Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here is an article that supports the "but* in seat" mentality of the best way to work. I disagree, it all depends on discipline and productivity. But then, a sour faced manager can't watch you work at home, so by their estimation you are not productive enough. But this article is part of the new offensive that I see in getting people back to the office to work "responsibly".
I understand the advantages of being in the office, but if you have a manager that wants to "watch" you, that's a red flag unless you're doing something physical (in which case you most likely have other reasons to be onsite).
I understand the advantages of being in the office, but if you have a manager that wants to "watch" you, that's a red flag unless you're doing something physical (in which case you most likely have other reasons to be onsite).
I have worked for companies where managers need to watch you as you work. No trust. Definitely a red flag. The last IT company that I worked for was like that. I was there 28 years. They slowly softened their stance through the years and increasingly let more and more people work from home until my office and others became like ghost towns. But they were paranoid and kept introducing more and more spy software since we were not trusted. The spying junk became increasingly intrusive and it disgusted me. Luckily, I left there but later found out that management canceled WFH and pulled everyone back to the office where eagle eyed managers could watch everyone work again. Whew! That must have been a relief for them to see their employees work.
I had a colleague tell me that he once worked for a company where programmers were bunched into one large room working on open desks. There was a desk at the front of the room which was occupied by an older lady with a yardstick. This lady watched the programmers like a hawk and if anyone got sidetracked and looked away from their monitor, the lady would angrily smash her yardstick onto her desk until the employee resumed working. How's that for enhanced productivity? I wonder what the employee turnover was there. But those kind of companies don't care about turnover, just how to extract the most work from their victims (sorry, employees).
I wish I had more work to be productive. If there's not much work, then doesn't matter whether it's work from home or work in the office. Just today I was in the office and there's nothing to really do so I tried to find things to do on my own like improving efficiency. If there's work to be done I have no problems with doing it all day from home and taking a few breaks here and there in addition to lunch. I don't really have any distractions at home.
We've gone from a stuffy, butt-in-seat culture where we couldn't even wear jeans on Fridays to a fully remote culture.
After being remote for almost a year and a half, I'd be hard-pressed to go back to the office. The "yardstick" approach is the needless, unhelpful approach of most of corporate America.
I'd rather be left alone at the house and make a lot less money than being "yardsticked" every day.
My time in office is nearly 80% lost time, due to constant interruptions. I still have the volume to do. If I will be in the office full time, I will need to work during the evenings to complete my reports, analytics, interlinked spreadsheets, digging through 30 layers of info, etc. I don't want to spend on work more time that is actually needed.
Here is an article that supports the "but* in seat" mentality of the best way to work. I disagree, it all depends on discipline and productivity. But then, a sour faced manager can't watch you work at home, so by their estimation you are not productive enough. But this article is part of the new offensive that I see in getting people back to the office to work "responsibly".
They're comparing how much work you THOUGHT you did at first vs. what you did after REALLY thinking about it. And based that on what employer's expect.
Quote:
“People are wildly underestimating how much break time they are actually taking. When we had them sit down and really think about it, they are spending about 2.7 hours every day not actually working,” said Tricia Harte, with the streaming site Unwind Media, which conducted the survey.
That is about five times as much time on breaks as employers expect their employees to take, and it has been exacerbated by the wave of office workers who’ve been working at home because of the pandemic.
Me thinks if you did that with office workers... you'll get the same results in that they work less than they think.
The numbers may differ. Just because you're actually sitting at a desk doesn't mean you're working.
Finally - time spent ≠ actual work.
This really comes down to how you define work. For many jobs - it's has little to do with how much time you spent but what you actually produced. What is also rarely considered is the "quality" of that work when time is equal. Some people can get more done in an hour at home vs. at work (or vice versa).
“People are wildly underestimating how much break time they are actually taking. When we had them sit down and really think about it, they are spending about 2.7 hours every day not actually working,” said Tricia Harte, with the streaming site Unwind Media, which conducted the survey.
Respectfully, I believe this is true whether you're in the office or working from home. If you are doing the kind of job where you could foreseeably work from home, there's a good chance that you are not working constantly but only as things come up.
What they should be asking is whether there's anything to support that those working from home are more productive, on average, than those in the office. And I've read that they are.
My time in office is nearly 80% lost time, due to constant interruptions. I still have the volume to do. If I will be in the office full time, I will need to work during the evenings to complete my reports, analytics, interlinked spreadsheets, digging through 30 layers of info, etc. I don't want to spend on work more time that is actually needed.
Agree. Someone always wants to stop and and chat about things not work related. Just let me work.
Working from home has been nothing but productive as I see it. Not having to spend time getting dressed up, the time and effort driving to and from a building, battling traffic, feeling rushed etc. leaves lots of room to be more rested, more focused, and most importantly of all: more positive and productive. Not dealing with in-person office politics and nonsense is also huge.
I can't say enough about WFH. I've wanted and wished for that for years, and it's been fantastic making it happen. No negatives or complains anywhere in sight.
If people can't handle it, they're welcome to go back to all of that previous stuff. I have no intention of going backwards or returning to the old ways.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
