• Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    10 months ago

    You’ll get downvoted here but I agree with you, personally I get value out of 2 days a week in office. Otherwise I become antisocial and a bit of a hermit.

    However, that’s just me, and anymore and I wouldn’t be productive. The important thing is that it should be a team level decision (NOT a top down decision) and hopefully a personal one. How people find that they’re most productive should be up to them.

    I’ve never understood any arguments against that. It always boils down to “But how do we know they’re working” which means “I am an incapable manager who doesn’t know how to manage”

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      team level decision

      Exactly. The main difference between my office and Rockstar in the article is that ours was a bottom up decision, whereas Rockstar’s was a top down one.

      In fact, our company policy is 3 days in office, but our team tried it and decided we’re less productive that way, so our VP overrode company policy to go back to 2 days. We’re not expected to come in if we need to stay for some reason (e.g. waiting on furniture delivery or the car isn’t working). In fact, one coworker hasn’t come to the office for months because her dog is prone to seizures and she needs to be there to intervene so he doesn’t hurt himself. Several of my coworkers are immigrants and work remotely for a month or more at a time when they go back to their home country. I’ve done the same when I visit family out of state. Some coworkers come in every day because they get distracted at home.

      It’s a totally nontoxic atmosphere where everyone is treated like adults. Our current policy came from a team vote where most voted for 2 days in office, so that’s what we do. And as long as people don’t abuse the flexibility, there’s no reason for it to change, and in my 3-ish years working here, I’ve only had to have one conversation about the in-office policy (my coworker was working from home due to their car being in the shop, but after a month it was becoming abuse of the policy; a gentle reminder later and it hasn’t been a problem since).

      • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Nail on the head with “abuse the flexibility”. I see so many companies cancel wfh and flexible policies because “we had a person abuse it” or they’re worried about it. So correct them if they abuse it! That’s Management’s job. If the rule is 2 days in office and they don’t do that, then you revoke wfh for them. If they aren’t getting work done on time then talk with them and come up with a corrective plan. If they still don’t then you let them go. You don’t remove the policy company wide and destroy morale because one person abused it. You let them go and codify your rules about it.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Exactly! We expect each team member to be responsible for their own work and not be micromanaged.

          I’m a manager, and if I have to micromanage someone, I’d rather just fire them and hire someone more responsible. It’s not fair to the team to keep someone like that around, and fortunately we’ve only had to do it twice in the three years I’ve been here (they had plenty of warning). The rest are incredibly responsible and need practically no oversight, just a confidential reminder once or twice a year (if that) if they’re not following team expectations.

          I spend half my time working with my team, and the other half keeping them out of meetings. I personally prefer remote work and try to eliminate useless meetings so in-office time is actually worthwhile. Most of our meetings end early, and I’m trying to get them even shorter.

          • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            A great attitude. A manager should micromanage only as a last resort, and only for a set duration to see if the employee improves or not. Micromanagement is not a long term strategy, it’s a waste of everyone’s time. Kudos to you, it sounds like you’re head is right where it should be.

            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              I certainly hope those who work under me see it the same way.

              I have no “business” experience or special training, so I just try to be the kind of manager that I wanted earlier in my career. I honestly don’t like managing people, I just do it because I don’t want someone who enjoys that kind of thing to take that job (those are the micro-managing types IMO).