Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Working From Home Megathread
Options
Comments
-
Work for an engineering consultancy and we're adopting the hybrid model and can chose whatever variation of it we want. I'll do a mix, although managing time will be a nightmare with commuting, online meetings and on-site client meetings during the in-office days.
For our industry, I think technology has a bit to go before fully remote working makes sense. Process driven or administrative work is fine. Project, strategy and design work is more challenging.
I manage the workload and career progression of four people. We also have to win the work first. There'll be a natural tendency to give people present in the office harder work to do. More unscheduled time will be available to help them.
Haven't figured out how I'd balance this out for people working from home full-time; resulting in them falling behind in career progression. The reality is I probably won't manage to, and it concerns me. There's only so many hours in the day.0 -
Are you saying overnight you are expected to leave the laptop out sitting on a desk
Is the main point of having laptops not that you can lock them away or bring them home encase somebody breaks into the building or in the case of a fire your laptop is off the premises
If every laptop was openly sitting on a desk and somebody broke in then every laptop could be stolen and you go on about security
Sorry if I took you up wrong but surely no company would have a policy like that these days0 -
I presume also when people lock a laptop away, they mean in a lockable drawer attached to their desk for the most part, but that isn't great for hot-desking. I presume some offices have separate stand-alone lockers, but I'd question if many offices that don't already have them can easily install them in order to facilitate this. When we used docking stations people had the option of using those steel cables to prevent the laptop being stolen overnight. We've mostly switched to Mac books now, which don't have docking stations and can't be locked with a cable. So, I guess that is Apple saying you should be taking your laptop home, or locking it in a drawer.0
-
Mrs OBumble wrote: »Ones with any management experience know that some staff are great workers who get stuff done with no supervision, and do the right thing when there's any ambiguity - and some aren't / don't.
Thanks for the detailed response to my earlier questions.
I think this is the crux of it and if so, shouldn't the WFH question revolve around:
a) Who is hiring these people?
b) What action is being taken when they are not working?
c) Why would you want to PAY someone who doesn't work unless they are being watched?0 -
I was hired during the pandemic so literally nobody has seen me doing my job, only the work outputted. I'd imagine there are thousands upon thousands of people the same.0
-
Advertisement
-
Maybe it's different in different sectors. Where I work everyone is expected to be able to work without someone looking over your shoulder the whole time. That could be different in others, like call-centres maybe, where there is a culture of being watched? That's a question as I'm not familiar with the sector.Thanks for the detailed response to my earlier questions.
I think this is the crux of it and if so, shouldn't the WFH question revolve around:
a) Who is hiring these people?
b) What action is being taken when they are not working?
c) Why would you want to PAY someone who doesn't work unless they are being watched?0 -
Mrs OBumble wrote: »
But it's really striking that WFH fans believe that their opinion is valid, and no one else's concerns are. I wonder what that says about their teamwork skills and behaviours.
Are you still coming out with this nonsense?0 -
Mrs OBumble wrote: »I've seen a whole mix of approaches.
The only one I've heard of, but never actually seen (possibly 'cos I'm in Galway, not Dublin) is hot-desking with lockers.
Most (all? I'm not sure) had SOME desktops. Receptionists, accounts people, and various others don't usually get laptops. And in places I've been, laptops were either left on desks (I hated that) or cable-tied to the desks (you know that's why business-model laptops have little lock slots in them - manufacturers wouldn't bother if laptop users/owners didn't want them).
I've used desktops to cover hardware issues. When covid hit last year and laptops became like rocking-horse-sh*t, I even sent some laptops + wifi dongles to people homes.
I don't give a damn whether anyone of you think I'm serious or not. 'Tis no skin off my nose at all, and I'm not here for the likes.
But it's really striking that WFH fans believe that their opinion is valid, and no one else's concerns are. I wonder what that says about their teamwork skills and behaviours.
Honest readers know full well that I'm not the only person who has posted here about issues and challenges. Ones with any management experience know that some staff are great workers who get stuff done with no supervision, and do the right thing when there's any ambiguity - and some aren't / don't.
Wow you've sent laptops and dongles to people's homes well done. People on service desks have been doing this for the last ten years. WFH is nothing new Mrs O Bumble.
Oh wow a receptionist might have to get laptop instead of a desktop. The horror of that.
Companies are going to have adjust or risk losing good staff.
We have 8000 employees all over the world with roughly 20 service desk staff. There has been zeroe issues looking after users with laptops. It was a lot more work at the start for them getting some people up and running but has all settled down now.
These "challenges" your posting happen when people are in the office as well. You can always have a crap employee in the office who doesn't pull their own weight.0 -
Mrs OBumble wrote: »I've seen a whole mix of approaches.
The only one I've heard of, but never actually seen (possibly 'cos I'm in Galway, not Dublin) is hot-desking with lockers.
Most (all? I'm not sure) had SOME desktops. Receptionists, accounts people, and various others don't usually get laptops. And in places I've been, laptops were either left on desks (I hated that) or cable-tied to the desks (you know that's why business-model laptops have little lock slots in them - manufacturers wouldn't bother if laptop users/owners didn't want them).
I've used desktops to cover hardware issues. When covid hit last year and laptops became like rocking-horse-sh*t, I even sent some laptops + wifi dongles to people homes.
I don't give a damn whether anyone of you think I'm serious or not. 'Tis no skin off my nose at all, and I'm not here for the likes.
But it's really striking that WFH fans believe that their opinion is valid, and no one else's concerns are. I wonder what that says about their teamwork skills and behaviours.
Honest readers know full well that I'm not the only person who has posted here about issues and challenges. Ones with any management experience know that some staff are great workers who get stuff done with no supervision, and do the right thing when there's any ambiguity - and some aren't / don't.
A few points:- Teamwork comes more to the front when you are not sitting with each other.
- Most places will do a hybrid scenario to cater for both sides of the table.
- A good manager can manage their team remotely or in the office. Management is about having the channels open to your teams. Seen more bad managers in house than remote ones!!!
0 -
Join Date:Posts: 14653
Fundamentally , the conversation about WFH is really two things
First is a discussion about the value proposition of WFH - Is is viable and is it a good thing in general?
The Second is about the suitability of WFH for certain people/jobs/industries etc.
I think a lot of posters are conflating the two.
The evidence that WFH is a good , viable solution in a wide variety of scenarios is pretty overwhelming.
People have been doing it for decades and thriving in their careers - Those are just the facts.
For some people WFH won't suit them for any number of reasons - Personal circumstances , the specifics of the role and there's also a definite discussion to be had about WFH related to where you are in your career (brand new versus well established etc.).
For those people here that are supporters of WFH , I don't think that any of them have ever said "Everybody should be forced to work from home , no excuses!!" or whatever.
In fact, everyone has been saying - Make it available and let people use it according to their own needs.
If you personally feel that WFH won't work for you for whatever reason that's perfectly fine , but to suggest that no one should be able to do it because you don't like it or think it's a good idea doesn't work either.
Bottom-line - A good ,modern Employer who wants to get the best from their staff , keep them happy , motivated and engaged will need to facilitate a flexible environment where staff can work in the manner that works best for everyone.
Trying to do anything different just isn't going to be sustainable longer term.0 -
Advertisement
-
shtpEdthePlum wrote: »I was hired during the pandemic so literally nobody has seen me doing my job, only the work outputted. I'd imagine there are thousands upon thousands of people the same.
We've literally hired hundreds of people in the pandemic, across all functions, I'd guess there's perhaps 15% of our total workforce at this stage that hasnt been in the office.0 -
Fundamentally , the conversation about WFH is really two things
First is a discussion about the value proposition of WFH - Is is viable and is it a good thing in general?
The Second is about the suitability of WFH for certain people/jobs/industries etc.
I think a lot of posters are conflating the two.
The evidence that WFH is a good , viable solution in a wide variety of scenarios is pretty overwhelming.
People have been doing it for decades and thriving in their careers - Those are just the facts.
For some people WFH won't suit them for any number of reasons - Personal circumstances , the specifics of the role and there's also a definite discussion to be had about WFH related to where you are in your career (brand new versus well established etc.).
For those people here that are supporters of WFH , I don't think that any of them have ever said "Everybody should be forced to work from home , no excuses!!" or whatever.
In fact, everyone has been saying - Make it available and let people use it according to their own needs.
If you personally feel that WFH won't work for you for whatever reason that's perfectly fine , but to suggest that no one should be able to do it because you don't like it or think it's a good idea doesn't work either.
Bottom-line - A good ,modern Employer who wants to get the best from their staff , keep them happy , motivated and engaged will need to facilitate a flexible environment where staff can work in the manner that works best for everyone.
Trying to do anything different just isn't going to be sustainable longer term.
I’d add that the WFH terminology in itself leads to a polarised conversation. What we are all actually talking about is flexible working. And many of us have been doing that for a decade or more. Ive rarely been in the office for 5 days in a week since 2010.0 -
Just to add onto the team building thing - I'm in Ireland and the clients I work with are in the UK. The vast, vast majority of my internal work is with stakeholders based in the UK and we either Slack, call or Zoom/Teams.
This was pre & during the pandemic. I would imagine a lot of people are in a similar situation.0 -
Fundamentally , the conversation about WFH is really two things
First is a discussion about the value proposition of WFH - Is is viable and is it a good thing in general?
The Second is about the suitability of WFH for certain people/jobs/industries etc.
I think a lot of posters are conflating the two.
The evidence that WFH is a good , viable solution in a wide variety of scenarios is pretty overwhelming.
People have been doing it for decades and thriving in their careers - Those are just the facts.
For some people WFH won't suit them for any number of reasons - Personal circumstances , the specifics of the role and there's also a definite discussion to be had about WFH related to where you are in your career (brand new versus well established etc.).
For those people here that are supporters of WFH , I don't think that any of them have ever said "Everybody should be forced to work from home , no excuses!!" or whatever.
In fact, everyone has been saying - Make it available and let people use it according to their own needs.
If you personally feel that WFH won't work for you for whatever reason that's perfectly fine , but to suggest that no one should be able to do it because you don't like it or think it's a good idea doesn't work either.
Bottom-line - A good ,modern Employer who wants to get the best from their staff , keep them happy , motivated and engaged will need to facilitate a flexible environment where staff can work in the manner that works best for everyone.
Trying to do anything different just isn't going to be sustainable longer term.
So true!
It's a lifestyle choice for many - it comes with it's negative and positive aspects.
It's not suited to everyone.0 -
So true!
It's a lifestyle choice for many - it comes with it's negative and positive aspects.
It's not suited to everyone.
The concern though is, and I've said this before on this thread, how it's being positioned by those who want to continue WFH and those who want to go back to the office.
WFH crowd: I'm happy WFH, if people want to go back then fair play to them so long as I can stay put.
Back to the office crowd: Everyone should have to go back to the office, team collaboration, people aren't working etc.0 -
The concern though is, and I've said this before on this thread, how it's being positioned by those who want to continue WFH and those who want to go back to the office.
WFH crowd: I'm happy WFH, if people want to go back then fair play to them so long as I can stay put.
Back to the office crowd: Everyone should have to go back to the office, team collaboration, people aren't working etc.
The back to office crowd seem to be making the most noise too.0 -
-
The concern though is, and I've said this before on this thread, how it's being positioned by those who want to continue WFH and those who want to go back to the office.
WFH crowd: I'm happy WFH, if people want to go back then fair play to them so long as I can stay put.
Back to the office crowd: Everyone should have to go back to the office, team collaboration, people aren't working etc.The back to office crowd seem to be making the most noise too.
Only one position imposes things on others also.
The WFH position is a personal choice (as long as it can work for you).0 -
I've an hour commute to the office and back.
That's two hours wasted.
I had to go to bed an hour and a half earlier
Another hour and a half wasted.
I can get up to 90 mins later than when I had to to office.
All together saving me around four hours each day which is great.
Really looking forward to what life will be like when everything opens backup and working from home. That's when the real benefits kick in.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Mrs OBumble wrote: »Not at all.
It has major workload implications for managers. And requires a lot of effort from colleagues to keep the off-site workers up to date
That's what applications like teams, group chat, and email is for.
It's very little effort and makes it easier than doing it in person if you really want to get into it.
Your sounding like someone who will get found out that rely too heavily on other colleagues in the office or did very little work themselves.
You do realize WFH the s not a new thing don't you?
A lot of companies are taking the hybrid approach with two days in and three days WFH.
That seems pretty fair in my opinion.0 -
Mrs OBumble wrote: »Not at all.
It has major workload implications for managers. And requires a lot of effort from colleagues to keep the off-site workers up to date
I'm sure there are implications for managers alright, the middle ones... Who have to be seen throwing their weight to justify their existence...0 -
As soon as the Govt advises that people should no longer work from home where they can our office (legal firm) are implementing a 6 month trial where at least 2 days in the office is required. This has carefully been worded and is subject to client/business needs which may require more office attendance so I can imagine it will be difficult to stick to a strict routine each week.
I am not sure how it will work out in reality. Obviously there will be weeks where more office attendance is required than others ie court heavy weeks or where clients insist on in office meetings. Business development will likely (and hopefully) return to in person events. However with the nature of many of our clients’ professions I reckon Teams calls are here to stay as much as possible.
My bet is that after 6 months it will change to the insistence of 3 days in the office as we all work under various partners who will likely insist that people are in on at least one day they are in which could be a different day to the next partner. I can also see certain partners getting frustrated with meetings where half the attendees are in the office and the other half are logging in via video.
Anyways, I am happy with the offering. A lot of our work can be done remotely and we have worked well via Teams. A survey that went around after Xmas identified that 95% of staff wanted at least 2 days wfh and it has been communicated to us that they are keen to take on employees’ wishes.
I’ll see what happens after the trial is up but if the mostly 2 day office attendance is here to stay then I’ll highly consider moving out of Dublin and buying in my hometown (roughly 1.5 hour commute each way).0 -
As soon as the Govt advises that people should no longer work from home where they can our office (legal firm) are implementing a 6 month trial where at least 2 days in the office is required. This has carefully been worded and is subject to client/business needs which may require more office attendance so I can imagine it will be difficult to stick to a strict routine each week.
I am not sure how it will work out in reality. Obviously there will be weeks where more office attendance is required than others ie court heavy weeks or where clients insist on in office meetings. Business development will likely (and hopefully) return to in person events. However with the nature of many of our clients’ professions I reckon Teams calls are here to stay as much as possible.
My bet is that after 6 months it will change to the insistence of 3 days in the office as we all work under various partners who will likely insist that people are in on at least one day they are in which could be a different day to the next partner. I can also see certain partners getting frustrated with meetings where half the attendees are in the office and the other half are logging in via video.
Anyways, I am happy with the offering. A lot of our work can be done remotely and we have worked well via Teams. A survey that went around after Xmas identified that 95% of staff wanted at least 2 days wfh and it has been communicated to us that they are keen to take on employees’ wishes.
I’ll see what happens after the trial is up but if the mostly 2 day office attendance is here to stay then I’ll highly consider moving out of Dublin and buying in my hometown (roughly 1.5 hour commute each way).
That's the thing though, there is going to be some roles where been in the office is absolutely necessary.
For other roles it's not needed.
Most offices have roles where people are needed in person.
Other roles there not. It's up to the invidual company how to go about it.
I support a large companies infrastructure where I might be needed in for a full month, or have to go to data center or upgrading physical network equipment or travel to different sites.
The other 11 months there's no need for me in the office.
Anything to do with Science, pharmaceuticals or production plants I presume most users won't have the option.
It also depends on your role and level. If a senior person wants to work from home and company isn't letting them whatsoever they won't be along about moving on.0 -
Mrs OBumble wrote: »Not at all.
It has major workload implications for managers. And requires a lot of effort from colleagues to keep the off-site workers up to date
Nope, it really doesn’t. Again, you are showing that you’ve been working with some companies that obviously have some pretty archaic practices. And middle management who are clearly bad at their jobs and probably poor performance management approaches0 -
I can also see certain partners getting frustrated with meetings where half the attendees are in the office and the other half are logging in via video.
Next time we have one of those meetings: do we all sit at our desks, so we're all on Teams, as 'equals' regardless of whether we're in the office or not?
Is the meeting room dead?
In which case... why bother coming in at all?0 -
Next time we have one of those meetings: do we all sit at our desks, so we're all on Teams, as 'equals' regardless of whether we're in the office or not?
Is the meeting room dead?
In which case... why bother coming in at all?
I expect that those in the office will book a meeting room for a meeting anyway. We're all open plan and it'll be nightmare if people are chatting all day long out of the floor.
Nearly all our meeting rooms have video conferencing facilities, so those dialling in from home will be shown on a big screen, and they will able to see the whole room on their laptop. What's the advantage? Small enough but you'd be better able to read body language and perhaps better able to have some spin off chats about the meeting topic or other related things when the meeting ends. Not anything hugely fundamental but enough that you'd prefer to be in the meeting room with the other meeting members that are in the office rather than all separately out on the floor. There may be some days where you'll have the majority of the meeting members in the office.
I am very much on for keeping WFH as a permanent change to how we work. But we should acknowledge that there are potential drawbacks for a firm who offer complete flexibility to all its employees.
Say you company offers full time WFH for whoever wants it (with the usual caveats of attending team building days etc). And say you get a large uptake of that - e.g. 50% fully WFH, 30% in some days during the week, 20% in full time.
Then put yourself in the place of a new starter. Your line manager works WFH full time, your two other colleagues on your team are only in two days a week.
In the office, I would make sure that any new starters were working very close by their new team. I know they'll have loads of questions, and they can overhear any general conversations we have about ongoing work. The worst thing for them is to get a seat down the other end of the floor, because I know that even that short walk is going to prevent them from asking the myriad of "stupid" questions you ask in the first week/months.
Yes, jabber and slack and all those other instant messaging services replace some of that interaction. But place yourself in their shoes - you've got a new task, your line manager is in constant meetings and you've realised you don't really know how to approach the task. In the office you can see when they are back at their desk and just say "Hey can I ask something?". Now you have send a slack message and ask are they free for a call. And then wait until they're free and send a teams invite. It's awkward. Probably awkward enough to keep them slogging on something that they've approached all wrong.
And say your team members are all established employees, and you are their very busy manager. It's easy to let one or two members slide when WFH because you simply don't have the time to schedule a meeting, but so much easier to just have a quick chat to them over the partition when they're coming in the morning or packing up to go home.
With the best will in the world there are definitely drawbacks to a large proportion of your company WFH. Do these negate the upsides to WFH? On balance, no. But I think we have to acknowledge that drawbacks exist and no amount of online messaging systems are going to alleviate that.0 -
Mrs OBumble wrote: »Not at all.
It has major workload implications for managers. And requires a lot of effort from colleagues to keep the off-site workers up to date
This is exactly the opposite of reality. Or else you work in companies with very poor practices and awful management.0 -
I expect that those in the office will book a meeting room for a meeting anyway. We're all open plan and it'll be nightmare if people are chatting all day long out of the floor.
Nearly all our meeting rooms have video conferencing facilities, so those dialling in from home will be shown on a big screen, and they will able to see the whole room on their laptop. What's the advantage? Small enough but you'd be better able to read body language and perhaps better able to have some spin off chats about the meeting topic or other related things when the meeting ends. Not anything hugely fundamental but enough that you'd prefer to be in the meeting room with the other meeting members that are in the office rather than all separately out on the floor. There may be some days where you'll have the majority of the meeting members in the office.
I am very much on for keeping WFH as a permanent change to how we work. But we should acknowledge that there are potential drawbacks for a firm who offer complete flexibility to all its employees.
Say you company offers full time WFH for whoever wants it (with the usual caveats of attending team building days etc). And say you get a large uptake of that - e.g. 50% fully WFH, 30% in some days during the week, 20% in full time.
Then put yourself in the place of a new starter. Your line manager works WFH full time, your two other colleagues on your team are only in two days a week.
In the office, I would make sure that any new starters were working very close by their new team. I know they'll have loads of questions, and they can overhear any general conversations we have about ongoing work. The worst thing for them is to get a seat down the other end of the floor, because I know that even that short walk is going to prevent them from asking the myriad of "stupid" questions you ask in the first week/months.
Yes, jabber and slack and all those other instant messaging services replace some of that interaction. But place yourself in their shoes - you've got a new task, your line manager is in constant meetings and you've realised you don't really know how to approach the task. In the office you can see when they are back at their desk and just say "Hey can I ask something?". Now you have send a slack message and ask are they free for a call. And then wait until they're free and send a teams invite. It's awkward. Probably awkward enough to keep them slogging on something that they've approached all wrong.
And say your team members are all established employees, and you are their very busy manager. It's easy to let one or two members slide when WFH because you simply don't have the time to schedule a meeting, but so much easier to just have a quick chat to them over the partition when they're coming in the morning or packing up to go home.
With the best will in the world there are definitely drawbacks to a large proportion of your company WFH. Do these negate the upsides to WFH? On balance, no. But I think we have to acknowledge that drawbacks exist and no amount of online messaging systems are going to alleviate that.
Why are hypothetical scenarios being made up to demonstrate how bad and difficult WFH is, when the real world reality is that it very much works? Those scenarios you outline are not at all a massive, or indeed any, hindrance and people have worked these things out WFH quite successfully.
My entire team is WFH since March 2020, we've taken on new people in that time with no show-stopping issues and productivity is unimpacted. To be honest, it's actually gone up if anything as there is less time for aimless chatting or standing around shooting the breeze. Engagement surveys show increased staff engagement and a recent survey showed overwhelming preference to continue WFH with the option to come in a few days.0 -
Advertisement
-
Mrs OBumble wrote: »But it's really striking that WFH fans believe that their opinion is valid, and no one else's concerns are. I wonder what that says about their teamwork skills and behaviours.
There is something really sinister about this comment.
You are (yet again) implying that you need to have people in an office in order to monitor them, Big Brother is indeed watching you with what you are implying.
As someone already said in this thread, no one who WFH is saying it is that and nothing else. Yet you are making this narrative that people who WFH can't be trusted to do work, or have to be monitored to make sure they are doing their work...no thank you.
I think your stance on this says more about your teamwork skills and behaviours more than anything.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement