Working From Home Megathread

silverharp

our company is coining it on mileage and other travel costs not being incurred, some of it related to strict lockdown, but cant imagine they want to lose all those gains going forward

Quin_Dub

Deleted User wrote: »

In my company, getting sh1t done gives a good impression. I'd imagine thats the case in most organisations.

Of course it is..

But - If you are competing for one of only a few available in-role promotions with a few other people across your wider department then all of them will tick the "getting sh!t done" check box.

You then need all of the votes sitting around the table to at least know you etc. so they pick you over the other person ,so you need to work on that.

Not saying it isn't possible or that you are automatically at a disadvantage by being WFH.

The point being made is that when you are working in that future state "hybrid" model you will have to do some things a little differently to maintain that visibility among the leadership and awareness of the "lay of the land" in the organisation.

Obviously the size of the company impacts on how much of a change this might be.

Your hybrid behaviour in a company of 50-100 people etc. will be quite different to where you are working in a large MNC with ten's of thousands of employees

Lewis_Benson

Have to say I'm fine with WFH now, been doing it exactly a year.
I don't miss the long commute or large fuel bills.
Il be pushing for more WFH when this is all over.

kippy

Deleted User wrote: »

In my company, getting sh1t done gives a good impression. I'd imagine thats the case in most organisations.

It's been addressed already but to repeat it.
Getting **** done isn't a differential.

Quin_Dub

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Of course it is..

But - If you are competing for one of only a few available in-role promotions with a few other people across your wider department then all of them will tick the "getting sh!t done" check box.

You then need all of the votes sitting around the table to at least know you etc. so they pick you over the other person ,so you need to work on that.

Not saying it isn't possible or that you are automatically at a disadvantage by being WFH.

The point being made is that when you are working in that future state "hybrid" model you will have to do some things a little differently to maintain that visibility among the leadership and awareness of the "lay of the land" in the organisation.

Obviously the size of the company impacts on how much of a change this might be.

Your hybrid behaviour in a company of 50-100 people etc. will be quite different to where you are working in a large MNC with ten's of thousands of employees

There was a "perception" among employers before covid that WFH would lead to poor results. That's been well and truly put to bed.

Now employees have a "perception" that if someone doesn't see you, they won't promote you.

Most importantly this shows a basic lack of understanding of getting the right candidate for the role. Whether or not I see someone at a desk, walking in the corridor or in meetings is going to bear not one iota on a decision to promote said person. If they are the best candidate for the role, they get the role, simple as.

As for "getting stuff done", that is not the only measure by which a person is assessed. There is also qualifications, experience, leadership qualities, peer assessments, project results (quality, service, cost), self-sufficiency, motivation, solution driven, etc, etc

You and I could both complete the same task, but that does not mean we would complete it the same and that the end result would have the same long term effect on the company as a whole.

But hey, if folks feel they need to be in the office to be there to pick up the odd jobs and be in front of superiors to increase their chances of getting a promotion, lash ahead. I'll still be logging off at 17:00 and be sitting on the couch at 17:01 and will still go head to head with you for that role.

Btw, none of this is directed at you Quin, just used your post as a good example of the other side of the argument

Szero

https://twitter.com/chris_herd/status/1372587563341479945

kippy

Deleted User wrote: »

There was a "perception" among employers before covid that WFH would lead to poor results. That's been well and truly put to bed.

Now employees have a "perception" that if someone doesn't see you, they won't promote you.

Most importantly this shows a basic lack of understanding of getting the right candidate for the role. Whether or not I see someone at a desk, walking in the corridor or in meetings is going to bear not one iota on a decision to promote said person. If they are the best candidate for the role, they get the role, simple as.

As for "getting stuff done", that is not the only measure by which a person is assessed. There is also qualifications, experience, leadership qualities, peer assessments, project results (quality, service, cost), self-sufficiency, motivation, solution driven, etc, etc

You and I could both complete the same task, but that does not mean we would complete it the same and that the end result would have the same long term effect on the company as a whole.

But hey, if folks feel they need to be in the office to be there to pick up the odd jobs and be in front of superiors to increase their chances of getting a promotion, lash ahead. I'll still be logging off at 17:00 and be sitting on the couch at 17:01 and will still go head to head with you for that role.

Btw, none of this is directed at you Quin, just used your post as a good example of the other side of the argument

DaCor,
It's not that they "won't" promote you because they don't see you.
It would very much depend on a number of factors, however, in general, for those early in their careers, it is a challenge to both learn a new role, adapt to the culture of the organisation and best integrate with their colleagues.
And in fairness, when interviews etc come around, there are many factors that influence a decision to hire/promote a person.

Time will tell I suppose - as someone else said above, maybe its about adapting to playing the game in a new way in a WFH environment.

Jim Root

Tell you one thing, having had Wednesday off yesterday, I can see it being a popular day to want to “work” from home going forward. Breaks up the week nicely.

Antares35

I think some (not all) of the people going on about WFH being a doss etc. are potentially judging others by their own standards. I'd a message from a co-worker a while back, insisting that "we are all being called back in". When I asked her for the source of her information she just kept saying, "it's an agenda from the top, they want us all back doing a normal working week". I felt like asking her what she's been doing the last year, because most of us are doing a "normal working week" plus probably some more on top of that. Although I do know she spends a lot of time dodging work and being generally píssed at being asked to do anything, because apparently anything she's given "isn't her job".

I'm not particularly worried about her "insider knowledge" - I'll go with what my own direct line has told me will be happening, but I wonder where she's getting the idea that we are not "working a normal week".

kippy

Antares35 wrote: »

I think some (not all) of the people going on about WFH being a doss etc. are potentially judging others by their own standards. I'd a message from a co-worker a while back, insisting that "we are all being called back in". When I asked her for the source of her information she just kept saying, "it's an agenda from the top, they want us all back doing a normal working week". I felt like asking her what she's been doing the last year, because most of us are doing a "normal working week" plus probably some more on top of that.

I'm not particularly worried about her "insider knowledge" - I'll go with what my own direct line has told me will be happening, but I wonder where she's getting the idea that we are not "working a normal week".

TBF,
It would depend heavily on your home life/environment.
The past year hasn't been a fair reflection of an actual WFH environment for many people.
Essentially there are people with kids/other family/housemates also in the house, with varying level of needs and issues which all effect how much you can dedicate to your "work".
You've also gotten people in less than idea accomodation/equipment scenarios.
Finally and most importantly, in my mind, you have all of this in an environment of massive restrictions which stop people properly "decompressing" from the "work environment". No social outlets, every day essentially the same, no holidays, no "normality".
WFH without the above considerations may actually be far more appealing to people who are struggling with "it" now.

I know myself, with family at home, homeschooling etc, I have not been able to "work" for certain periods in the day and I end up "working" in the evening and/or weekends to make up for it. So the workday is far more fluid for me because of my home environment, because of other restrictions in place.
So there are many different opinions/experiences out there of the definetion of "work".

Antares35

kippy wrote: »

TBF,
It would depend heavily on your home life/environment.
The past year hasn't been a fair reflection of an actual WFH environment for many people.
Essentially there are people with kids/other family/housemates also in the house, with varying level of needs and issues which all effect how much you can dedicate to your "work".
You've also gotten people in less than idea accomodation/equipment scenarios.
Finally and most importantly, in my mind, you have all of this in an environment of massive restrictions which stop people properly "decompressing" from the "work environment". No social outlets, every day essentially the same, no holidays, no "normality".
WFH without the above considerations may actually be far more appealing to people who are struggling with "it" now.

I know myself, with family at home, homeschooling etc, I have not been able to "work" for certain periods in the day and I end up "working" in the evening and/or weekends to make up for it. So the workday is far more fluid for me because of my home environment, because of other restrictions in place.
So there are many different opinions/experiences out there of the definetion of "work".

Maybe, I've had a lot of that myself, with a new baby etc in the mix, no childcare and no live in babysitter etc. I will often find myself working outside of the traditional "nine to five" and our company has been very accomodating in this regard. She doesn't have kids, housemates etc though I agree we don't really know what's going with anyone else. I suppose we can give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she meant "a normal working week" in the context of a return to "the nine to five" as opposed to normal productivity. Having said that, such an assumption is inconsistent with what I've heard from my own boss. I'm told that productivity hasn't been affected and there is a committment to a hybrid model going forward. Time will tell I suppose.

norwegianwood

Anyone else's eyesight starting to suffer with WFH? I don't know if it's because I'm in a small room all day and I was working off a laptop until after Christmas, but I'm gone blind as a bat, even with glasses and two big screens I'm still struggling :pac:

kippy

norwegianwood wrote: »

Anyone else's eyesight starting to suffer with WFH? I don't know if it's because I'm in a small room all day and I was working off a laptop until after Christmas, but I'm gone blind as a bat, even with glasses and two big screens I'm still struggling :pac:

It's more than likely a general increase in screen time overall.
You should ideall not work off a laptop all day - at least have a USB Keyboar/Mouse and a Large screen attached to it.
You'd "work" screen time would probably be the same as it always ways - with maybe a bigger amount spent watching devices etc as well

One thing about "office jobs" - generally much safer than jobs elsewhere but the screen time is going to have an effect on your eyesight as the muscles in the eye don't get enough exercise. They usually recomment you focus on a point a bit further away every now and again.

I am the same myself, my long vision is shocking due to 20 odd years looking at screens. On the plus side there's plenty you can do to improve it.

plodder

Deleted User wrote: »

In my company, getting sh1t done gives a good impression. I'd imagine thats the case in most organisations.

Yes, where I work, in product development there is always more work to be done than people available to do it, and people's productivity varies a lot. So, your status (and compensation and promotion possibilities) are entirely driven by work output rather than being seen swanning around the office by senior management. In sales, performance is measured in € very simply. I find it hard to imagine it's different anywhere else in the private sector at least

kippy

plodder wrote: »

Yes, where I work, in product development there is always more work to be done than people available to do it, and people's productivity varies a lot. So, your status (and compensation and promotion possibilities) are entirely driven by work output rather than being seen swanning around the office by senior management. In sales, performance is measured in € very simply. I find it hard to imagine it's different anywhere else in the private sector at least

There are lots of jobs where "productivity" is extremely difficult to measure, not just in the public sector either. Again - it depends on the environment.

I think people think I am talking about people "swanning around the office" when I am talking about general human interactions, influencing people etc.

plodder

kippy wrote: »

There are lots of jobs where "productivity" is extremely difficult to measure, not just in the public sector either. Again - it depends on the environment.

Hard to quantify with a number maybe, but any good manager knows who's performing well and not so well in their team.

I think people think I am talking about people "swanning around the office" when I am talking about general human interactions, influencing people etc.

Okay fair enough, but interactions can be very effective over email, or instant messaging or zoom, just the same as some people present in the office can make themselves very invisible if they want.

Quin_Dub

plodder wrote: »

Hard to quantify with a number maybe, but any good manager knows who's performing well and not so well in their team.

Okay fair enough, but interactions can be very effective over email, or instant messaging or zoom, just the same as some people present in the office can make themselves very invisible if they want.

This is kind of the point I was making - Not saying that WFH is a death knell to promotion prospects - far from it , it's just that in a WFH/Remote environment you may have to adjust how you work and engage a little to make sure that all those interactions still happen and still have the impact that you want.

I have been fully WFH for over a decade and even prior to that I was effectively "remote" as all my direct peers and managers were in the US , I just happened to be in a company facility during work hours.

Despite the lack of things to do in the evening most people still seem to be happy with WFH. If we could hurry up before the summer and get things re-opened I would expect that activities on a long summer's evening having finished work and already being home at 5pm will make people even more set on WFH in future. Instead of leaving the house at 7.30am and home after 6 people will be ready to go at 5pm for meetups/coffees/sports etc. We'll hopefully see at least a seasonal change in certain sectors in the future e.g. coffee shops and cafes staying open later rather than closing up at 6pm.

AdamD

Quin_Dub wrote: »

This is kind of the point I was making - Not saying that WFH is a death knell to promotion prospects - far from it , it's just that in a WFH/Remote environment you may have to adjust how you work and engage a little to make sure that all those interactions still happen and still have the impact that you want.

I have been fully WFH for over a decade and even prior to that I was effectively "remote" as all my direct peers and managers were in the US , I just happened to be in a company facility during work hours.

Some people on here are being quite naive about how WFH will affect networking when compared with people attending the office a couple of days a week. Better relationships will be built in person and that does matter, regardless of how fantastic the companies they work for are.

beauf

kippy wrote: »

There are lots of jobs where "productivity" is extremely difficult to measure, not just in the public sector either. Again - it depends on the environment.

I think people think I am talking about people "swanning around the office" when I am talking about general human interactions, influencing people etc.

You can measure most things. Few places bother though.

plodder

Quin_Dub wrote: »

This is kind of the point I was making - Not saying that WFH is a death knell to promotion prospects - far from it , it's just that in a WFH/Remote environment you may have to adjust how you work and engage a little to make sure that all those interactions still happen and still have the impact that you want.

I have been fully WFH for over a decade and even prior to that I was effectively "remote" as all my direct peers and managers were in the US , I just happened to be in a company facility during work hours.

Similar with us. We have a small team here that is part of a bigger org, most of which comprised individuals working from their homes in at least a dozen different countries and four continents (mostly Europe and US). This movement to WFH had been happening before the pandemic, which simply accelerated it. I can think of only one location in the org (Sweden) where people weren't doing this and the team there preferred to all work together in the office. I think they are all wfh too now. We were about 60/40 here in Ireland, still mostly in the office but gradually spending more time wfh. The team here all have managers elsewhere in the world.

So not that much has changed for us. Probably, the best way to get known in this world, is through giving group presentations. We would usually have opportunities for this twice a week and if you are doing good work, there is plenty of opportunity for people to hear about it.

kippy

beauf wrote: »

You can measure most things. Few places bother though.

There's a good reason that they don't if you think about it

strandroad

AdamD wrote: »

Some people on here are being quite naive about how WFH will affect networking when compared with people attending the office a couple of days a week. Better relationships will be built in person and that does matter, regardless of how fantastic the companies they work for are.

Again something that's been part and parcel in MNCs or tech companies for decades. You are rarely in the building with people who support or decide on your progression, in fact you're not always on the same continent. Yes some ways of working or getting visibility are different. And yet people still have careers, are promoted, keep learning.

None of this is new, it's only getting a larger rollout now.

JTMan

One for the growth ion fully remote roles ...

One of the biggest media groups in the UK, Reach, who publish the Mirror, Express, Daily Record, Sunday Mail etc have told staff to work from home permanently. They are closing most offices and saving a load in rent in the process.

AndrewJRenko

norwegianwood wrote: »

Anyone else's eyesight starting to suffer with WFH? I don't know if it's because I'm in a small room all day and I was working off a laptop until after Christmas, but I'm gone blind as a bat, even with glasses and two big screens I'm still struggling :pac:

What age are you? Lots of people get hit with long-sightedness in their mid-40s. Presobia (sp) I think?

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Jim Root wrote: »

Tell you one thing, having had Wednesday off yesterday, I can see it being a popular day to want to “work” from home going forward. Breaks up the week nicely.

Why are you putting the word work in italics?
Don't judge everyone by your own standards.

hmmm

I think it's common sense that you can build relationships better face-to-face, however I'm not sure it's a sufficient justification for bringing everyone back into an office.

Some of the more interesting hybrid models being considered have people doing their day-to-day work from home (if they want), and then bringing teams or groups together infrequently for what is effectively internal networking (even something as simple as dinner/a drink). Some of the multinationals with workers all over the world do this already by bringing everyone together in a single location for a few days for training and socialising.

Even the idea of a 3 day/2 day working week of home/office sounds to me like a poorly thought out idea. It makes no-one happy really, many of your employees will be unhappy about being dragged back into a workplace they consider less pleasant and less productive, and many others will find that it doesn't really give them this casual networking they seek as it's unlikely the entire company will be there at the same time - CFOs also won't want to pay for 100% of seats if workers are only there for half a week. It sounds like a stopgap measure before some better model is found.

I also agree that for most employees, the ability to work from home a few days a week will be non-negotiable, and they will move companies (or not join others) if this is not offered. There's also a large group which I'd estimate at about 25-40% of employees (particularly younger employees & those with young kids) who will look for full remote working, and will look to change jobs if it is offered. Someone who has been working at home (or partly at home) is not going to give this up and take a job in an an office which is another consideration. I think every company which is competing for employees will have to reconsider their home-working offering (and it is an offering, no different to salary), but it will take a few years for this to really settle.

Mr.S

Mr.S wrote: »

This is exactly true and will fast become the norm when offices re-open to the masses.

I'd change jobs in a heartbeat if my employer decided to have everyone on-site 5 days a week.

Yup. I've already made a personal decision to never work in an office again. My current employer is accommodating that preference however if that were to change I'd be gone in a heartbeat.

BrianD3

Probably posted before but no harm to link to it again

National Remote Working Strategy
https://enterprise.gov.ie/en/Publications/Publication-files/Making-Remote-Work.pdf

Among the main actions we will take are
• Mandating that home and remote work should
be the norm for 20 percent of public sector
employment

Depending on how this this is interpreted, it could be very beneficial for some and mean they could WFH much more than 20% of the time - as there will be many others who can't WFH (teachers, frontline health workers etc. who make up a large proportion of the PS)

It will be interesting to see the reaction from public sector employers who have been ignoring public health advice on WFH during the pandemic and ordering staff (who by any objective assessment could do their jobs at home) back to offices. Employers like the HSE :rolleyes: I could see a situation where WFH is used to favour some people while bullying others with this being excused using the catch all of "decisions are at the discretion of management"

The WRC may end up busy.

Antares35

hmmm wrote: »

I also agree that for most employees, the ability to work from home a few days a week will be non-negotiable, and they will move companies (or not join others) if this is not offered. There's also a large group which I'd estimate at about 25-40% of employees (particularly younger employees & those with young kids) who will look for full remote working, and will look to change jobs if it is offered. Someone who has been working at home (or partly at home) is not going to give this up and take a job in an an office which is another consideration. I think every company which is competing for employees will have to reconsider their home-working offering (and it is an offering, no different to salary), but it will take a few years for this to really settle.

I agree that any "2 in, 3 out" or vice versa model seems arbitrary.

We definitely fit into the category you've described above. I have no wish to lose three hours a day getting the kids ready for childcare, myself ready for work, dropping them off, then same again in the evening picking them up and sitting in traffic at 6pm with two cranky babies. I can only imagine how that on a five day cycle would affect my productivity! Working from home means we can have a dedicated childminder coming in, for simply the core ours that OH and I can't fill, and when we finish work, we are there with them straight away. More importantly from an employers perspective, it means we are less tired, less stressed, not missing meetings because we've to do pick ups by a certain time, and just generally able to give more.

OHs company have proposed a 3 days in, 2 days out model and there's a lot of disquiet about it. Lots of people looking elsewhere already. He will be too once we draw down. It's the only thing stopping him at this stage.