. Even when I had my own office and could think uninterrupted it still wasn't as good as being home. It's the comfort of being home, with all my things and a beautiful house in a peaceful neighbourhood with a large garden at the edge of the forest. It would be unreasonable to expect an office in the busy downtown area to be able to compete with that. Also, when I need to think at home I often do household chores, and then they're done and i can spend my whole evening playing with my kids or spending time with my wife.
You say an hour is terrible and talk about an average. Average for whom and where? I live in Sweden, 30km outside of Gothenburg. It's a nice 15 minute walk through a wooded area and along a stream, then a 25 minute ride with the commuter train. On the train I read the latest articles while listening to music or play on the Switch. Once in Gothenburg it's a ten minute walk from the station to the office.
The office isn't terrible and has a lot of good things going for it, including a beautiful rooftop terrace. It's also quite social, filled with people who very passionately share my interests and with whom I play magic over lunch.
The main issue is that it's very busy and I often need peace and quiet. Even when I had my own office and could think uninterrupted it still wasn't as good as being home. It's the comfort of being home, with all my things and a beautiful house in a peaceful neighbourhood with a large garden at the edge of the forest. It would be unreasonable to expect an office in the busy downtown area to be able to compete with that. Also, when I need to think at home I often do household chores, and then they're done and i can spend my whole evening playing with my kids or spending time with my wife.
In Toronto and the surrounding communities, a typical commute is 15 minutes through traffic-choked local streets, 30 minutes on a train, and 15 minutes walking through tunnels downtown. Each part of mine is longer, although I am able to work on the train and count it against my hours. But that's absolutely normal for any tech worker in this city. It's insane. I come in and have a conversation or two over the several hours I'm here, which I could easily have over the phone, and then I begin the monumental journey home.
My home workspace is an airy attic office with a view of trees and houses. My downtown office is an open-plan wreck with exposed pipes and broken chairs. I am pretty certain which one is more conducive to productivity, let alone which one means a higher quality of life.
My home workspace is an airy attic office with a view of trees and houses. My downtown office is an open-plan wreck with exposed pipes and broken chairs. I am pretty certain which one is more conducive to productivity, let alone which one means a higher quality of life.
An hour commute is short in the Bay Area... A 35 minute drive will literally take two hours if you have to arrive at 10.
I have a private office, but we also work from home two days a week (often more than that as various things come up for people).
I come in to the office every day because my wife stays home with our 3 kids. Work from home when home is four people that want your attention doesn't work out very well. The few times I tried it, everyone just got frustrated that I was present but not available.
Maybe in a couple years when the kids are in school working from home will seem appealing. Honestly a ten minute commute and the entire office to myself twice a week isn't half bad.
I come in to the office every day because my wife stays home with our 3 kids. Work from home when home is four people that want your attention doesn't work out very well. The few times I tried it, everyone just got frustrated that I was present but not available.
Maybe in a couple years when the kids are in school working from home will seem appealing. Honestly a ten minute commute and the entire office to myself twice a week isn't half bad.
The difference for many people is more than a ten minute commute. I'd enjoy 20 minutes a day of quiet time, but in my situation it'd be an hour per day.
The trick to making family understand when you're on the clock is training them to treat the closed office door as though it was locked. If you come out of the room, your attention is free game at that point, but once that door is closed, you're not home. Takes awhile of effective communication and discipline, but once enforced makes remote work incredibly enjoyable, even with family at home.
The trick to making family understand when you're on the clock is training them to treat the closed office door as though it was locked. If you come out of the room, your attention is free game at that point, but once that door is closed, you're not home. Takes awhile of effective communication and discipline, but once enforced makes remote work incredibly enjoyable, even with family at home.
That makes it hard to come out of your office to accomplish a specific task, like grabbing coffee or visiting the restroom. Then your attention's not free game, and you still have to sneak around.
...until summer rolls around...
Having worked from home when only a partner OR 2 kids were present, I can only imagine the additional pressure faced by that situation.
But speaking as a single parent of school-aged kids, summer vacation is... a challenge.
Having worked from home when only a partner OR 2 kids were present, I can only imagine the additional pressure faced by that situation.
But speaking as a single parent of school-aged kids, summer vacation is... a challenge.
I work remote, and have for ~10 years. I'd take it over having a private office.
Of course, I've arranged my home space around this. I have an "office" at home, with a door and everything, where I can work. I still do a hefty amount of my working in coffee shops, though, which is somewhat akin to the open office experience. I also preferred remote working back when I first started it, and was just occupying my kitchen table or couch.
If I was in SF and thus able to access our office, I might well go in sometimes. But I suspect we'd top out at once a week, or when I really wanted to catch up on that hot nonprofit gossip. Commutes really are horrible things.
Of course, I've arranged my home space around this. I have an "office" at home, with a door and everything, where I can work. I still do a hefty amount of my working in coffee shops, though, which is somewhat akin to the open office experience. I also preferred remote working back when I first started it, and was just occupying my kitchen table or couch.
If I was in SF and thus able to access our office, I might well go in sometimes. But I suspect we'd top out at once a week, or when I really wanted to catch up on that hot nonprofit gossip. Commutes really are horrible things.
Floor plan and commute. I love remote work, but would be perfectly fine going to the office every day if I could afford to live less than a 10 minute walk away and had a private/small shared team office. Since neither of those is likely, remote work all the way.
I'd still rather work remotely. Commuting is one of the majors factors that makes me prefer to work from home
A private office is the worst of both worlds for me. I have to go to the office, be out of everything that is comfortable for me, to be closed in an office for most of my day? No thanks!
I don't know. I'd assume the order would be remote > private office > open office. I'm full time remote and there is no way I'd prefer a private office. That'd mean a commute, being away from my family and an inferior work environment.
Why would you prefer an office to home? The only situation I could imagine where I'd like to occasionally go into an private office would be if I were single and living alone, so I could see people occasionally.
Why would you prefer an office to home? The only situation I could imagine where I'd like to occasionally go into an private office would be if I were single and living alone, so I could see people occasionally.
There's a middle ground I like, which is office rooms that have 2 - 4 people.
I've worked in private offices, home office, open floor plans and small shared rooms. The worst are large open floor plans. My favorite have been offices with rooms for 2 - 4 people. That's the sweet spot, I think.
My favorite of all is mixing that with WFH. e.g., Office M/W/F and WFH Tues/Thurs.
I've worked in private offices, home office, open floor plans and small shared rooms. The worst are large open floor plans. My favorite have been offices with rooms for 2 - 4 people. That's the sweet spot, I think.
My favorite of all is mixing that with WFH. e.g., Office M/W/F and WFH Tues/Thurs.
I still vastly prefer the flexibility, cost-advantages, and productivity gains from remote work.
That being said, you have to invest in it. Have a separate room with a door. Spend some money on good ergonomics. Have a good, stable internet connection.
That being said, you have to invest in it. Have a separate room with a door. Spend some money on good ergonomics. Have a good, stable internet connection.
I'm pretty sure this describes exactly what went wrong for me. I worked in an open plan office for 6 years and then for a variety of reasons fled for a WFH arrangement for 2 years with the same company (under the guise of moving to a different city where an office didn't exist). I think in the end I liked being in the office much more than WFH but that what it really represented was a private workspace for the deep no-interuption work. However, I missed being near my co-workers so much that I eventually gave up on it. There's no doubt that I would have never left had I had a private office at the main office instead.
I had a private office for eight years, its not really meaningfully different from a cubicle (I've never worked in an open floor plan). I mean, I could close the door rather than putting on my headphones if noise was bothering me, I could have phone conferences in my office, and I could have private phonecalls without stepping outside. I also had more room for all my crap (ended up with a few old computers sitting around). But those improvements are very, very minor.
Consider the option of open office two days and WFH three other days. I’d find that better than commuting 3 hours round trip through traffic for 5 days.
I'm a very social person (so much so that I wouldn't prefer a private office if I worked in an office), but I still prefer remote work.
I created a semi-private space inside my last big office job, and it made a world of difference; colleagues would come to me and discuss things without having to consider whether other people on the team would misinterpret what they were saying.
I think I was probably very blessed to have such an understanding and flexible company to work with, because thinking back, that was pretty crazy.
I think I was probably very blessed to have such an understanding and flexible company to work with, because thinking back, that was pretty crazy.
I just made my own private office in my home. Easily done with cost savings of remote work.
I suspect you mean private office at HQ, or alike. To which I'd say... that'd be a hell of a lot better than tradition or open office layout. But you'd still lose most of the remote benefits for what I suspect is little gain.
I suspect you mean private office at HQ, or alike. To which I'd say... that'd be a hell of a lot better than tradition or open office layout. But you'd still lose most of the remote benefits for what I suspect is little gain.
I have worked remotely since February, and the startup also rents a shared office, which is mostly unoccupied. However, I have used it only when there is a meeting.
I rather not use my time to commute, and prefer working at home, some cafe, or even nearby park or restaurant terrace on sunny days.
I rather not use my time to commute, and prefer working at home, some cafe, or even nearby park or restaurant terrace on sunny days.
I think this is exactly it. Offices are prettier than ever and also less conducive to work than ever. I bet most people would choose an office with actual quiet workspaces -- even full-height cubicles! -- given that commutes were also reasonable.
[deleted]
I'd take private office and casual dress code over work from home. I live close to the city with a great commute but don't have space for a home office at home.
> casual dress code
Haven't seen this as an issue for awhile. I'm old enough that when I started programming I had to wear a tie to work (it wasn't a 'tech' company). Over time and different jobs it changed to golf shirts and khakis to now where if anyone wears more than shorts/jeans and a t-shirt we think they are going on an interview.
Haven't seen this as an issue for awhile. I'm old enough that when I started programming I had to wear a tie to work (it wasn't a 'tech' company). Over time and different jobs it changed to golf shirts and khakis to now where if anyone wears more than shorts/jeans and a t-shirt we think they are going on an interview.
Should clarify I'm not in tech. I dress business casual for 4/5 days. It takes a lot of time and effort to deal with selecting, matching, dry cleaning pants, ironing, etc and it's less comfortable than true casual. We don't meet clients so I don't see the issue, just conservatism.
Shared team office is my favorite setup. As much as I derided working remotely in another post, anything, ANYTHING, beats an open-office plan.
Absolutely. Private offices FTW!
> Why Everyone Loves Remote Work ... 91% of remote workers said working remotely is a good fit for them.
There's a large gap between "the small fraction of workers who are remote love working remotely" and "everyone loves working remotely". My wife works remotely, and likes it a lot. I've worked remotely, don't like it at all, and am back in an office.
(For me, I'm just happiest if I'm in the same place as my coworkers. The place I worked at remotely seemed to do everything right, but I still felt disconnected and lonely.)
There's a large gap between "the small fraction of workers who are remote love working remotely" and "everyone loves working remotely". My wife works remotely, and likes it a lot. I've worked remotely, don't like it at all, and am back in an office.
(For me, I'm just happiest if I'm in the same place as my coworkers. The place I worked at remotely seemed to do everything right, but I still felt disconnected and lonely.)
I love remote work too. But I strongly believe it's not for everyone. Not even 50% of the population. It would be a mistake to assume that it's easy for everyone. For me, going in the office means putting my headset on and doing my work till I need to leave, while having as few interactions as possible; so there are pretty much only perks on working from home. Most people crave engagement without even realizing it.
It also really depends on the job and the company. If remote working means never going off, I think it's a company culture problem rather than a problem of remote working itself. It might be true that since remote work is relatively new the boundaries and the culture might not be fully formed yet for many companies but I think everyone that works remotely should realize this and set expectations and boundaries accordingly.
It also really depends on the job and the company. If remote working means never going off, I think it's a company culture problem rather than a problem of remote working itself. It might be true that since remote work is relatively new the boundaries and the culture might not be fully formed yet for many companies but I think everyone that works remotely should realize this and set expectations and boundaries accordingly.
Totally agree. I love remote work but you have to be cut out for it. A lot of people aren’t.
I also may enjoy going to an office more if I actually had an office with a window where i could feel comfortable instead of staring at a gray cube wall and listening to my loud neighbors the whole day.
I also may enjoy going to an office more if I actually had an office with a window where i could feel comfortable instead of staring at a gray cube wall and listening to my loud neighbors the whole day.
These strange claims with no evidence. Working from home has to fight existing inertia, you couldn't WFH prior to the internet age, so no one did. Now it's possible and suddenly not everyone is cut out for it.
Not everyone is cut out for a 9 to 5, not everyone is a morning person, not everyone likes sitting in a chair all day. But they deal with it, because it's their job. The same will be 100% true for WFH, cut out for it or not, they'll adapt and make it work.
Not everyone is cut out for a 9 to 5, not everyone is a morning person, not everyone likes sitting in a chair all day. But they deal with it, because it's their job. The same will be 100% true for WFH, cut out for it or not, they'll adapt and make it work.
Definitely depends on the job and how you're utilized. I know people who work remotely 100% but have been at the same company, same position for years. It's hard to get promotions when upper management doesn't have a face for your name. I think if you're working remotely, you should either visit regularly or use your webcam often
It has been said enough already but worth repeating - if everyone or most of them is remote in an office then only remote works - not only for business but also for the worker (career growth wise).
I've been working remotely for my entire freelance career (~20 years). Very occasionally I'll go on site for certain local clients but that's not the norm.
There's huge wins for working remotely that everyone has already stated but the isolation factor is real, especially if you're single.
It might seem fun for a while (couple of months) to not wear pants at work and be able to put in 4 super productive hours of work before 10am if you wake up early and those are great things but I have to wonder if working remotely has long term mental health issues.
To get human interaction I force myself to leave the house (I walk a few times a day for exercise), have some friends and hobbies, run errands etc. but it's not the same as being out of the house for 8-10+ hours a day. I'd like to see a test done on single people who have been working remotely for 5+ years and seeing if they have higher levels of general anxiety than anyone working a job where they need to commute full time.
Even if you have a private office where you spend 95% of your time alone for ~8 hours, that's so much different (arguably better) than not leaving your house or apartment except for occasional short duration activities.
There's huge wins for working remotely that everyone has already stated but the isolation factor is real, especially if you're single.
It might seem fun for a while (couple of months) to not wear pants at work and be able to put in 4 super productive hours of work before 10am if you wake up early and those are great things but I have to wonder if working remotely has long term mental health issues.
To get human interaction I force myself to leave the house (I walk a few times a day for exercise), have some friends and hobbies, run errands etc. but it's not the same as being out of the house for 8-10+ hours a day. I'd like to see a test done on single people who have been working remotely for 5+ years and seeing if they have higher levels of general anxiety than anyone working a job where they need to commute full time.
Even if you have a private office where you spend 95% of your time alone for ~8 hours, that's so much different (arguably better) than not leaving your house or apartment except for occasional short duration activities.
I worked remotely as a consultant for 12 years, before going back to full-time in an office job. The main driving factor for going back was the lack of consistent social interaction. I started my remote career in San Francisco, where I had non-work activities that were very active in the local community for nearly a decade. I was going out regularly and had many close friends. Being in a walkable area with decent public transportation was perfect for ease of social interactions.
I later moved to a city in southern California, which was a more suburban environment. It wasn't walkable, you had to take a car everywhere and I didn't know anyone other than my partner when we first moved here. I now was in a situation where I had to re-establish my social connections without my previous activities (I had stopped being involved a few years before the move) and I also didn't have a work environment where I had also made many social connections over the years.
For the first 5+ years, this was fine, I was able to make a handful of new friends but many of them started moving because of cost of living and starting new families. At this point, I feel like it really started to become determinantal to my mental health. Honestly, it took a long time for me to even notice and admit it was affecting me, but eventually, it was pretty debilitating. This wasn't the only source, but it was a major factor to be sure.
That being said, after being back in the office for 2 years (they have pretty strong no work at home policy) I am ready to go back to remote work. I loved the benefits of remote work but I also now am much more aware of the importance of getting out and finding more social activities to balance this out. Also, I wouldn't go back as a consultant. Having a rotating cast of people you interact with made it much harder to form longer-term social bonds and also there was never dedicated time planned to meet in person at regular intervals, as a lot of remote-first companies do.
I love and really miss the flexibility of my schedule and if I can find an environment that supports stable interactions with people and I continue to re-engage in more social activities outside of work, I would jump back into remote work in a heartbeat.
I later moved to a city in southern California, which was a more suburban environment. It wasn't walkable, you had to take a car everywhere and I didn't know anyone other than my partner when we first moved here. I now was in a situation where I had to re-establish my social connections without my previous activities (I had stopped being involved a few years before the move) and I also didn't have a work environment where I had also made many social connections over the years.
For the first 5+ years, this was fine, I was able to make a handful of new friends but many of them started moving because of cost of living and starting new families. At this point, I feel like it really started to become determinantal to my mental health. Honestly, it took a long time for me to even notice and admit it was affecting me, but eventually, it was pretty debilitating. This wasn't the only source, but it was a major factor to be sure.
That being said, after being back in the office for 2 years (they have pretty strong no work at home policy) I am ready to go back to remote work. I loved the benefits of remote work but I also now am much more aware of the importance of getting out and finding more social activities to balance this out. Also, I wouldn't go back as a consultant. Having a rotating cast of people you interact with made it much harder to form longer-term social bonds and also there was never dedicated time planned to meet in person at regular intervals, as a lot of remote-first companies do.
I love and really miss the flexibility of my schedule and if I can find an environment that supports stable interactions with people and I continue to re-engage in more social activities outside of work, I would jump back into remote work in a heartbeat.
Possible solutions:
* Rent a co-working space
* Work out of coffee shops
* Make an effort to have a social life outside of your job.
* Rent a co-working space
* Work out of coffee shops
* Make an effort to have a social life outside of your job.
Remote work can be great, but it requires two key things. First is the ability to actually do useful work at home or other non-office location. This is not hard (I suspect some people working remotely do goof off, but I suspect those people are not super useful sitting in the office either).
Second, much harder, is the employer support. Direct manager of remote workers should know how to manage them (which is a rare skill) and be interested in doing it. It means parceling work in a larger, independent chunks, planning integration and communication as needed and spotting and resolving problems early enough with no/rare face to face contact (and face to face does help for this).
Fail either of those and working remotely is inviting failure. My 2c.
Second, much harder, is the employer support. Direct manager of remote workers should know how to manage them (which is a rare skill) and be interested in doing it. It means parceling work in a larger, independent chunks, planning integration and communication as needed and spotting and resolving problems early enough with no/rare face to face contact (and face to face does help for this).
Fail either of those and working remotely is inviting failure. My 2c.
>First is the ability to actually do useful work at home or other non-office location. This is not hard (I suspect some people working remotely do goof off, but I suspect those people are not super useful sitting in the office either)
You'd be wrong to suspect that. I am very productive at work but I just end up getting distracted at home. It is hard. It's a mentality thing. Additionally, when I'm at the office, I can talk to another person and just ask a question in 5 seconds that would take possibly hours to get a reply otherwise.
You'd be wrong to suspect that. I am very productive at work but I just end up getting distracted at home. It is hard. It's a mentality thing. Additionally, when I'm at the office, I can talk to another person and just ask a question in 5 seconds that would take possibly hours to get a reply otherwise.
Agreed, clarification needed. I meant "many/most", but made the sentence read as if I meant "everyone".
>(I suspect some people working remotely do goof off, but I suspect those people are not super useful sitting in the office either).
I've thought about this a lot, and for me, as a remote working, I believe I have about the same amount of productivity as in the office. But instead of water cooler talk and socialization, I find I'm able to take care of chores and keep my affairs in order so that my free time is more free. It makes me much happier to work remote, simply because when I socialize in the office and commute, I find I have no energy to keep my affairs in order.
I've thought about this a lot, and for me, as a remote working, I believe I have about the same amount of productivity as in the office. But instead of water cooler talk and socialization, I find I'm able to take care of chores and keep my affairs in order so that my free time is more free. It makes me much happier to work remote, simply because when I socialize in the office and commute, I find I have no energy to keep my affairs in order.
I like flexibility.
I don't want to be forced into a open floor plan office. But I also don't want to be full time remote, or forced into a singular private office.
I want to be able to go into an office when I feel like. Work out of a small office/conference room when it gets noisy. Sit in the open when it makes sense. Work from home when I need to be heads down.
I wish management would stop looking for the "productivity magic bullet" and just start offering options based on their employees. There is no one-size fits all solution here.
I don't want to be forced into a open floor plan office. But I also don't want to be full time remote, or forced into a singular private office.
I want to be able to go into an office when I feel like. Work out of a small office/conference room when it gets noisy. Sit in the open when it makes sense. Work from home when I need to be heads down.
I wish management would stop looking for the "productivity magic bullet" and just start offering options based on their employees. There is no one-size fits all solution here.
We do that, and to be fair, it's really positive. We have an open plan area, booths if you want quiet work, meeting rooms for, well, meetings - and then you can WFH whenever you want to.
It's a great approach, and I've enjoyed it for a good 3 years or so. It has the effect of damaging collaboration though - which for some roles is perfect (where I am, some roles you can be ignored for a good few days), but for ones like mine, it actually makes it hard. It also scratches out pretty much all sense of camaraderie, so it depends whether you want to feel connected with colleagues or not.
This kind of agile working is a double edged sword, the benefits give rise to different challenges, challenges I never thought I'd see as such previously.
That being said, working from home from 7:30-9, then heading to a coffee shop for an hour, then coming into the office for a bit, and then going home is freedom it'd be hard to give up.
It's a great approach, and I've enjoyed it for a good 3 years or so. It has the effect of damaging collaboration though - which for some roles is perfect (where I am, some roles you can be ignored for a good few days), but for ones like mine, it actually makes it hard. It also scratches out pretty much all sense of camaraderie, so it depends whether you want to feel connected with colleagues or not.
This kind of agile working is a double edged sword, the benefits give rise to different challenges, challenges I never thought I'd see as such previously.
That being said, working from home from 7:30-9, then heading to a coffee shop for an hour, then coming into the office for a bit, and then going home is freedom it'd be hard to give up.
Sounds like a dream. I went from private office to WFH (2 years), and now back on-site in a cube farm. My focus, productivity and happiness went from high to very high, then all time low. The cubes I sit in are a mixed environment with developers, reception, IT, etc. so the noise is almost unbearable. I tend to do my best work in complete silence (sometimes low music). Considering asking my boss for a private office and if not then seeking alternative employment.
I have been working remotely for 3-4 years, and I am currently job hunting.
I did not like working remotely honestly. As an extrovert, I did not like the isolation. However, the major drawback was not being able to steer any of the tech/political discussion because I was remote. I had poor managers/CTO that needed a good smack to the head because they were too scatterbrained, but I was not there to do it. Impossible over Slack.
Now that I am job hunting again, I am wary of remote jobs. Of the three roles I am pursuing now, only one is remote. I have a good feeling about this one since there already is a sizable part of the office that is remote.
I did not like working remotely honestly. As an extrovert, I did not like the isolation. However, the major drawback was not being able to steer any of the tech/political discussion because I was remote. I had poor managers/CTO that needed a good smack to the head because they were too scatterbrained, but I was not there to do it. Impossible over Slack.
Now that I am job hunting again, I am wary of remote jobs. Of the three roles I am pursuing now, only one is remote. I have a good feeling about this one since there already is a sizable part of the office that is remote.
The cost savings to employers is so extraordinary ($0 per square foot in office space, $0 on HVAC, electricity, $0 on corporate wifi and the building's ethernet, $0 on cleaning bills, $0 on toilet paper, ink, toner, desks, etc etc - the employer literally is happy to buy all of the above), and to employees a free 5-20% reduction of work hours due to the total loss of mandatory unpaid commute, plus all transportation costs, that I can't help but think something must be missing.
Any employer that could leverage remote workers could have the equivalent of a $1 trillion headquarters employing 1 billion people, tomorrow: at a cost of exactly $0.
So it stands to reason that there is SOMETHING keeping remote-only workplaces from eating their competitors for lunch. Something turns off that growth or ruins the economics.
What is that something?
Any employer that could leverage remote workers could have the equivalent of a $1 trillion headquarters employing 1 billion people, tomorrow: at a cost of exactly $0.
So it stands to reason that there is SOMETHING keeping remote-only workplaces from eating their competitors for lunch. Something turns off that growth or ruins the economics.
What is that something?
Here's my hot take:
In places that I've worked, WFH is usually reserved for divisions that are expected to be intrinsically-motivated high performers. Some companies can afford to be staffed with nothing but these types of people; other companies are not so lucky.
WFH only works if the people that are W-ingFH are motivated enough by their work to do it without being supervised.
And for some job roles in some organizations, the savings from not having to hold an office for a role, are more than offset by the lost productivity from having that role as a remote hire.
I'm not trying to say that all HN-ers are magical special large-brained unicorn employees; but I've worked at several places where certain key roles are staffed by people that couldn't figure out how to effectively work remotely if their lives depended on it.
In places that I've worked, WFH is usually reserved for divisions that are expected to be intrinsically-motivated high performers. Some companies can afford to be staffed with nothing but these types of people; other companies are not so lucky.
WFH only works if the people that are W-ingFH are motivated enough by their work to do it without being supervised.
And for some job roles in some organizations, the savings from not having to hold an office for a role, are more than offset by the lost productivity from having that role as a remote hire.
I'm not trying to say that all HN-ers are magical special large-brained unicorn employees; but I've worked at several places where certain key roles are staffed by people that couldn't figure out how to effectively work remotely if their lives depended on it.
> I've worked at several places where certain key roles are staffed by people that couldn't figure out how to effectively work remotely if their lives depended on it.
For me it was the opposite: I was highly productive, but the onsite managers did not know how to work effectively (if at all honestly)
For me it was the opposite: I was highly productive, but the onsite managers did not know how to work effectively (if at all honestly)
Plenty of new smaller software companies (startups especially) are totally remote and distributed. "9-5 in an office" culture has been deeply ingrained. The managers with the practice and skills with managing remote teams don't exist in enough number to fill a large company. The investors, the workers, and everybody in involved would have to learn new skills and ways to function.
The thing that ruins the growth and economics is that nobody knows how to do it yet and trying is either risky (you fail) or expensive to train/experiment until you figure it out.
The thing that ruins the growth and economics is that nobody knows how to do it yet and trying is either risky (you fail) or expensive to train/experiment until you figure it out.
It sounds like your team is mixed between on-site and remote. I've never seen that work well - you need to at minimum have a remote-first team or department for effective communication processes to be engrained. Otherwise, the co-located team ends up having a lot of watercooler conversations that exclude remote, and that throws off the balance.
I definitely agree with your analysis, which is why I mentioned I was only interested in this company because they already have a bigger remote presence. Still small percentage wise, but still better than being that one remote person. I specialize in a niche, so I had employers willing to let me work remote because they cannot find a local resource specializing in this niche. Ironically, this latest remote role has nothing to do with it.
Having millions of people regularly commuting into major cities is a disaster.
You create all this traffic, congestion on trains, sometimes people packed liked sardines for what? To sit in an office and work less than you would in the peace and quiet at home.
Much better if governments encouraged people to work from home, maybe have local hubs where people can go to if they can't work at home.
Cut down on the traffic and let people enjoy more of their lives.
When I don't WFH, I commute 4 hours a day, in and out of london - i'd rather spend that with my kids.
You create all this traffic, congestion on trains, sometimes people packed liked sardines for what? To sit in an office and work less than you would in the peace and quiet at home.
Much better if governments encouraged people to work from home, maybe have local hubs where people can go to if they can't work at home.
Cut down on the traffic and let people enjoy more of their lives.
When I don't WFH, I commute 4 hours a day, in and out of london - i'd rather spend that with my kids.
Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker is pushing a tax credit for employers who allow employees to work remotely as a strategy for reducing transportation congestion. I'm not sure I agree with the technique but it is an interesting idea to create financial incentives that encourage remote work.
https://www.wbur.org/bostonomix/2019/07/25/governor-baker-wo...
https://www.wbur.org/bostonomix/2019/07/25/governor-baker-wo...
That seems like it just subsidizes the cost of suburbanizing a city, though.
Same numbers and thoughts here, except swap London with NYC. The government needs to incentivize behavior that's good for everyone. Offering some incentive to businesses who allow, for instance, 1-2 days a week from home would be huge. The amount of congestion that would cut down alone would be massive, in theory removing 20% of commuters every day.
This piece has the feeling of being written by "every Friday is Hawaiian T-shirt day" after his employer went all remote and he needed a new task.
I have worked remotely more than not and it's not ideal. I suspect that if teleportation machines existed, then remote work wouldn't be a thing. Once you leave the office for the day (or leave the house to go to the office) then the logistical problems start (where do I find an affordable place to live.) Logistical problems for employees become logistical issues for employers. Working remotely is a trade-off and much of the time it works well enough.
I'm guessing that most early remote workers get relatively cushy setups with allowances for equipment and good salaries. As remote becomes more common, then I bet that gets squeezed. Employers shouldn't expect that the average person can make it work. If you don't have a dedicated quiet office area then it gets real difficult. Pets are a distraction. Other people in the home are a distraction (and it's not their fault, they have the right to "be at home".) If you have a significant other living at home full time and that person is in a grumpy mood, then good luck.
I feel that people who can make it work are those who either live in a cave with no other living creatures or they have the bread to get a big enough house and funds to create an operations center in a dedicated room. Everyone else should at least get a desk at a co-working space.
There's also a lot which gets lost in the communication of remote working. The communication you do have is much more mercenary. A group of special operators can carry out a mission together and even do so with mostly radio silence. But these people lose out of a lot of the more interesting elements of civilian life. Alice is an avatar and emoji's who can get stuff done in remote space. But you don't get to see her world class key short-cut skills from which you could open up a whole new way of thinking about your own operations. You don't see the real pressure your boss or manager is under and you get far less information about how things work because they won't be casually confiding in you at the water cooler. You don't need a NORAD display to show major events and weather conditions around the world to see what challenges your collaborators will be up against in getting things done the coming day.
Remote work kind of sucks. Where do I take the survey? ;)
I have worked remotely more than not and it's not ideal. I suspect that if teleportation machines existed, then remote work wouldn't be a thing. Once you leave the office for the day (or leave the house to go to the office) then the logistical problems start (where do I find an affordable place to live.) Logistical problems for employees become logistical issues for employers. Working remotely is a trade-off and much of the time it works well enough.
I'm guessing that most early remote workers get relatively cushy setups with allowances for equipment and good salaries. As remote becomes more common, then I bet that gets squeezed. Employers shouldn't expect that the average person can make it work. If you don't have a dedicated quiet office area then it gets real difficult. Pets are a distraction. Other people in the home are a distraction (and it's not their fault, they have the right to "be at home".) If you have a significant other living at home full time and that person is in a grumpy mood, then good luck.
I feel that people who can make it work are those who either live in a cave with no other living creatures or they have the bread to get a big enough house and funds to create an operations center in a dedicated room. Everyone else should at least get a desk at a co-working space.
There's also a lot which gets lost in the communication of remote working. The communication you do have is much more mercenary. A group of special operators can carry out a mission together and even do so with mostly radio silence. But these people lose out of a lot of the more interesting elements of civilian life. Alice is an avatar and emoji's who can get stuff done in remote space. But you don't get to see her world class key short-cut skills from which you could open up a whole new way of thinking about your own operations. You don't see the real pressure your boss or manager is under and you get far less information about how things work because they won't be casually confiding in you at the water cooler. You don't need a NORAD display to show major events and weather conditions around the world to see what challenges your collaborators will be up against in getting things done the coming day.
Remote work kind of sucks. Where do I take the survey? ;)
Wow, there are a ton of assumptions in this argument, and you seem to be projecting a lot of your personal beliefs and feeling as well. I don't have children, but my girlfriend and pets have never bothered me or been a distraction nearly to the extent of distractions that occur in an office. I definitely don't have a big house and lots of money to build an "operations center." I have a little room that I use as my office, homelab, and to home a few other hobbies. I would absolutely hate working in a co-working space, and my productivity would certainly go down. Of your examples of "lost communication," none of those are things I feel I would be missing out on and I've never had issues communicating with my coworkers remotely.
There's a difference between being distracted at home and being distracted at the office. If you're getting distracted at the office, you're still doing your job. It might even specifically be your job description to be distracted. If you get distracted all day at work and get nothing scheduled done, then you still did your job. If you get distracted half the day at home (still less than a full day of distractions at the office,) then you have a major problem which is entirely your fault.
> I have a little room that I use as my office, homelab, and to home a few other hobbies.
That you have a spare room is entirely my point. That's a luxury that not everyone has. If you don't have this, then you are at a disadvantage for being successful with remote work. A workplace is a sort of equalizer, though certainly not perfect. Rich or poor, all you have to do to work at McDonald's is show up. The workplace provides everything else. Sure, your employer may provide allowances for your home setup, but not all will do that and they certainly can't create a spare room in your house. The closest they can get is to pay for a co-working space.
> Of your examples of "lost communication," none of those are things I feel I would be missing out on and I've never had issues communicating with my coworkers remotely.
It's undisputable that you lose information with remote communication vs face to face communication. We communicate with body language and emotion which doesn't carry over well even in a video feed. People are more willing to share certain things in different modes of communication. Some people don't like to use messaging at all. Remote work is still "good enough" but you do lose information. Losing information doesn't necessarily create "issues communicating with my coworkers remotely" but it does have an adverse effect.
> I have a little room that I use as my office, homelab, and to home a few other hobbies.
That you have a spare room is entirely my point. That's a luxury that not everyone has. If you don't have this, then you are at a disadvantage for being successful with remote work. A workplace is a sort of equalizer, though certainly not perfect. Rich or poor, all you have to do to work at McDonald's is show up. The workplace provides everything else. Sure, your employer may provide allowances for your home setup, but not all will do that and they certainly can't create a spare room in your house. The closest they can get is to pay for a co-working space.
> Of your examples of "lost communication," none of those are things I feel I would be missing out on and I've never had issues communicating with my coworkers remotely.
It's undisputable that you lose information with remote communication vs face to face communication. We communicate with body language and emotion which doesn't carry over well even in a video feed. People are more willing to share certain things in different modes of communication. Some people don't like to use messaging at all. Remote work is still "good enough" but you do lose information. Losing information doesn't necessarily create "issues communicating with my coworkers remotely" but it does have an adverse effect.
I always find any work from home I do to be uncomfortable - my home isn't set up for work, and my house is full of distractions. And the boundaries disappear between the "home" and "work" - I can't just ignore emails if they pop up even if I'm done working, as there doesn't seem to be a discrete line anymore, I'm on call 24/7. I'm always worried about not answering the email, as I'm worried the boss will go "why isn't he working at 4 pm?".
When I log off, I do Command+Q on Slack and e-mail.
Nobody can reach me after work through work channels. I simulate leaving the office.
Nobody can reach me after work through work channels. I simulate leaving the office.
I really need to find myself in a position where I have no responsibilities besides just writing code.
And finding that place also means you will never be anything more than that. Thats what always strikes me about these complaints about having to do a little extra, or stuff thats not directly in your job description etc. And then complain about how your manager sucks because you are not valued or promoted fast enough.
Trust me, most engineers are not THAT good that their code writing contributions alone would justify high career leaps. Even the highly technical leaders need to do a lot of brain work thats not necessarily coding - like architecture design and whatnot, and most of that requires a lot of interaction, discussions and other soft skills.
Trust me, most engineers are not THAT good that their code writing contributions alone would justify high career leaps. Even the highly technical leaders need to do a lot of brain work thats not necessarily coding - like architecture design and whatnot, and most of that requires a lot of interaction, discussions and other soft skills.
I'm surprised to hear people can just turn their brains off at the end of the day - for me I'm always aware of my email and I'm monitoring it, just in case of an outage or some other emergency
> Once you leave the office for the day (or leave the house to go to the office) then the logistical problems start (where do I find an affordable place to live.)
Ironically I spend most of my time wondering about this WHILE living inside the big city and how my money would go so much further and I'd be far happier on quiet land somewhere than packed like sardines with tons of foot and car traffic constantly looking down 15 blocks for "an affordable place to live" where I have to give a days notice about moving in before it's scooped up by someone else..
Ironically I spend most of my time wondering about this WHILE living inside the big city and how my money would go so much further and I'd be far happier on quiet land somewhere than packed like sardines with tons of foot and car traffic constantly looking down 15 blocks for "an affordable place to live" where I have to give a days notice about moving in before it's scooped up by someone else..
Sour grapes on the part of anecdotally having a non-ideal living space != "remote work sucks"
okmokmz said:
> there are a ton of assumptions in this argument, and you seem to be projecting a lot of your personal beliefs and feeling as well
I agree and I wanted to walk through the differences in my life (as I'm 80% remote):
> If you don't have a dedicated quiet office area then it gets real difficult.
I agree, but it's not hard to create this environment at home. Buy a house with one more bedroom than you need and make it an office. That's what I've done.
> Pets are a distraction.
Our dog doesn't come into my office when I'm working.
> Other people in the home are a distraction (and it's not their fault, they have the right to "be at home".)
I've got three kids. My wife homeschools our children, so they are home all the time. They're all elementary and middle-school age. They are going to be kids and do what they do, even if I asked them not to. And yet this is almost never a distraction for me. Even on calls 90% of the time my audio is far cleaner than my co-workers who are in an open office.
This does require understanding and support from my wife, but she's an adult and we're on the same page. This is what we, together, want. When my office door is locked I'm "at work" and she and the kids don't bother me except for emergencies, just like she wouldn't call me at work if I was in the office except for emergencies. On the other hand, I get to "come home" for lunch every day.
> If you have a significant other living at home full time and that person is in a grumpy mood, then good luck.
As mentioned in the last point, when I'm in my office I'm "at work." Grumpy or not my wife isn't going to bother me. This isn't something special about remote. It's a normal part of maturing in a relationship. Being grumpy is not a good enough reason to call your spouse at work in the middle of their day. It's no different if I'm remote.
> I feel that people who can make it work are those who either live in a cave with no other living creatures or they have the bread to get a big enough house and funds to create an operations center in a dedicated room.
OK, snark aside, having a dedicated space does make everything easier. But first this isn't that expensive in the grand scheme of things if you are intentional about it. The cost of housing can vary quite a bit, but being remote gives you a lot more flexibility to find an affordable, comfortable home that has space for a dedicated office.
Second, even without a dedicated room for an office you can make it work. For several years I worked from my bedroom. I had a corner where I setup my "office" and during the work day the bedroom was my office. I will concede that there are many things about this that are not ideal, but it's not as black-and-white-bad-idea as you're making it out to be. It's not like the office is a magically ideal workplace without its own drawbacks. Personally I would much rather deal with the inconveniences of a less than ideal home office than those of the open plan office that is common nowadays. It's not even a comparison for me.
> The communication you do have is much more mercenary.
This just doesn't match my experience at all. Communication does require more effort in a remote setting, that's true. But in my experience being in the office is not a guarantee that healthy communication with happen. Putting in the effort to communicate intentionally (not just a byproduct of co-location) is valuable either way.
I will concede that face-to-face is the king for building relationships. However, this is not a daily need. Also I don't need work to provide a social setting. I've already got more than enough friends and family to "socialize" with outside of work. I do value good relationships with my coworkers and I do like having a chance to meet them in person but we don't need to be BFFs to have a good and productive working relationship.
> you don't get to see her world class key short-cut skills from which you could open up a whole new way of thinking about your own operations.
1. No but I can read Tim's blog post about the same subject.
2. I find it a bit rude to be watching other people's monitors as they work so I wouldn't see this anyways.
> You don't see the real pressure your boss or manager is under and you get far less information about how things work because they won't be casually confiding in you at the water cooler.
1. Intentional communication addresses some of this.
2. Being in the same location doesn't necessarily get you this. I'm thinking, for example, of the time half the engineering team got laid off on a Friday with no warning. This was a "collaborative open office" company that didn't offer remote.
Communication is always critical for a healthy and productive organization. Co-locating provides enough chatter built-in to obfuscate poor communication patterns. And yet poor communication remains one of the main causes of failed and over-budget software systems, even in co-located teams. Remote just makes it more obvious when teams don't know how to communicate.
> You don't need a NORAD display to show major events and weather conditions around the world to see what challenges your collaborators will be up against in getting things done the coming day.
What? I'm not even looking at the weather for the city I'm in. If my coworkers have a challenge we just talk about it.
> Remote work kind of sucks.
Work in general these days kind of sucks. In my opinion remote is the saving grace of our industry. I'm at the point I won't even consider a job unless it has either a private office or allows a minimum of 60% remote.
> there are a ton of assumptions in this argument, and you seem to be projecting a lot of your personal beliefs and feeling as well
I agree and I wanted to walk through the differences in my life (as I'm 80% remote):
> If you don't have a dedicated quiet office area then it gets real difficult.
I agree, but it's not hard to create this environment at home. Buy a house with one more bedroom than you need and make it an office. That's what I've done.
> Pets are a distraction.
Our dog doesn't come into my office when I'm working.
> Other people in the home are a distraction (and it's not their fault, they have the right to "be at home".)
I've got three kids. My wife homeschools our children, so they are home all the time. They're all elementary and middle-school age. They are going to be kids and do what they do, even if I asked them not to. And yet this is almost never a distraction for me. Even on calls 90% of the time my audio is far cleaner than my co-workers who are in an open office.
This does require understanding and support from my wife, but she's an adult and we're on the same page. This is what we, together, want. When my office door is locked I'm "at work" and she and the kids don't bother me except for emergencies, just like she wouldn't call me at work if I was in the office except for emergencies. On the other hand, I get to "come home" for lunch every day.
> If you have a significant other living at home full time and that person is in a grumpy mood, then good luck.
As mentioned in the last point, when I'm in my office I'm "at work." Grumpy or not my wife isn't going to bother me. This isn't something special about remote. It's a normal part of maturing in a relationship. Being grumpy is not a good enough reason to call your spouse at work in the middle of their day. It's no different if I'm remote.
> I feel that people who can make it work are those who either live in a cave with no other living creatures or they have the bread to get a big enough house and funds to create an operations center in a dedicated room.
OK, snark aside, having a dedicated space does make everything easier. But first this isn't that expensive in the grand scheme of things if you are intentional about it. The cost of housing can vary quite a bit, but being remote gives you a lot more flexibility to find an affordable, comfortable home that has space for a dedicated office.
Second, even without a dedicated room for an office you can make it work. For several years I worked from my bedroom. I had a corner where I setup my "office" and during the work day the bedroom was my office. I will concede that there are many things about this that are not ideal, but it's not as black-and-white-bad-idea as you're making it out to be. It's not like the office is a magically ideal workplace without its own drawbacks. Personally I would much rather deal with the inconveniences of a less than ideal home office than those of the open plan office that is common nowadays. It's not even a comparison for me.
> The communication you do have is much more mercenary.
This just doesn't match my experience at all. Communication does require more effort in a remote setting, that's true. But in my experience being in the office is not a guarantee that healthy communication with happen. Putting in the effort to communicate intentionally (not just a byproduct of co-location) is valuable either way.
I will concede that face-to-face is the king for building relationships. However, this is not a daily need. Also I don't need work to provide a social setting. I've already got more than enough friends and family to "socialize" with outside of work. I do value good relationships with my coworkers and I do like having a chance to meet them in person but we don't need to be BFFs to have a good and productive working relationship.
> you don't get to see her world class key short-cut skills from which you could open up a whole new way of thinking about your own operations.
1. No but I can read Tim's blog post about the same subject.
2. I find it a bit rude to be watching other people's monitors as they work so I wouldn't see this anyways.
> You don't see the real pressure your boss or manager is under and you get far less information about how things work because they won't be casually confiding in you at the water cooler.
1. Intentional communication addresses some of this.
2. Being in the same location doesn't necessarily get you this. I'm thinking, for example, of the time half the engineering team got laid off on a Friday with no warning. This was a "collaborative open office" company that didn't offer remote.
Communication is always critical for a healthy and productive organization. Co-locating provides enough chatter built-in to obfuscate poor communication patterns. And yet poor communication remains one of the main causes of failed and over-budget software systems, even in co-located teams. Remote just makes it more obvious when teams don't know how to communicate.
> You don't need a NORAD display to show major events and weather conditions around the world to see what challenges your collaborators will be up against in getting things done the coming day.
What? I'm not even looking at the weather for the city I'm in. If my coworkers have a challenge we just talk about it.
> Remote work kind of sucks.
Work in general these days kind of sucks. In my opinion remote is the saving grace of our industry. I'm at the point I won't even consider a job unless it has either a private office or allows a minimum of 60% remote.
Thanks for taking the time for this reply.
I was partly just taking the part of Devil's Advocate to at least represent the cons of remote working amid all the sunshine and rainbows of this post and the replies.
A key element of my comment (maybe not well communicated) was that remote work also includes people who are struggling at the living wage mark. When you create a thread on HN, the assumption is that everyone is making significantly greater than the regional median household income. People who are struggling may be living in a location with a single bedroom or studio and can't afford anything bigger. They may be living in a home in which the spouse is abusive or doesn't respect the need for a quiet place to work. If you're in the position of "any emergency is going to drown me" then there's no easy recovery from equipment issues.
As I mentioned before, if you're working for McDonald's, all you have to do is show up. Even showing up is a big obstacle for many (lack of transportation) and if the employer required much more than that, then they might not find any workers.
> 1. No but I can read Tim's blog post about the same subject.
The point of what you are replying to is that you learn things from working with others that you won't learn by following their online activity. I can't believe this would even be a point to argue. I learn things by being around co-workers in person. I would feel sad for anyone who wouldn't. I'm regularly floored by what co-workers can show me and I do the same for them. The "WTF, why didn't I know about this before?" moments from them casually showing me something which was never a big to them.
The same goes for speaking with the boss, management, or anyone else outside the people you are working right next to. The information flow is massive compared to the peephole you get with remote communication. People "say" things they don't even realize they're saying. They don't have to say ANYTHING and they're still telling you a lot. Maybe I just pick up this more than other people do?
Here's an idea. Try recreating the experience of "let's go out for a beer" with a co-worker online. You can't do it. You both have to be experiencing the same environment, seeing body language, reading emotion and all that is before you even get to the point of actually speaking.
Take all this away and we might as well be robots communicating because by removing these things you are removing what makes us human.
That said, remote communication still works. I did say that in my comment.
I was partly just taking the part of Devil's Advocate to at least represent the cons of remote working amid all the sunshine and rainbows of this post and the replies.
A key element of my comment (maybe not well communicated) was that remote work also includes people who are struggling at the living wage mark. When you create a thread on HN, the assumption is that everyone is making significantly greater than the regional median household income. People who are struggling may be living in a location with a single bedroom or studio and can't afford anything bigger. They may be living in a home in which the spouse is abusive or doesn't respect the need for a quiet place to work. If you're in the position of "any emergency is going to drown me" then there's no easy recovery from equipment issues.
As I mentioned before, if you're working for McDonald's, all you have to do is show up. Even showing up is a big obstacle for many (lack of transportation) and if the employer required much more than that, then they might not find any workers.
> 1. No but I can read Tim's blog post about the same subject.
The point of what you are replying to is that you learn things from working with others that you won't learn by following their online activity. I can't believe this would even be a point to argue. I learn things by being around co-workers in person. I would feel sad for anyone who wouldn't. I'm regularly floored by what co-workers can show me and I do the same for them. The "WTF, why didn't I know about this before?" moments from them casually showing me something which was never a big to them.
The same goes for speaking with the boss, management, or anyone else outside the people you are working right next to. The information flow is massive compared to the peephole you get with remote communication. People "say" things they don't even realize they're saying. They don't have to say ANYTHING and they're still telling you a lot. Maybe I just pick up this more than other people do?
Here's an idea. Try recreating the experience of "let's go out for a beer" with a co-worker online. You can't do it. You both have to be experiencing the same environment, seeing body language, reading emotion and all that is before you even get to the point of actually speaking.
Take all this away and we might as well be robots communicating because by removing these things you are removing what makes us human.
That said, remote communication still works. I did say that in my comment.
I think it's especially popular in the US where they've always had long commutes. I work remotely from time to time, and it works fine when I have a specific task to focus on, but I've never managed to replace the spontaneous talks or meetings by a whiteboard with any meeting tool (be it Slack, Hangouts, Skype, Webex, you name it).
I definitely agree with the part about long commutes. Between the drive to work and having to put on work clothes, brush my hair, etc, it's about 1.5-2 hours out of my day that is completely wasted when I can't work from home. I'm more productive at home as well, since I can take breaks as needed instead of having to look busy for 8 hours and getting bored after 4 hours at the office.
Came here to say something similar. Love the office but downtown cores where tech companies usually are are getting particularly difficult and unpleasant to deal with. And a lot of people dont pike the office layouts common now as well. Remote preference seems to be a combo of enjoyment of it and the worsening of the office situation
What I hate is being lonely. They're shutting down our offices for cost savings. As such I've basically been straight work from home.
Working from home reminds me of the isolation of being homeschooled. I love having the flexibility to work remote on certain days, for example when I need to bang out a bunch of code. But, having a place to interact with people is invaluable for me.
I imagine countless others feel the same way, hence why companies still see offices as having value. So, for all the remote work evangelists on here: what do you do to counteract isolation?
Working from home reminds me of the isolation of being homeschooled. I love having the flexibility to work remote on certain days, for example when I need to bang out a bunch of code. But, having a place to interact with people is invaluable for me.
I imagine countless others feel the same way, hence why companies still see offices as having value. So, for all the remote work evangelists on here: what do you do to counteract isolation?
As someone who has worked from home for over 2 years now, I have found the best way to counteract loneliness for me is to have weekly scheduled time with friends to play board games, hop on and play games at night with friends, and to sometimes go sit in a crowded coffee shop. I have also been remote calling some other friends at work to just shoot the shit, and work on our separate things while in a call. Between those things, it usually sates my need for social interactions. As a side thought, I have noticed that creating a dedicated work space as apposed to working from the sofa or any other place in the house has helped reduce the amount of loneliness or isolation I feel for some reason.
That being said, sometimes I do still find myself feeling a tad lonely at times and is something I still am figuring out the best ways to manage. I still believe that the benefits of remote work still vastly outweigh a typical office job and it would be very hard for me to give up my current situation.
That being said, sometimes I do still find myself feeling a tad lonely at times and is something I still am figuring out the best ways to manage. I still believe that the benefits of remote work still vastly outweigh a typical office job and it would be very hard for me to give up my current situation.
Personally, I've found a good coworking space helps with this. I don't work directly with anyone there, but having people around from similar disciplines that you can chat with/have lunch with has been so valuable for me.
Couldn't agree more. Flexibility is amazing, but loneliness creeps in all too often.
Try working outside of your home, perhaps in a co-working space or coffee shop.
How anyone can do productive work developing software in a coffee shop, presumably on a laptop, is completely beyond me.
I have ADHD. I used to be the same as you. Now that it's treated I can write code in a busy cafe. I too didn't understand how people could be productive in a cafe. But apparently all our minds work differently (that's totally non-sarcastic, I'm always amazed at how hard empathy is)!
How anyone can do productive work developing software in an open office is beyond me
I've seen there are plenty of comments that disagree with that statement. I agree, though.
I love working remotely. I've been working remotely for a bit less than a year now. I had some few months break at the beginning of this year where I was working on my own product, but I was still at home.
Why do I love it? Well, my wife is staying at home with me and we get to spend so much more time together. I think over that period of time we've got closer together. We can chat during the day, eat meals together and stuff like that, it's super cool.
More reasons? If I can work asynchronously (not being dependent on the rest of my team) I can schedule my day according to my needs. Need a one hour walk outside? Well, why not:) Even though it's not my company I'm working for I kind feel like I am the boss. I don't have people staring at my screen, I don't have people talking next to me, I can go to a shop and prepare a nice breakfast if I want to. It's really good.
I do agree that it gets a bit boring without a chitchat with colleagues. But I try to compensate for it by meeting with my friends and family regularly.
I love working remotely. I've been working remotely for a bit less than a year now. I had some few months break at the beginning of this year where I was working on my own product, but I was still at home.
Why do I love it? Well, my wife is staying at home with me and we get to spend so much more time together. I think over that period of time we've got closer together. We can chat during the day, eat meals together and stuff like that, it's super cool.
More reasons? If I can work asynchronously (not being dependent on the rest of my team) I can schedule my day according to my needs. Need a one hour walk outside? Well, why not:) Even though it's not my company I'm working for I kind feel like I am the boss. I don't have people staring at my screen, I don't have people talking next to me, I can go to a shop and prepare a nice breakfast if I want to. It's really good.
I do agree that it gets a bit boring without a chitchat with colleagues. But I try to compensate for it by meeting with my friends and family regularly.
[Disregarding the click-bait title and & related bits in the article...]
Given the Right Set of Parameters™ (omitting for brevity's sake; much has been written about them), Remote Work can be the "panacea", and a path towards a more serene approach to work and life. FWIW, I'm a long-time remote worker myself, and won't nonchalantly say "would recommend it to a friend" without having a serious understanding of the said friend's propensity for it—lest I would lead them down a steep slippery slope.
The boring truth any reasonably experienced remote worker knows is that to be able to sustainably do it in the long run—which is the critical bit—requires a certain "psychological profile": ability to tolerate spells of solitude, having the discipline to do the Right Thing when no one is watching, and so on.
So, saying "everyone loves it" is reckless. Not least because the article's sample size is a paltry 486 people.
Given the Right Set of Parameters™ (omitting for brevity's sake; much has been written about them), Remote Work can be the "panacea", and a path towards a more serene approach to work and life. FWIW, I'm a long-time remote worker myself, and won't nonchalantly say "would recommend it to a friend" without having a serious understanding of the said friend's propensity for it—lest I would lead them down a steep slippery slope.
The boring truth any reasonably experienced remote worker knows is that to be able to sustainably do it in the long run—which is the critical bit—requires a certain "psychological profile": ability to tolerate spells of solitude, having the discipline to do the Right Thing when no one is watching, and so on.
So, saying "everyone loves it" is reckless. Not least because the article's sample size is a paltry 486 people.
I don't think remote work is that good. It has its benefits like having more time, flexible schedule and work from where you want but this comes at a price: you work alone every day, your colleagues are in different timezones, you need to set hard rules on your work schedule and socializing is a must. Think of all the things you get for granted working from an office: colleagues, events, pair programming, face to face meetings, small talk breaks. Again I do agree the remote work has its benefits but everything comes at a cost.
For me it's:
Office with my own office > Working from home > My own cube > the middle of a busy construction site > open office
I'm currently in a cube, which is miles better than open office. I say I like working from home, only because I don't foresee getting my own office anytime soon.
I'm currently in a cube, which is miles better than open office. I say I like working from home, only because I don't foresee getting my own office anytime soon.
I actually feel strangely productive working in busy cafes. Even though there's a lot of noise and people moving around I'm able to tune everything out. However in an open office because I know the people moving around and the noise has the potential to involve me I have a very hard time concentrating.
Couldn't agree more. For me the cafes aren't feasible due to confidentiality, but not knowing or caring about the people making the noise is a lot better.
I am astounded that the only mention of pants is a tweet regarding "working in lululemon pants" as being a perk. I thought one of the chief benefits of remote work was that pants were entirely optional!
For me the main perk of remote work is that the status of pants is by design entirely unknowable.
In practice, this also covers data points such as status or style of shirt, whether I’ve showered that day, where on the planet I happen to be, whether I’m actually in a pool, how far from civilization I am, or whether I’ve injured my leg and didn’t tell anyone because it’s not a big deal and I don’t mind typing while my leg hurts, or whether I have loud death metal playing at top volume.
I’m content with all of those things remaining a mystery for my coworkers because none are correlated with quality and timeliness of my work.
In practice, this also covers data points such as status or style of shirt, whether I’ve showered that day, where on the planet I happen to be, whether I’m actually in a pool, how far from civilization I am, or whether I’ve injured my leg and didn’t tell anyone because it’s not a big deal and I don’t mind typing while my leg hurts, or whether I have loud death metal playing at top volume.
I’m content with all of those things remaining a mystery for my coworkers because none are correlated with quality and timeliness of my work.
Personally I find that getting myself (at least close to) office-presentable even when I'm working from home and nobody's going to see me is helpful to maintaining the "now I'm working" frame of mind -- avoiding distraction, that is. But that may be just me.
Speak for yourself ;-) Most times I wear good clothes (and sometimes even shoes, when at home).
Working remote for 4 out of 5 days is the sweet spot for me. It’s good to come into the office and do a brainstorming and sprint planning session over a physical whiteboard once a week, but also to just do relationship maintenance with colleagues and talk to other people since loneliness can be a real problem over time when working remote all the time.
To those complaining about the commute. You’re complaining about city and transportation architecture, not workplace design.
We are social creatures. I don’t understand the complete lack of addressing the issue: 8 hours a day I’m cut off from people except virtually. Prisons that force virtual visitation are criticized for this exact issue.
We are social creatures. I don’t understand the complete lack of addressing the issue: 8 hours a day I’m cut off from people except virtually. Prisons that force virtual visitation are criticized for this exact issue.
You're really comparing prisons that only allow virtual communication to working remotely? Lets brainstorm a list of ways that you can see people while working from home that you couldn't from prison.
1. If you have any family members that will be home throughout the day you can see them
2. You can step outside and talk to your neighbors
3. You can take a 10 minute break to walk to a local store/park
4. You can go out to lunch at restaurant
5. You can invite anyone to come over at any time
6. Before and after work, you can go anywhere you want, do anything you want, and see anyone you want as well as on weekends
So it seems it's not quite like a prison... not to mention you can also call, text, video chat, IM, or communicate virtually at any time rather than only during certain periods of time with certain people as told by the prison.
Also, if you're working in an office, how much time are you actually spending socializing and interacting with coworkers vs getting your work done?
I understand that some people have a need to interact with people daily, but many of us prefer the quiet/isolation while we work, and comparing remote work to prison is ridiculous
1. If you have any family members that will be home throughout the day you can see them
2. You can step outside and talk to your neighbors
3. You can take a 10 minute break to walk to a local store/park
4. You can go out to lunch at restaurant
5. You can invite anyone to come over at any time
6. Before and after work, you can go anywhere you want, do anything you want, and see anyone you want as well as on weekends
So it seems it's not quite like a prison... not to mention you can also call, text, video chat, IM, or communicate virtually at any time rather than only during certain periods of time with certain people as told by the prison.
Also, if you're working in an office, how much time are you actually spending socializing and interacting with coworkers vs getting your work done?
I understand that some people have a need to interact with people daily, but many of us prefer the quiet/isolation while we work, and comparing remote work to prison is ridiculous
Many people need more than just their immediate family. Neighbors are a terrible source of social interaction. Where I am, our neighbors refuse to interact with us except to complain about something like noise or street parking.
Been to a park during the day? It's nanny's and mom's. How many are going to be like, "yeah, random dude approaching me and trying to chat me up. Great!" Most are sketched out unless you got a kid with you. I've been in this situation and they look at you very weirdly. (How desperate must you be to go to a park to chat with moms?)
Lunch requires friends who also can do such a thing. I go out to lunch with coworkers very often.
You can invite anyone who isn't working or can work remotely with you. Sure, I did do this for a bit. I'd drive 30 minutes away to see my friend and we'd work remotely together about once a week. But then I was actually going further than my commute to work! Hah!
And so can anyone with a non remote job.
You can have the quiet and isolation while not working remotely. It's just that it's not valued in many workplaces anymore.
BTW, I don't get how people think that working remotely means isolation and quiet?? When I worked remotely, there were plenty of days where I had to take tons of long Skype calls, had to chat endlessly with people over IM, and then send more emails on top of it. I barely got any "work" done and didn't get to focus because everything required my attention.
Isolation and quiet is more than an environment. It includes details around a culture around workplace communication styles and how much you prioritize immediate responses.
Been to a park during the day? It's nanny's and mom's. How many are going to be like, "yeah, random dude approaching me and trying to chat me up. Great!" Most are sketched out unless you got a kid with you. I've been in this situation and they look at you very weirdly. (How desperate must you be to go to a park to chat with moms?)
Lunch requires friends who also can do such a thing. I go out to lunch with coworkers very often.
You can invite anyone who isn't working or can work remotely with you. Sure, I did do this for a bit. I'd drive 30 minutes away to see my friend and we'd work remotely together about once a week. But then I was actually going further than my commute to work! Hah!
And so can anyone with a non remote job.
You can have the quiet and isolation while not working remotely. It's just that it's not valued in many workplaces anymore.
BTW, I don't get how people think that working remotely means isolation and quiet?? When I worked remotely, there were plenty of days where I had to take tons of long Skype calls, had to chat endlessly with people over IM, and then send more emails on top of it. I barely got any "work" done and didn't get to focus because everything required my attention.
Isolation and quiet is more than an environment. It includes details around a culture around workplace communication styles and how much you prioritize immediate responses.
Those were obviously just examples demonstrating that his comparison was absurd. Do you really agree with him that remote work is as bad as prisons that only allow virtual visitation?
How is staring at a computer for 8 hours in an office any different from staring at a computer for 8 hours in a co-working space or coffee shop? I prefer the freedom to choose where I'll work from today.
People are in prisons for substantially longer than 8 hours / day and don’t take weekends off. I don’t think equating “being alone working for 8 hours” to “a prison with only virtual visits” is helpful.
You don't have to work 8 hours non-stop. You can leave, meet friends (i.e. people you actually want to spend time with, not do because you have no one else) at lunch, talk to family, talk to neighbors, go to the gym, walk the dog, go for a swim (if you happen to live by the water) and still interact with people. But that implies you actually do have a social circle outside of your workplace or social abilities. If you don't have those, I doubt your workplace will provide any meaningful, organic interaction opportunities, either.
If you have a family it means you get to spend the day socializing with people you really want to be around (spouse, kids...) instead of your coworkers (some of whom I may want to be around, but not really for most of them).
I also absolutely hate working with people who think that work is a place to get all of their social engagement. I don't need any more friends and I definitely don't need any out of work socialization with my co-workers or during work time that looks like socialization (parties, events...).
I also absolutely hate working with people who think that work is a place to get all of their social engagement. I don't need any more friends and I definitely don't need any out of work socialization with my co-workers or during work time that looks like socialization (parties, events...).
I would not agree. I simply loath the open space office..
We are cramped up like industry workers in 1880.. Yes we are social creatures and we need DIFFERENT levels of interaction with others. BUT we are not cattle to cramp us up desk to desk.
We are cramped up like industry workers in 1880.. Yes we are social creatures and we need DIFFERENT levels of interaction with others. BUT we are not cattle to cramp us up desk to desk.
> Prisons that force virtual visitation are criticized for this exact issue.
Well, yeah, there is a difference between forcing everyone to do something and letting people choose to do something.
Well, yeah, there is a difference between forcing everyone to do something and letting people choose to do something.
> You’re complaining about city and transportation architecture, not workplace design.
More like, complaining that the whole design of modern city life is around work. As more and more people work remotely, cities will change, habits will change. People who work at home have been largely neglected for decades; we feel out of sync with cities and other people, almost marginalized. This has to change.
More like, complaining that the whole design of modern city life is around work. As more and more people work remotely, cities will change, habits will change. People who work at home have been largely neglected for decades; we feel out of sync with cities and other people, almost marginalized. This has to change.
> "91% of remote workers said working remotely is a good fit for them."
Right, and 97% of current ferret owners say that ferrets make great pets [0]. I'd like the survey to include people who worked remotely in the past and no longer do. Count me in that group. I worked remotely for a six months at a remote-friendly but not remote-first company and here were my findings:
* It was lonely being at home. And I wasn't as productive. After a month, I rented space at a WeWork, which helped with both problems. But it requires that you be outgoing to meet people who work in your space but aren't your coworkers.
* I didn't like being physically separated from my colleagues. It meant that I wasn't privy to many of the important conversations in the company.
* I was always afraid that come a round of layoffs that it's easier to fire the folks who work 1000 miles away.
* In a company that isn't remote first, it limits your career growth (most of the time).
* Maybe it's just me, but I find it much easier to explain difficult technical things in person. Yes, screenshares are very helpful, but sometimes a hard problem involves going back and forth between monitors, for example. I also like being able to use a whiteboard [1].
* As a software engineer, it's easy to get siloed into only communicating with people on your team and remote work only increases this tendency. If you work in an office, you meet people from other parts of the business in the cafeteria/break room/etc. and that allows you to have a more full understanding of the company. And it's my belief that if you don't understand the business, then you don't understand what your software should be doing.
Overall, I didn't hate working remotely but it wasn't great either. I would do it again for a short period of time (e.g. a year while my wife is on sabbatical) without hesitation, but I personally didn't like it for the long term. That said, the ability to work remotely on occasion is something that's very important to me.
I personally wouldn't apply to jobs at remote-only companies, but I definitely think this is the way to go if you want to make a career out of working remote as it solves a few of the problems above.
[0] Not saying that they don't, for some people. Just saying that asking people who currently own ferrets means your sample is biased.
[1] Sometimes old fashioned is best. One of my companies moved to a new office and was thinking of installing "smart boards" at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars, thinking that the engineers would love them. To their surprise, the engineers protested and asked for good quality "dumb" boards instead.
Right, and 97% of current ferret owners say that ferrets make great pets [0]. I'd like the survey to include people who worked remotely in the past and no longer do. Count me in that group. I worked remotely for a six months at a remote-friendly but not remote-first company and here were my findings:
* It was lonely being at home. And I wasn't as productive. After a month, I rented space at a WeWork, which helped with both problems. But it requires that you be outgoing to meet people who work in your space but aren't your coworkers.
* I didn't like being physically separated from my colleagues. It meant that I wasn't privy to many of the important conversations in the company.
* I was always afraid that come a round of layoffs that it's easier to fire the folks who work 1000 miles away.
* In a company that isn't remote first, it limits your career growth (most of the time).
* Maybe it's just me, but I find it much easier to explain difficult technical things in person. Yes, screenshares are very helpful, but sometimes a hard problem involves going back and forth between monitors, for example. I also like being able to use a whiteboard [1].
* As a software engineer, it's easy to get siloed into only communicating with people on your team and remote work only increases this tendency. If you work in an office, you meet people from other parts of the business in the cafeteria/break room/etc. and that allows you to have a more full understanding of the company. And it's my belief that if you don't understand the business, then you don't understand what your software should be doing.
Overall, I didn't hate working remotely but it wasn't great either. I would do it again for a short period of time (e.g. a year while my wife is on sabbatical) without hesitation, but I personally didn't like it for the long term. That said, the ability to work remotely on occasion is something that's very important to me.
I personally wouldn't apply to jobs at remote-only companies, but I definitely think this is the way to go if you want to make a career out of working remote as it solves a few of the problems above.
[0] Not saying that they don't, for some people. Just saying that asking people who currently own ferrets means your sample is biased.
[1] Sometimes old fashioned is best. One of my companies moved to a new office and was thinking of installing "smart boards" at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars, thinking that the engineers would love them. To their surprise, the engineers protested and asked for good quality "dumb" boards instead.
I work remotely and have been at both remote-first and traditional cos...I would “never” go back but I have kids and maybe once they leave I would reconsider.
That said I have lost multiple (mostly younger) employees due to several of the reasons you mention.
I think you nailed it as far as the biggest challenge at traditional cos - remote will definitely kill your career path. It really is only good at those cos once you are an expert in a niche and don’t care about the Corp ladder. Definitely try to find remote first cos if you are not at the zenith of your Corp climbing.
That said I have lost multiple (mostly younger) employees due to several of the reasons you mention.
I think you nailed it as far as the biggest challenge at traditional cos - remote will definitely kill your career path. It really is only good at those cos once you are an expert in a niche and don’t care about the Corp ladder. Definitely try to find remote first cos if you are not at the zenith of your Corp climbing.
> * Maybe it's just me, but I find it much easier to explain difficult technical things in person. Yes, screenshares are very helpful, but sometimes a hard problem involves going back and forth between monitors, for example.
To an extent I can see the issue, but when screen sharing this usually ends up with the other person then showing their screen and how it's working.
I am at a remote-friendly place currently, and depending on the project I prefer to work in the office, but longer term I may consider more remote work due to commute.
We are but one of many offices throughout the country too so it's not a huge deal if I don't meet everyone in the company, so long as I know the people part of our division.
To an extent I can see the issue, but when screen sharing this usually ends up with the other person then showing their screen and how it's working.
I am at a remote-friendly place currently, and depending on the project I prefer to work in the office, but longer term I may consider more remote work due to commute.
We are but one of many offices throughout the country too so it's not a huge deal if I don't meet everyone in the company, so long as I know the people part of our division.
Good points. What you described is one of the main reasons the vast majority of remote companies are small. Less than 100 people. Company wide retreats help a lot with some of these issues.
I have worked from home for many years now and identify with ALL those drawbacks, but I still wouldn't want to change to a full time in-office position. The drawbacks of that (mostly an hour wasted commuting both in the evening and in the afternoon) is just too big.
Being able to work remotely on occasion, or perhaps the ability to not work remotely on occasion (e.g. work remotely from a coworking space 2 days a week and from home 3 days a week, or work in the real office 1 day per week) would be ideal.
Being able to work remotely on occasion, or perhaps the ability to not work remotely on occasion (e.g. work remotely from a coworking space 2 days a week and from home 3 days a week, or work in the real office 1 day per week) would be ideal.
> "Being able to work remotely on occasion, or perhaps the ability to not work remotely on occasion (e.g. work remotely from a coworking space 2 days a week and from home 3 days a week, or work in the real office 1 day per week) would be ideal."
Being able to work in an office one day a week makes a big difference. Some things are easier in person, but they can be delayed until that day you are in the office. I had a boss at a previous company who did two days at home and three in the office and it was an ideal mix. He could get the benefits of being able to do things face to face and the benefits of being able to do deep work at home (personally, I do deep work better in the office, but I understand why many people do better at home).
Being able to work in an office one day a week makes a big difference. Some things are easier in person, but they can be delayed until that day you are in the office. I had a boss at a previous company who did two days at home and three in the office and it was an ideal mix. He could get the benefits of being able to do things face to face and the benefits of being able to do deep work at home (personally, I do deep work better in the office, but I understand why many people do better at home).
Remote first is key. If your team isn't remote, there is assymmetry in communication. This will lead to problems long term.
I work remotely 2 days a week. I'd quite like to go to 3 and might soon.
But without being in the office a couple of days a week for collaboration, a lot of stuff just wouldn't work. Conference calls, slack and email are no substitute for the face-to-face conversations that can resolve blocking issues in a few seconds versus a few hours.
I'd definitely recommend partial remote working. Not sure I'd want it fully.
But without being in the office a couple of days a week for collaboration, a lot of stuff just wouldn't work. Conference calls, slack and email are no substitute for the face-to-face conversations that can resolve blocking issues in a few seconds versus a few hours.
I'd definitely recommend partial remote working. Not sure I'd want it fully.
> Conference calls, slack and email are no substitute for the face-to-face conversations that can resolve blocking issues in a few seconds versus a few hours
I don't doubt this is a real challenge for certain teams or types of work. However, in 5+ years of working remotely at fully-distributed orgs I have never experienced this. Not once have I encountered a scenario where being in a room together would have dramatically changed/improved/whatever the discussion. Perhaps it just comes down to having a team that can communicate effectively without being face-to-face, but this always interested me as a common criticism of remote work.
I don't doubt this is a real challenge for certain teams or types of work. However, in 5+ years of working remotely at fully-distributed orgs I have never experienced this. Not once have I encountered a scenario where being in a room together would have dramatically changed/improved/whatever the discussion. Perhaps it just comes down to having a team that can communicate effectively without being face-to-face, but this always interested me as a common criticism of remote work.
> Perhaps it just comes down to having a team that can communicate effectively
Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if you are working in a more functional team than the one I'm consulting/contracting with right now. I'm not going to name the organisation when I'm bad-mouthing them so much, but there are systemic problems going right up to the top.
If you asked me to name somewhere with smart, competent people throughout the org, working well within a lightweight but functional agile delivery process, I wouldn't name the folks I'm with right now. There are a handful of competent developers (all the devs really) and one or two decent ops guys, but everyone from the PO to the Security Architect, to the QA folks is a walking disaster zone, poor communication being a big part of the problem.
I'm just glad delivery comes relatively soon and I'm not trying to build a career with them...
Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if you are working in a more functional team than the one I'm consulting/contracting with right now. I'm not going to name the organisation when I'm bad-mouthing them so much, but there are systemic problems going right up to the top.
If you asked me to name somewhere with smart, competent people throughout the org, working well within a lightweight but functional agile delivery process, I wouldn't name the folks I'm with right now. There are a handful of competent developers (all the devs really) and one or two decent ops guys, but everyone from the PO to the Security Architect, to the QA folks is a walking disaster zone, poor communication being a big part of the problem.
I'm just glad delivery comes relatively soon and I'm not trying to build a career with them...
>Conference calls, slack and email are no substitute for the face-to-face conversations that can resolve blocking issues in a few seconds versus a few hours.
I haven't found this to be the case
I haven't found this to be the case
I do, continually, particularly when communicating with the less technically inclined. Slack conversations can drag on, email chains take days, conference calls are great when everyone's paying attention but that's not often (IMHO).
Tem minutes in a room discussing an issue with all interested parties can sort things out far faster, in my experience.
Which may not be universally applicable - I'm not claiming it is, or that fully remote working doesn't work for others. Just that I've seen it be less than perfect on a few occasions.
Tem minutes in a room discussing an issue with all interested parties can sort things out far faster, in my experience.
Which may not be universally applicable - I'm not claiming it is, or that fully remote working doesn't work for others. Just that I've seen it be less than perfect on a few occasions.
Maybe I'm just lucky in that I very rarely have to talk to non-technical staff. I can see how that would be a pain
I don't believe people love remote work as much as the article suggests, but this does match my own experience.
I absolutely love it. I used to work at a very chatty office before they let me work remotely. My productivity and ability to think deeply about problems has skyrocketed.
Remote work isn't a catch all solution but it can be really effective if you match it to the right job.
I absolutely love it. I used to work at a very chatty office before they let me work remotely. My productivity and ability to think deeply about problems has skyrocketed.
Remote work isn't a catch all solution but it can be really effective if you match it to the right job.
"63% of US companies now have remote workers, according to a 2018 Upwork Study."
Hmm, I don't believe this number. According to the SBA [1], there are over 30 million small businesses in the USA (averaging just under 2 people each). These constitute the vast majority (99.9%) of US companies.
You probably can't do "an online survey of 1,005 workforce hiring decision makers obtained through a third-party, independent online sample" and get useful information about 63% of all companies. This sounds like Sample Bias galore. There aren't even 19M (.63*30M) companies with offices in this country.
[1]: https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/2018-Small-...
Hmm, I don't believe this number. According to the SBA [1], there are over 30 million small businesses in the USA (averaging just under 2 people each). These constitute the vast majority (99.9%) of US companies.
You probably can't do "an online survey of 1,005 workforce hiring decision makers obtained through a third-party, independent online sample" and get useful information about 63% of all companies. This sounds like Sample Bias galore. There aren't even 19M (.63*30M) companies with offices in this country.
[1]: https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/2018-Small-...
If companies paid for commute time I'd feel a lot less strongly about in-office requirements.
I actually prefer working at home in the morning and coming in to the office only in the afternoon. As a software developer, it allows me to focus on my software development and finish the tickets in my sprint without being stopped by support requests, wishlist feature requests, and other distractions from co-workers.
When someone has to put a request in writing on Slack or with an email instead of just going to my cubicle and bugging me, it makes it less likely they will bother me with stuff that is not important.
In terms of a daily standup, they work just as well using a video conference call, or, better yet, as a written report posted to Slack every day.
When someone has to put a request in writing on Slack or with an email instead of just going to my cubicle and bugging me, it makes it less likely they will bother me with stuff that is not important.
In terms of a daily standup, they work just as well using a video conference call, or, better yet, as a written report posted to Slack every day.
My current job -- now 12 years -- has always been work from home, but I'm not sure if it's necessarily "remote work."
I say this because this company has no office space anywhere. EVERYONE works from home. We're small (~10), but spread out over the whole US. I have coworkers I've never actually seen in the flesh, and I only see my boss a couple times a year.
This works very well for us. I'd have a hard time going back to an office. But it's not "remote" in the sense that some folks are in an office and some folks aren't, which I think makes our WFH different from "remote work."
I say this because this company has no office space anywhere. EVERYONE works from home. We're small (~10), but spread out over the whole US. I have coworkers I've never actually seen in the flesh, and I only see my boss a couple times a year.
This works very well for us. I'd have a hard time going back to an office. But it's not "remote" in the sense that some folks are in an office and some folks aren't, which I think makes our WFH different from "remote work."
I've been WFH for about 6 years.
I enjoy the trust I am given to get work done that I promise to get done. I'm in a different TZ, so I enjoy the quiet time I get when the others on the team aren't working. However, as hard as we try, I still miss conversations that happen away from a computer or phone. Also, I do sometimes miss working in person with the people I work with. Finally, I do miss having a proper lab. I look around at the RF equipment laying around my home office and get a bit depressed.
Remote work works. Anyone who says it doesn't has an agenda. Like non-remote work, you just have to hire the right people.
I enjoy the trust I am given to get work done that I promise to get done. I'm in a different TZ, so I enjoy the quiet time I get when the others on the team aren't working. However, as hard as we try, I still miss conversations that happen away from a computer or phone. Also, I do sometimes miss working in person with the people I work with. Finally, I do miss having a proper lab. I look around at the RF equipment laying around my home office and get a bit depressed.
Remote work works. Anyone who says it doesn't has an agenda. Like non-remote work, you just have to hire the right people.
I'm currently remote for a grant funded initiative at a University. The work is great, but I'm the sole developer. I move around a lot and don't keep a home office. I like it, it's technically satisfying most of the time, but there are only so many days I can spent just working through technical problems at a coffee shop. It's also really great if I want to go off on a road trip or something. I'd like a bit of diversity in the types of problems I'm working on, and miss building something up with people who have different skills or knowledge than me. So I'm looking for work that's at least partly onsite, but that lets me do whatever I want to isolate myself and work through a problem on my own if necessary (in Vancouver if anyone's looking). At a previous position, eyebrows were raised when I chose to take my laptop away from my desk to sit in the lobby and code so I could get away from Bill, the jackass who brought in a mechanical keyboard and screamed through sales calls on his bluetooth earpiece. Bill, of course wasn't a jackass. I eventually brought him aside and simply asked him to be a bit quieter.
I am in the process of making a major life change to focus on remote first work. I've recently moved and I am currently looking to purchase a house in a small town from where I plan to work full-time.
I think the caveats people bring up are serious and require careful consideration. They are part of why I am trying to find a company that is "remote-first" and I would prefer to avoid companies where I am one of a handful of remote employees while the rest of the team is co-located in one or more offices.
My major fears are:
* I suffer from isolation and loneliness and it impacts my mental well-being
* I find my career progression stalled
* I miss out on more lucrative compensation
* I find my coworkers making decisions without consulting me
* I experience an increase in general anxiety
* I find my productivity and focus to be significantly less
* I am unable to balance work/life when they are combined in the same place
The worst case scenario is that a combination of my fears being realized forces me to recognize my unsuitability for remote work. I would then be stuck in a smaller city with less opportunity, potentially with a mortgage. I might be forced to sell my home for a loss, to move back into a bigger city and to attempt to find a normal job to rebuild my retirement savings.
My plan to mitigate these is to be aware of my fears and to put into place strategies that can deal with each one. I believe that companies that plan to be remote-reliant in the future will need expertise at the management level to deal with those issues throughout their workforce. Where there is legitimate fear there is also opportunity. I believe that all of the problems associated with remote work can be handled if they are openly discussed.
I think the caveats people bring up are serious and require careful consideration. They are part of why I am trying to find a company that is "remote-first" and I would prefer to avoid companies where I am one of a handful of remote employees while the rest of the team is co-located in one or more offices.
My major fears are:
* I suffer from isolation and loneliness and it impacts my mental well-being
* I find my career progression stalled
* I miss out on more lucrative compensation
* I find my coworkers making decisions without consulting me
* I experience an increase in general anxiety
* I find my productivity and focus to be significantly less
* I am unable to balance work/life when they are combined in the same place
The worst case scenario is that a combination of my fears being realized forces me to recognize my unsuitability for remote work. I would then be stuck in a smaller city with less opportunity, potentially with a mortgage. I might be forced to sell my home for a loss, to move back into a bigger city and to attempt to find a normal job to rebuild my retirement savings.
My plan to mitigate these is to be aware of my fears and to put into place strategies that can deal with each one. I believe that companies that plan to be remote-reliant in the future will need expertise at the management level to deal with those issues throughout their workforce. Where there is legitimate fear there is also opportunity. I believe that all of the problems associated with remote work can be handled if they are openly discussed.
IRC for whoever is live + good email lists + discipline on wiki|docs + good PM/ticket communications is faster and more reliable than anything in person. Non-remote is a productivity disadvantage to people who need fast communication. A team of people online can say more with no interupt-crosstalk that cripples in-person "collaboration".
This article doesn't answer the headline statement. It just says people like it, would recommend it, and that record is in the rise. Simple survey stuff. Doesn't actually ever attempt to answer the question "why" people like it. Except at the very end, with the one question "top 3 reasons to recommend remote work"
Looks like an advertisement piece more than an actual research.
I work very far from my office, and on the 1-2 days a week I do go in, it's an hour and a half each way. For the wife, it's 2 full hours each way. Totally not worth it day to day, but it's a nice change of pace for the 1-2 days I go in. Keeps things fresh, and I take a bus the whole way there.
That being said, if my job was, say, a 20 minute commute, I'd go in probably 3 or 4 days a week, assuming the office was nice. I prefer working in person at times, it really depends on what I'm doing, but the option is what makes it work for me. 100% remote would only make me happy for so long, I think.
Also, rarely discussed in these types of posts is that your social abilities definitely diminish if you work from home a lot and rarely interact with people. I've noticed it in myself and made a conscious push to get into the office more often to offset that.
That being said, if my job was, say, a 20 minute commute, I'd go in probably 3 or 4 days a week, assuming the office was nice. I prefer working in person at times, it really depends on what I'm doing, but the option is what makes it work for me. 100% remote would only make me happy for so long, I think.
Also, rarely discussed in these types of posts is that your social abilities definitely diminish if you work from home a lot and rarely interact with people. I've noticed it in myself and made a conscious push to get into the office more often to offset that.
I have done full time WFH for several years. My takeaways are now.
- It’s not all positive, but the upsides can be bigger than the downsides.
- If you have kids age 1-9 say, that need to be dropped off at school/daycare then WFH is fantastic. The commute time I instead spend working means I can drop kids off at 8 and pick them up and have dinner on the table at 5.
- I’d not want to do it full time if I did not have family. The isolation is real even though I do video calls a large part of the day.
- If had a choice I’d do 1-2 days in an office, but unfortunately it’s too expensive to pay a full time desk in a co working space and use it just part time. If I didn’t need a big screen etc I’d probably go for a part time seat in a coworking space.
- It’s not all positive, but the upsides can be bigger than the downsides.
- If you have kids age 1-9 say, that need to be dropped off at school/daycare then WFH is fantastic. The commute time I instead spend working means I can drop kids off at 8 and pick them up and have dinner on the table at 5.
- I’d not want to do it full time if I did not have family. The isolation is real even though I do video calls a large part of the day.
- If had a choice I’d do 1-2 days in an office, but unfortunately it’s too expensive to pay a full time desk in a co working space and use it just part time. If I didn’t need a big screen etc I’d probably go for a part time seat in a coworking space.
If nothing else, remote work means much less sleep deprivation for a lot of people, because they can wake up a bit later.
If you have kids to take to school it might not change that much, but if you can take them close to the start of classes it might mean an extra 30 minutes to one hour of sleep a day.
No wonder people work and feel so much better, even if its due to that simple factor alone.
But of course, there are other things that come to play like the ability to concentrate, limited interruptions, being able to eat proper food, etc.
If you have kids to take to school it might not change that much, but if you can take them close to the start of classes it might mean an extra 30 minutes to one hour of sleep a day.
No wonder people work and feel so much better, even if its due to that simple factor alone.
But of course, there are other things that come to play like the ability to concentrate, limited interruptions, being able to eat proper food, etc.
Summarized thread takeaways are:
1. Those that WFH mostly prefer to WFH. Not really a surprise. Akin to "Those that like cooking enjoy making food at home".
2. Plenty of personal reasons why WFH working habits should be generalized across everybody because someone prefers it for themselves.
3. WFH works out better when home is already a convenient place to work; not necessarily if someone lives in a 80 sq ft room or wants to meet people/do things in a certain place.
1. Those that WFH mostly prefer to WFH. Not really a surprise. Akin to "Those that like cooking enjoy making food at home".
2. Plenty of personal reasons why WFH working habits should be generalized across everybody because someone prefers it for themselves.
3. WFH works out better when home is already a convenient place to work; not necessarily if someone lives in a 80 sq ft room or wants to meet people/do things in a certain place.
Most comments here are "remote work is great, but"... That's ignoring the inevitability of technologies. This time it's different. Working from home was the norm for centuries, then the industrial revolution happened, and then the internet happened. Nowadays, way too many people don't work from home, for no good reason. As software keeps on eating everything, remote work will cause major disruptions in the way we live, the places we live and our lifestyles. For those of us that learned to work remotely, it is an irreversible change (and polls show that too). Lifestyle adapts to work, not the other way around. As such, we should be thinking about ways in which societies and lifestyles will switch from the 9-5/mon-fri, to something that is very asynchronous yet vibrant and fulfilling. Going back to the office just a dumb desperate solution, considering you are adding back commute time, office politics, useless distractions etc etc. Communication tools are already too good to be ignored. (Also, remote work is an onramp to freelancing/consulting/whatever. Because, if you can work remotely for one employer, why not work for another?)
Most of the complaints such as isolation and disconnection are because society has not adapted to remote working rather than the merits of RW itself. Imagine a world where everyone whose job allows it works remotely. That 's basically the majority of workers[1]. Imagine the change in the pace of life and thousands of people feeling as lonely as you. The precipitous fall of real estate prices as commercial properties become vacant. The empty roads that don't need more than one lane. PEople reconnecting with their neighbors by spending a lot more time in physical proximity. Preschools and even schools becoming obsolete and replaced with home/small group schooling. Our current lifestyles are hostile to remote work. We don't want to return to the closed societies of small villages, but we also want to make working at home humane. We should be able to work on this problem and i look forward to the things that people will invent in the next few years. Changes like this have happened before
1. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/4187653/7825806/IMG+...
Most of the complaints such as isolation and disconnection are because society has not adapted to remote working rather than the merits of RW itself. Imagine a world where everyone whose job allows it works remotely. That 's basically the majority of workers[1]. Imagine the change in the pace of life and thousands of people feeling as lonely as you. The precipitous fall of real estate prices as commercial properties become vacant. The empty roads that don't need more than one lane. PEople reconnecting with their neighbors by spending a lot more time in physical proximity. Preschools and even schools becoming obsolete and replaced with home/small group schooling. Our current lifestyles are hostile to remote work. We don't want to return to the closed societies of small villages, but we also want to make working at home humane. We should be able to work on this problem and i look forward to the things that people will invent in the next few years. Changes like this have happened before
1. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/4187653/7825806/IMG+...
I love remote work, I really do, but it's definitely not for everyone or a golden grail of work structure - I've even put my thoughts about it on my website: https://lukaszkups.net/notes/truth-about-remote-work/
(shameless share, but please let me know what do you think about it if you want ;) )
(shameless share, but please let me know what do you think about it if you want ;) )
At our company (I'm a cofounder), we encourage remote. Some people need f2f once in a while so there is a co-working space we have for that. I split my time 50-50 at office and home. Saved 1.5 hours a day in commute compared to my previous job. It is hard to scale well, unless we built a strong culture of communication and spell out a few things.
Without making a statement for or against remote work, this:
> People like to harp on the failings of remote work. Loneliness. Distractions. Not unplugging. Lack of collaboration. Dog hair.
> But in reality, people love working remotely. And they’re willing to forgive its failings because it’s just that good.
does not follow from a survey asking remote workers if they like working remotely.
> People like to harp on the failings of remote work. Loneliness. Distractions. Not unplugging. Lack of collaboration. Dog hair.
> But in reality, people love working remotely. And they’re willing to forgive its failings because it’s just that good.
does not follow from a survey asking remote workers if they like working remotely.
Has there been a survey of employers/managers/owners, assessing how remote work compares to non-remote? In terms of meeting goals, productivity, team cohesion, etc?
I'm all about a workers-first mentality, but workers and managers' perception of remote work could be vastly different.
I'm all about a workers-first mentality, but workers and managers' perception of remote work could be vastly different.
My main problem with remote work is there seems to be a lack of upward mobility. Most of the interactions I've had that have accelerated my career were face to face and wouldn't have happened over slack or email. Something to consider.
I've worked remotely for 9 years. It is the single biggest factor in what I love about my work.
If I ever change jobs, the ability to work remote is going to be very high on my must-have list.
If I ever change jobs, the ability to work remote is going to be very high on my must-have list.
Yes, but do their employers? It is easy to come up with things that employees or employers will love, it is pleasing the two groups simultaneously that is hard.
I expected there will be more counter arguments to this, surprised that the most of the people agreed. Now, am I weird ?!
Remote for 15 years, twice as a CTO/co-founder and there is no amount you could pay me to go back.
I think the main gain from remote work would be to pour tax money into the countryside.
Honest headline "People who choose to work remotely love working remotely."
That's because, guess what, sitting in an office all day sucks.
[deleted]
Working part-time is also a game changer.
I don't
Many friends from Latin America work via Upwork, but they barely make enough for a living as they charge around 30% commission (end-to-end). I would rather look for companies that focus on remote work.
For example, I have a Mexican friend working remotely from SF at www.lionmint.com/en. It's a german IT consultancy that focuses on digital platform development. He told me they pay great rates and have top-notch projects.
I "love" it in the sense that I can get paid while watching Netflix, playing games and do whatever I want. I instantly start slacking off and all my working hours become a game to make it look like I'm working when I'm not. This doesn't happen when I'm in a office where I'm "forced" to work.
Yeah, you can slack off at the office as well but why? I obviously can't do any meaningful leisure activities there. And yes, it's a tooling and management issue but I haven't come across a single organisation where it's not possible to game it unless your job output is extremely easy to measure.
I believe this is way more common than people think.
Yeah, you can slack off at the office as well but why? I obviously can't do any meaningful leisure activities there. And yes, it's a tooling and management issue but I haven't come across a single organisation where it's not possible to game it unless your job output is extremely easy to measure.
I believe this is way more common than people think.
If remote work proponents want remote work to become a thing, downvoting the parent into oblivion doesn't make their case to the managers and Marissa Mayers out there who are against it. Address the concerns that some people are far more productive on-site. Pretending it's a non-issue doesn't help and it is often not an easy thing to police.
It's not as simple as "don't hire/work with those people" either, because we don't always have full control over that.
It's not as simple as "don't hire/work with those people" either, because we don't always have full control over that.
That's an issue with yourself, whether it be work ethic, motivation, or otherwise, not an issue with remote work
Found the manager.
So it's completely unbelievable that working from home makes some people (some, not all) slacking instead of working? I believe in remote work but it's not just for everyone like so many people seem to believe. I'm a living example of a dysfunctional remote worker.
Working from home doesn't make you slack off. You make you slack off. Own up to your own decisions.
While I don't want to flame you or attack you personally, I probably wouldn't want to work with someone with your attitude on either a distributed team or in an office.
While I don't want to flame you or attack you personally, I probably wouldn't want to work with someone with your attitude on either a distributed team or in an office.
[deleted]
Once a remote worker frauded a company I was working for a large amount of money. I dont think it was a coincidence that it was a remote worker - I believe it is much easier mentally to behave unethically if you dont see the people f2f you are hurting with your actions.
I don't believe this is supported at all by anything. You see fraud cases perpetrated by all types of workers: warehouse employees "losing" a box, office drones abusing leave policies, CEOs raiding the corporate coffers. People inclined to commit fraud are inclined to commit fraud relative to their position, but it's unlikely the position itself is the driving factor.
Then, we had a big shake-up. A bunch of senior people left, and new "leadership" came in to "transform" our workplace. All WFH was cancelled in our division (in spite of still being officially encouraged by corporate policy). The big boss said "a 15 minute fact-to-face is better than a multi-day email chain". My response to that is "What about the other 99.9% of my work time, when I don't need to interact with anyone?" Sigh.
Since I had left the office, they had redone everything to be open plan, low walls, brighter lights, white noise over the speakers, etc. Contractors are packed like sardines, the noise is insane. We're also "Agile" now, so we spend a ton of time in useless meetings.
I'm not very happy anymore.