Slashdot Mirror
Why Working Remotely Needs To Make a Comeback
silentbrad writes sends this excerpt from a blog post about the history of working from home:
"Remote working has existed for centuries. And now is the perfect time for its comeback. ... Prior to the Industrial Revolution, goods were manufactured by contracting individual craftsmen who worked out of their homes. The merchant would drum up sales, and would coordinate the production with at-home sub-contractors. ... This all changed with the Industrial Revolution: production was centralized in factories and cities. For merchant capitalists, this made sense: it was cheaper and more efficient to produce goods in one place, with machinery. ... We've been in the Information Age for at least 25 years. We've made huge leaps in technology. Many of us would describe ourselves as Knowledge Workers: we don't work in factories, we work at desks in front of glowing screens. We don't make goods with physical materials, but rather things made out of bits. The great thing about bits + the internet is that the materials and means needed for production aren't dependent on location. But here's the funny thing: the way work is organized hasn't changed. Despite all these advances, most of us still work in central offices. Employees leave their computer-equipped homes and drive long distances to work at computer-equipped offices. ... CEOs, like Yahoo's Marissa Mayer and Apple's Steve Jobs, think that a central office fosters more innovation and productivity. I think they're wrong. We're still early in the research, but recent studies seem to dispute their claim. ... Managers have developed centuries worth of habits based on the central workplace. The hallmarks of office work (meetings, cubicle workstations, colocation) need to be seen for what they are: traditions we've kept alive since the Industrial Revolution. We need to question these institutions: are they really more innovative and efficient?"
I certainly feel I'm much more effective in the quiet of my own home vs. the open-plan chaotic environment called "the office".
I would agree with you if not for the growing trend of collaborative spaces in the IT industry. Sitting isolated in a cubicle and only talking to other people in meetings or the water cooler is no better than working from home and Skyping or talking on the phone. But a collaborative space and pair programming do foster innovation and rapid, high-quality software development. The social aspect yields interesting ideas that the individual would not think of on his (or her) own. Pairing (or at least having extra eyes around) tends to yield higher quality both from being able to have someone check for mistakes and the social pressure of not cutting corners when someone else is looking.
I love it, I can't imagine going back. I like my hammock office, and every time I am forced to work at a desk or table, and can physically feel my mind cramping up. If that is innovation and productivity, count me out!
Don't get me started about my years facing grey half-walls feeling like someone was watching what I was doing behind my back. Gave me the creeps, and again, just made me feel uncomfortable working.
Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
If you can do your work from home, it's probable that someone else can do the work from the other side of the planet. For less. So be careful what you wish for.
Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
Only the most anachronistic, self-absorbed, border-line sociopathic managers are against working remotely. Marissa Mayer, hint hint. It is a win, win for companies. Companies save money on expensive office space and employes have more job satisfaction resulting in less turnover further saving money for the company. Those managers concerned with "face time" are micromanaging, control freaks.
PBH like face time / overuse of mettinges & time tracking to the point of where 30mins a day is just time tracking paper work.
I think it depends on your office culture. I do phone tech support and can work remotely. Several of my coworkers don't ever drive into the office, several other coworkers work in other parts of the state and when we finish our transitional/expansion period (next 2 months or so), the goal is to have 10-15 people working remotely every day. I actually just had an email needing information to make sure our new VOIP setup will be compatible with everyone's home setups.
PHB's like face time / overuse of meetings & time tracking to the point of where 30mins a day is just time tracking paper work.
... then we can fill our staff with intelligent employees from India!
Recent analysis, i see...
... trails off... sounds like it's being read... by Kirk
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I recall over the summer reading a piece in the Wall Street Journal (http://blogs.wsj.com/atwork/2012/07/13/working-from-home-beware-a-career-hit/?mod=e2tw)
Pointing to the fact that telecommuters aka people that work remotely are less likely to get promoted regardless of their productivity and work ethic.
Quite alarming
Work from home jobs are available all over the place. What planet are you on?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
What is this, a Japanese RPG? Can you possibly squeeze any more ellipses into that summary?
I've worked for 3 massive software companies that hire 10s of thousands directly or contractually, and they all have allowed remote workers for about 15 years. It doesn't matter if Apple and Yahoo don't, many companies that hire more in roles that allow you to work remotely(application development, support, implementation, training, marketing, etc) do allow the practices.
Apple wants to look cool with its giant campus and onsite amenities because it's fostering an image of oneness. It's also a company that people use as a stepping stool, like Google, Yahoo, SpaceX,etc. Your average company doesn't care and wants their employees to be happy enough to stay there for a while, and working from home is a huge benefit that fosters long term loyalty.
lot's of contractors are contorted like employes
Productivity is not based on location of the workplace
as much as it is based on the person doing the work.
Only ignorant paranoid idiots want workers "where they can
be watched". I won't work for such fools.
As a manager, I can tell you that I need to spend some hi-bandwidth time with my people on a regular basis. I need that interpersonal time to interact with them, make sure they have what they need and the barriers to their work are pushed out of the way. There's no substitute for eating lunch with someone to really understand where they are.
Can I imagine a corner case where work can easily be done from home and the person doesn't need that time?
Sure, but this isn't how the team works as a whole and I need the team working, as a whole.
Even God says we should get together with him once a week face to face
The more you scare people.....the more they will pay.
Working from home requires a certain work ethic.
Not all of us possess this.
I've also heard from friends who do work from home that they struggle to distinguish between work/home and personal/business. It seems that the physical acts of leaving for work and coming home from work are required for some people to be able to keep the two (mindsets?) separated.
I think the problem with centralizing knowledge work, especially something like software development which has a creative element, is not so much the remote versus centralized issue, as the kind of environment centralized workers find themselves in. There are definite advantages to bringing a team together to work face to face, even if the benefits are difficult to quantify. Where it goes wrong is a cube-farm office, which has all the disadvantages but few advantages, for example being an environment which is both isolating and impersonal and at the same time full of distractions from the nearby presence of your co-workers. What's needed is a better balance of interaction and isolation.
One big flaw in your argument is that the linked studies seem to focus on individual productivity. What about team productivity? I can definitely see myself producing more code if I worked in a more isolated environment, or whatever other metric you'd like to use, but I think my team's overall effectiveness would suffer. Note that we don't work alone in cubicles or closed offices, but at desks in an open environment as is common these days. It's hard for me to imagine a remote work environment -- even with chat and Google video hangouts constantly running -- that could match the free flow of ideas and information that we get from working right next to one another. The distractions to individual productivity are more than compensated for by being more plugged in to what other people are doing, which lets everyone make better decisions that save time in the long run.
I'm not sure why so many people are reacting as though there's a universally superior approach here. All teams and organizations are different. Having employees present at the office seems to work for Google, and presumably Mayer has good reason to think it will work at Yahoo as well. I'm sure there are also lots of big organizations where the opposite is true.
I just focus better in my tiny, half-walled cell at the office. There are a lot of people parading to my office for help with various issues and it's a fine thing for my boss to see that, too. I get lots of chances to work at home, sometimes without the kids, but there are many distractions. Who wants to tune a query or troubleshoot PL/SQL when there's an XBox sitting 10 feet away?
I worked for a year remotely from a new country, and by that time I was about stir-crazy from isolation, even as my day ended promptly at 3pm and I had so much time to have a good home balance. If you have flexibility, you should go into the office at least once a week to get that invaluable face-to-face interaction, and during crunch time switch to 80% in-office. Impromptu five-minute stand-ups with a project group are often essential.
because I certainly have no use whatsoever for networking. Nope. None. And getting pinged by 500 ppl per minute in IM because that's the only way to get ahold of me will never get old.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Mayer had to do what is right for Yahoo! They have been stagnant for awhile, so - perhaps it is a proper change in management. I guess time will tell.
I work remotely (for the last year and a half) and it definitely has benefits but it also has drawbacks. There *is* something to working in an office with coworkers, but there is something to be said about working remotely (being out of stupid meetings, getting drawn into things, etc).
If you spend most of your working days at home, you WILL be forgotten. There is definitely value in having a physical presence at your workplace, even if you spend the majority of your time at your desk. You'll still be seen in the hallways, you'll be physically there at meetings, if you need to talk to someone about an issue it's easy enough to do it in person with the subtle benefits of having your physical presence there as opposed to being on the phone/communicator.
People remember faces better if they seem them regularly. Work at home (at least regularly) and you run the risk of being forgotten for various benefits such as being picked for a promotion, or to go on a field trip (if you aren't sick of travel yet), and heck, people will like you more if you're actually there (people being the social creatures that they are), which has its own benefits.
The only exception would be if everyone else at your workplace works from home, and there's only a handful of people who need to physicall go somewhere to work. I know the writers on Ars Technica fit that description quite well. Otherwise you might be better off dealing with the drudgery of dragging yourself into work for its career benefits.
Raenex is a dickhead
You know those guys who start the day on youtube/facebook/ and only start to work when you nag them to death. If you don't they might do some "proof that I worked" BS at the end of the day? These are the guys who have to obey one rule and they cannot: be available between 9-5. Then you call, message, mail, call all numbers, all messengers, and the guy is no-where.
I have seen a complete telecommuting department of 30+ people ordered permanently to the office because a couple of these assholes.
That said: I work at 2 places at the same time. Since I don't have to prepare, make food (special diet, no take-out and soda machine for me), drive, socialise and all that, I can comfortably put 10 hours a day of coding/planning (infrastructure design, consulting with coders) on the table. I have an elliptical trainer and a garden. If my head is about to explode and I "only" have to read some specs or make a call, I walk/sit outside in the garden in natural light (tropics rule).
Now that is the good part. At one place my colleagues just don't get it. Communication is freakin' impossible with them. Even though the policy: code when you want/can, be available in business hours (US eastern 8-4). Guys don't answer mails, forget if you Skype/call instead, not on Skype sometimes for hours without notice (and messing up everything the night before in the GIT repos). It is just a mess...
So I think it is possible, it is good, but you simply have to screen the people and remove their rights if they fail to deliver/communicate.
If you are in software development an need to participate in planning/design (not just e.g. work on tickets on a ready product), then probably it makes sense to go to the office once a week to do some joint brainstorming. Maybe more. Depending. When people talk tech in the elevator, at the cafeteria, smoking area, gym, or etc ... good things happen. Ideas are born. When you just have a Skype call without using any presentation tool (whiteboard), then you feel the difference: it is not as effective.
The ADD ridden ones at least are (somewhat) forced to pay attention at meetings and at best can play with their phones, but if it is Skype, who knows what is on the other 4 screens. Worst experience : my colleague has his whole family screaming at the same time while we are having meetings. I am not talking a noise once in a while, or family arriving/leaving, but full time lunch serving and baby screaming all the way.
Most hated office things: 1. Half the room is cold, half the room is hot. Always, everywhere. 2. Morning chatter of yesterday's game, movie, news .. etc - fine, just do it outside if you see someone trying to work. 3. Asshole on speakerphone or asshole on personal call, calling 10th place to get new tires.... 4. food smell.. New rule: next time I have to smell your packaged paprika bacon-pork skin chips I can throw up into your hair..... If you touch my screen with the finger, I get to chop it off with a blunt cheese-knife.
I have to say I have severely mixed feelings on working from home. It's definitely nice on occasion, but as I see more and more of my coworkers working remotely and we're forced to use more workers in India it creates an environment where the entire feeling of teamwork is breaking down. Plus as an engineer I feel my single best tool for communicating many technical issues and designs is a marker board. Which cannot be used remotely. Even the engineers I have "locally" tend to be very green and need a lot of guidance, trying to lead them remotely just gives me a headache and things take far longer than they should.
This is an issue that's very important to me, personally.
I've relocated my immediate family far from all of our extended family for a job. It's a great job (Google), but the relocation has imposed some real hardships on us, and I'd very, very much like to be able to move back "home" but keep the job, working remotely. I came to Google from IBM, a company which has gone largely distributed, and I spent the ten years prior to joining Google working from home.
So I have both motivation to convince Google that I can work remotely with great effectiveness and experience to show that I have, in fact, done it. Further, Google has outstanding tools for facilitated distributed work... not only do we use Google Docs and Google+ Hangouts extensively, they're also integrated with each other and with Gmail, and Google Chat, and Google Voice. Plus, of course, all of our source control tools are well-suited to remote work, our code review and systems management interfaces are all either command-line or web-based (either works great remotely). It really is a world-class remote collaboration suite.
However, I've had to grudgingly admit that Google is right in its assertion that distributed work is less efficient, that remote teams move slower and accomplish less than co-located teams. I'm in the Boulder office, but much of my work has reached across site boundaries to include teams in Mountain View, San Francisco, Boston, New York and Zurich. And, as a result, I've ended up spending a lot of time in those cities (I'm in Zurich now) because it is so much more effective to communicate with people in person.
How do I reconcile the conflict? Was I just ineffective at IBM? I mean, there I was e-mailing Office docs and talking on conference calls. That had to have been even worse than at Google, right? No. Remote work can work, and very well, but it requires a massive cultural shift. The technology is there, and has been for a while, but what's lacking is the motivation to be willing to suffer the large cost of essentially re-training your entire company on how to communicate.
IBM made this shift because it was drowning in red ink and Gerstner decided a first step to fixing that problem was to eliminate most of IBM's real estate, and the resulting lack of office space led the company scrambling for solutions. IBM had decades-long task forces focused only on finding and addressing obstacles to remote work. There's no doubt that IBM's productivity did take a big hit during the transition, and it lasted for a long time. But IBM was at the same time fighting its way out from under massive internal bureaucracy, and the improvements from eliminating the bureaucracy papered over the problems caused by retraining. Another source of improvement was the fact that IBM built, at the same time, a whole new -- and very large -- services business, which was inherently distributed.
A key to IBM's success, though, was that almost everyone was pushed out of the office. The people who couldn't be productive working remotely ended up being slid out of the company, many in the course of a few layoffs. If you want to make remote work effective, everyone needs to be comfortable dealing with remote collaborators all the time, and by sending nearly everyone home, IBM achieved that.
Google, on the other hand, is already a highly productive, efficient company, one which doesn't really have massive layers of bureaucracy to clear out. As a result, any widespread transition to remote work would cause the company's performance to take a large hit, and not briefly. 5+ years, I estimate. I think Google could make the transition faster than IBM did, partly due to better tools, mostly due to better people -- not everyone, mind you, there were lots of highly capable IBMers, but there's hardly anyone at Google who is not highly capable. But it would take years and Google's apparent dominance notwithstanding, Google can't afford that.
IBM's market position was built primarily on long-term, solid c
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Cubicles became popular starting in the 1970s, seen as an improvement over the bullpen (open office) and cheaper than individual offices.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
This article is obviously a reaction to Yahoo's actions, stopping the ability to work remotely.
But it's ignoring the real reason why Yahoo did so. Over time, Yahoo has grown vast and has accumulated a number of freeloaders who possibly were not even working, but were still being paid.
By pulling everyone in to work for a year or so, Yahoo can evaluate who they really have working. In technical terms, you can think of it like a garbage collector spinning up and cleaning out useless nodes...
In about a year after Yahoo has everything settled up, they'll probably re-introduce remote working.
More details on Yahoo here (my apologies for linking to a BusinessInsider article, a website that usually has little to do with business).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
When I used to work in-office, when anyone was under pressure to hit a deadline they'd tend to come in early - not for the extra hours but because they could achieve so much more without people coming up to their desks to ask them questions they should have sent in an email or filed a bug (so as not to arbitrarily distract the coder, who after politely listening would always say "file a bug" - but they never learn).
Eventually I began working from my new home 400kms from the office - and I found my productivity at an all-time high. As part of the deal (to placate my managers manager) I had to be in-office for a week out of every calendar month at my own expense (easily offset by cheaper cost of living 400kms from the city). While it was fun to catch up with people my productivity would always nose-dive. I would attend dozens more meetings than I would ordinarily be phone-conferenced in on, none of them particularly relevant to my work and they'd drag on forever. People would constantly be at my desk asking questions they somehow managed to file a bug for or hit me up on Messenger when I wasn't in the office. Office life seemed completely unproductive for anyone who was there to write code.
Now it looks like I may have to quit my job, as my managers managers managers manager has decided everyone needs to work in the office all the time, and I'm not relocating my family 400kms from the countryside to the city. You may have heard of the company. Her loss. Sadly, my loss too.
I don't necessarily agree that everyone should work at home. I think some people need a professional environment to thrive.
Therefore telecommuting centers would be a great compromise. Places to telecommute that provide some common infrastructure for people to share. Cameras to remote observe workers. Scanners to mass convert paper to digital. Places that are within a mile of where they live; someplace you could bicycle to.
What the fuck are you on about? Did a bicycle tube kill your mother or something?
The key, I think, to working at home productively (when you have kids/pets/toys/etc) is to have a completely separated part of your home designated for work.. could even have a separate front door if possible. This is pretty much what the government is expecting of self-employed folks who write off part of their rent/mortgage as a home office anyway. The colocation is a huge time saver and convenience, and is great for the environment. While especially in our line of work, the price of repeated context switches are huge, I'd argue that many workplaces don't do a very good job shielding us from these either. In a perfect world, employers should use half the money saved on monthly office space rent to pay for one-time home office accommodations, and for employee compensation/perks.
remote monks....well you get the idea... then Central Church Control...and all that.... my point being: dis ain't a new thang.
As a tech, you are quite welcome with the results you get from your Indian techs.
Redde arachis hypogaea, posside simiae.
A sig is placed here
To display how futile
English Haiku is
The reason people want to get away from what we have now is because it's not what we had 30 years ago. When I first won a promotion to a technical job in our HQ in 1985 we actually had offices. I retired a couple of years ago (get off my lawn kid). By that time only mid-level and higher managers had offices. Us peons were crammed into cube farms. And, oh yeah, there were reviews under way trying to figure out how to cram more cubes into the same space. Obligatory Dilbert http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1996-09-15/ Give people real offices, and they might not mind.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
Here's the thing about allowing employees to work remotely. It works for some jobs and *some people*. Clearly there are people who can work remotely and get lots done, usually even more done. These people have motivation and self-discipline. However, I don't know if you've looked around, but self-discipline isn't something that *most* people have. Given the chance they over-indulge in everything from junk food to credit to addictive forms of entertainment even while abstaining from all of these things would be in their own long term best interest. As a manager you certainly wouldn't want *those* people working from home.
So... a company that allows workers to work from home has to be able to say "no" to someone with no self-discipline. This is the *right* thing to do, but it's a potential mess for management. "Sue can work from home and I have the same job, same responsibilities, and same glowing employee evaluations as her, so why can't I work from home?" "Well, I don't think you'd actually function well in that environment." "Why?"
I'm not saying it can't work, but do you see how, as a manager, it's easier to just make everyone come to the office?
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
I built a house with a large home office in it so that I could run my Internet based company from home. The city threw a huge fit, and said it needed to be built to commercial standards. Submitted new plans and they said that you can't live in a commercial structure! The American Dream is all jacked up.
But I do have co-workers who are often as helpless as small children.(I can't get this USB device working, The server isn't working, what do you mean I have the wrong IP address? ETC)
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
Since people are all the same, there will be a single answser to any such question that will work better for everyone than the alternatives. People all need, and want, the same amount of face-to-face social interaction, and there is a single testable level of social interaction which will produce the best results for all the workers. Innovation and creativity do not in any way vary based on traits which might differ between people. So, for instance, if it's true that an autistic employee can maintain mental stability and productive work while working remotely and never meeting coworkers face-to-face, that will be true for all the other employees. And if it's true that someone with ADHD finds an open office space with other people doing other things nearby more distracting than empowering, it'll be true for all the other employees.
Note that there's at least some places that are solving this problem in a very different way: They provide shared office space to people who don't work for the same companies or on the same projects, so they can have the physical and social benefits of "an office" -- but one very close to them, and convenient to them. While still getting the other benefits of remote work. Or doing a small business thing that doesn't have other employees. This apparently works decently for some people.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
My colleagues and I are spread across at least half a dozen states and a couple countries and our manager is not within a thousand miles of three quarters of us. And his manager is 3,000 miles away from *him*. And we've managed in high stress, mission-critical, crazy-hour, professional situations for almost two decades, doing this. It gets easier and more productive, every year, too. Thanks to things like video conferencing, voice conferencing, web-ex style services, telephones, instant messaging, email, etc.
I find that the shitty attitude a lot of people have is simply because they don't personally think they could manage (or wouldn't be allowed) to work form home, so they think nobody else should, either. Unless you're assembling cars, building a house, or working at a cash register, there aren't really any knowledge-worker jobs that can't be done just as well or better, remotely, with proper use of the tools (think of the flexibility and extra time with no commute that people inevitably end up re-investing in spending far more than their 40hrs/week working).
I've been fortunate enough to work for awesome managers my entire career who have always taken the mindset of "I don't give a damn where you work, as long as you work". After my first six months in my first real career contract, I went to my boss one night and said that a family member was sick and that my family asked me to return soon as he could have weeks or months left, for all they knew. I told my boss I needed to move back home, a thousand miles away, and start working remotely.
I had a first class plane ticket that night, boarded the next morning, and was back home -- permanently -- by the next afternoon and have continued ever since.
If you're being paid to do shit work for shit wages, you probably need to be supervised. If you are a professional in a professional career, paid a professional salary, you should be self-reliant and accountable and everyone else should expect that of you, too. If you can't be trusted to perform on your own steam in your own office, then you shouldn't have been hired, in the first place.
Between chores begging to be done, cats wanting to be fed, kids coming home hours before the typical workday finishes, and a myriad of other distractions I find home is a terrible place to get things done. I take work home only when the distractions at work are worse than they are at home and that is rare, usually end of reporting period or something similar.
On the flip side being co-located with scores of other people we rely on to get jobs done is a real blessing in efficiency. People have a tendency to react slower to phone calls and ignore emails. Compare that to actually talking to a person face to face, or potentially running into them several times a day. This could be due to the collaborative nature of my work (engineer in industrial environment) where I rely and am relied upon for things to get done, but in any case not being at work makes these interactions much harder.
What needs to make a comeback is people not thinking they know what is best for everyone. Sometimes I am more productive in the office, sometimes I am not. Depends on many factors, factors that can change from week to week.
I do IT work and we are all in cubes in a large room, including my boss (he's a tech, not a PHB). It really works better because when someone wanders in needing help, they can more quickly get routed to the person who can actually help them, when there's questions about something we can get them answered quick, and we can chat about ideas.
I find I really like it. It isn't perfect, of course, but overall I'd take it over us all being in individual offices, which we could have, if we wanted (most of us do have an assigned office to use if we need, we just don't).
It's a decent arrangement, but there are pluses and minuses. You get regular interruptions from your 1-year-old, but at the same time you get to see your 1-year-old so frequently -- and she gets to see you!
I do miss lunches with co-workers, though. On the day I go onsite, I'm usually too busy, packing in a week's worth of face-to-face meetings into one day.
And the businesses tend to congregate close to the centre of the most crowded metropolises
and want their workers to work the same hours to cause the worst traffic congestion.
Go well
The 18 layers of managers wouldn't have anything to do if people worked from home. Many of them may be sacked. We can't be having that.
That's been the problem since way back in the time when people started being able to do the work remotelly.
In the mindset of your typical short-termist middle managers: if an "expensive" Developed Nation resource can do it from home, why don't we have it done by "cheap" resources living in Developing Nations.
In the end, the main competitive advantages of local resources are:
That said, a lot of these advantages do require in-person presence (at least some of the time), so as long as one can get 4x in a far away country for the price of 1x locally, those problems will be managed.
"CEOs, like Yahoo's Marissa Mayer and Apple's Steve Jobs, think that a central office fosters more innovation and productivity. I think they're wrong." ...but how is your own multi-million company doing with your remote workers?
Less sarcastically, are there any LARGE companies out there which are mostly comprised of remote workers and have both innovation and productivity? (I know some small ones do exist)
If there are couple of more floodings like in NYC recently, there will be no offices left. The world will probably sink into the New Middle Ages.
Working at least sometimes by telecommuting we reduce emissions during commuting.
It is much easier to move electrons around a city than protons. We are just to learn to move electrons efficiently.
Piecework at home is NOT the way id like to see the IT industry going.
And its an unfortunate truth that tightly integrated and collocated teams have much higher productivity.
In my experience, being able to walk across the aisle and ask your colleague a question is invaluable in team-based projects. Since all projects are team-based, working remotely should be discouraged. But perhaps I'm biased having worked on projects where team members were spread out between Asia (China/Singapore), the EU (Portugal/France), and the USA.
You can have your own pet hates and rail against common usage, but the word professional has as one of its meanings: "engaged in one of the learned professions". Your strange distaste for that particular meaning doesn't change the fact that it is a perfectly valid usage.
I've been doing enterprise software project management for 10 years. Here are my experiences with 2 ERPs and numerous other large-ish projects.
The open concept works for the very early period when you're collaborating with your business folks, figuring out the roles and responsibilities, the design, and the team. The more closed-in (and remote work) approach works much better in the build phase, when the contributors are most effective uninterrupted. This latter point is one reason, often, that ERP deployment teams are sequestored to a separate facility and not allowed to continue legacy support. Execs/management recognize that as a success factor. So, yeah, both sides are right. You need each environment for a different purpose.
I've been running worldwide projects for a bit as well, which is almost a perfect picture of work-at-home effectiveness because the foreign teams NEVER are in the office. Frankly, communications are extremely strained (misinterpretations from lack of body language and emphasis), balls get dropped often, and there is very little in terms of team culture. That latter point is huge to PMs who know what it takes to deliver stellar project products: a cohesive, fun-loving team.
Even celebrations, which I feel are crucial to keeping you star tech folks, are difficult if not impossible. Again, you're missing the team opportunity.
There was a concept I got the joy to work in at Purdue University (as an employee) where individual office cubes (no doors) were set in a star pattern around a common area with table. The common area was the visioning, planning, and design point. The offices were the concentrated, individual work centers. It really was a great environment. But they ran out of space and so the "pod" environment disappeared.
Lastly, managers have offices with doors for lots of reasons. Promotions, raises, disciplinary action, confidential executive discussions, constant phone calls and meetings (which many of you likely hate). All those, done in a public environment, are disruptive at best and acidic at worst. I never had one of those offices, so its not like I've got some vested interest, either.
If you're doing work anyone can do then perhaps it should be given to the person overseas who can do it for less.
I doubt someone on the other side of the planet can procure a security clearance. Working in a position that requires one is an excellent way to insure your position can't be easily outsourced.
And aren't necessarily worth having. It's two jobs in one. It's twice the responsibility for the same work.
Not everyone wants to be promoted. Sometimes the best job in an organization is the job you have. If the pay is right and the job is right why do you need to get promoted?
So looking at how Apple actually treats workers why would you expect any management innovation from them?
I found that spending a few days a week at the office and a few days at the house provides a good split. When I need quiet I can focus on things best at home and at the office I can casually chat with co-workers and keep up with what's happening.
-Xen
It's also a *lot* harder in a cubicle (or worse, just tables jammed together like we have in our London office) to disable the overhead lights. Most offices I've been in are massively overlit.
If you don't like the terms and conditions of employment, most of us are 'free' to leave. Then if you can, you can go make your own employment utopia using your rules.
... "When you pry the source from my cold dead hands."
Yes, your employer cares about your productivity and the value you bring to the bottom line, but they also care about exerting control. In the Middle Ages, the lord of the manor had a vested interest in exerting control over his serfs. Much of corporate policy is based on no more than this: everything from dress codes to dictating the tools you can use for the job. The executive class is fed conceits like they are the almighty job creators, and freedom is their right to grind the worker's nose into the grindstone, grind it bloody and raw. Why do you think they dictate everything from whether you can grow facial hair to having to wear a tie to sit in a cubicle interacting with almost no one?
On vit, on code et puis on meurt.
are centralized above and beyond efficiency in production, despite the fact that knowledge workers can be sent work digitally and we have high quality teleconferencing if you really need "facetime" (Fuck you, Apple!), they still wake up, put on office clothes, and commute on average 45 minutes to their workplace to do a job that can be done from anyplace in the world. It's about disciplining and control of labor by the bosses. They can make you work at the pace they want you to, regulate your movements, and make you abide to any other policies that they see fit. Hell, if they let them have some autonomy by letting them work at home, they might get the crazy idea to work on their own projects and go independent, taking away profits from Father Corporation that they deserve. Y'know...actually innovate!!!
I'm a freelancer. The first company I did regular work for had some serious issues that having us all in an office would have cured--for example, one of the other coders needed a great deal of attention from the lead programmer, and I'd have a minor question or need fifteen minutes of assistance, and he'd be busy with that coder and never get back to me, thus leaving me to figure it out on my own, which unnecessarily wasted time. He wouldn't have done that had I been right there in front of him. The company I work for now is a lot better, but we're seriously contemplating my relocating there because there are many occasions where it would be much, much easier to be in the same room. I don't have small children, but there are days when it's really hard to concentrate, and it's definitely harder to differentiate between "my" time and "their" time because the home and the office are one and the same. There are times I don't work as efficiently as I would if I had a regular schedule of going to the office because I'll just work later, but then there are times when the fact that I can roll out of bed straight to the code and stay there until I'm ready to go back to bed is absolutely invaluable. I can live in sweats and nobody cares, and I definitely eat a lot better because I'm getting my food at home instead of going out for lunch. I agree with the poster that said there's really no correct answer--it's what works best for the individual company. If I do end up relocating, I'm definitely going to miss the much lower cost of living where I am now.
You sit alone, nobody to talk to, no breaks and after workday you are still in the same place, staring at the same screen and feeling totally exhausted. It sucks. This is why I try to avoid working from home. Work and home should be separate.
When I'm at home, I don't want to be working. And why should I save money for the company - will they pay me at least part of the difference to work at home, that they're not paying for office space?
Now, I vehemently object to the assininity of "open plan" office space - that's for managers who want to watch you at all times, to make sure you're typing (I actually had a VP once that did that, on occasion), ignoring one of the first things you learn on your college orientation: find somewhere *quiet* to work.
That said, I want it all taken care of for me - they provide me a place to do work for them, anyway.
And I read in the trade press, over 20 years ago, when I didn't think many companies allowed telecommuting, that most of those that had the most experience with it really, really wanted the employees in, in person, at least one-two days a week, not just for meetings, but for the water cooler conversations that turned out to be *very* important, and would never have occured if you weren't there to hear a conversation going on....
mark
My company is 100% virtual in the U.S., we only have physical offices offshore. This is the "new normal" in the Digital Interactive Space.
A lot of what you consume on the Internet is built all across the globe. It's not unusual to have the design done in the U.S., the animation in China, the Flash widgets in South America, the core logic in Eastern Europe, etc. You can't manage these projects working 8-5 -- you need to be online for a wide range of hours, and expect to have to get up at odd hours for meetings. You simply can't do this out of an office, and as a result most of the staff works from home.
It is a huge draw for new employees to be able to work from home, with zero commute costs, zero dress code costs, and the result is far less politics than you get in an office.
The rest of I.T. will catch up to this, sooner or later. With the cost of communication near zero, and a global work force, it is inevitable.
Murphy was an optimist
It's a mentality, not a skill set. Either you take pride in your craft, and actually enjoy doing it, or you work hardest at being teflon, avoiding work, causing trouble, trying to manipulate people, or demonstrating the size of your precious ego to anyone who will listen. Those of us in your camp will never understand the majority in the other camp - nor will they understand us.
Your manager came from these ranks, s/he is a rare breed indeed.
Murphy was an optimist
The reality is that if your job can be done cheaper elsewhere, it will be outsourced, as the cost of communications is near zero.
Not because corporations are evil, and hate people. Corporations represent an investment, and the goal of an investment is to return value to those who invested. If all of my competitors are using offshore labor, and I am using U.S. based labor, I won't have any customers because my prices will be higher. People with loudmouthed, emotional ideology, interestingly enough, want to pay the lowest price for the greatest value. If you don't believe me, take a drive by the local Wal-Mart. What people SAY and what they DO are not always in harmony. Punish these corporations, by forcing them to hire U.S. employees, and the global marketplace will simply move elsewhere.
Accept this reality or end up in the fast food or retail service industry. The case your making does not fit the numbers, and business is a numbers game.
Murphy was an optimist
Working from home or working remote is not the issue - bad management is bad management, they just blame the workers, and the ones they can't see are usually the first to get it...
It's a personality thing, but for me, I can't be productive when I work alone at home. Having people around me stimulates and motivates me. I need the random office interaction to maintain my sanity. I also think for many creative projects group interaction is highly important. I need the office environment.
But some types of work, and some types of people, work much better when they can be isolated and focused. These types of workers, need to be given more options for working at home.
When people worked at home before the industrial revolution, it was normally piece work - you got paid based on what you produced, so there was no need to monitor or manage them. Any office work that can be paid like piece work moves to the home very nicely. Wage work and salary work doesn't translate as well unless the manager has a large amount of trust in the worker which tends to be the exception and not the norm. And if the manger lets one person work at home, but not others, it's gets very sticky trying to say "I trust Sally to work at home, but you Bob, I don't trust, so you must come in so I can watch you!". It opens a can of worms that most companies just end up staying away from which is why we don't have see more telecommuting in salaried office workers and might never see unless our technology is able to create a virtual office environment where manages can keep an eye on people, and walk around and have casual random chats with them as needed.
Why do you live so far from work?
Calling for major tax breaks to move within a 5 minute commute.
Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.