[fizx]

As someone who has gone to the dark side, there's an interesting tradeoff here. There's basically three scenarios:

(1) all employees are trusted and unmeasured, but you have to tap people on the shoulder every once in a while to confirm that they're on track. Naturally, this is easier if everyone is on-site.

(2) everyone is accountable for producing of tickets, and you can check that everyone is at least doing some work. Check-ins can happen via comments in tickets.

(3) Everyone just does whatever they think they're supposed to be doing, and the manager only finds out something is wrong when the employee volunteers the information or the project isn't delivered on-time.

(1) is the common case, (2) requires time and skills many managers don't have (and creates @#$% Jira commentary form the peanut gallery), (3) requires building an excellent team with years of mutual trust between them, and still goes wrong all the time.

Seeing you at your desk working, and asking a casual question or two at the water cooler is by far the easiest (laziest?) way to make sure things don't go too far sideways.

[ergothus]

> (1) all employees are trusted and unmeasured, but you have to tap people on the shoulder every once in a while to confirm that they're on track. Naturally, this is easier if everyone is on-site.

I don't get it - shouldn't one-on-ones and regular progress check-ins (be those standups, metrics (This is your #2), whatever) give you that information? None of those are easier when on-site. In fact, given today's move towards open offices, any form of 1:1 collaboration is easier remotely where you don't have to fight for precious meeting room space.

I think the core problem is that you're trying to prove "everyone is working" when we should be interested in "the work is getting done". Seeing that everyone is working doesn't actually mean progress is getting made. If you have to take steps to answer that question anyway, the first question is fairly pointless.

[davidjnelson]

It really depends on the communication styles of people. I had a manager I loved that would drop by every few days and just ask “how’s it going”? Then I’d fill him in. It was fun and low key and highly productive.

Also had managers that were basically invisible but kept a great crap umbrella for us. Loved them too. Ended up working a ton and getting enormous amounts of work done because trust and autonomy are huge.

I think the worst situations are when managers are too insecure to be honest with direct reports. That’s decidedly uncool and super ineffective.

Also, it seems managers get so overloaded that 1 on 1s and stand ups end up being mostly a waste of time because it’s too hard to remember all the little details.

So remote or in office isn’t really the issue. In my view, remote is superior due to productivity, flexibility and happiness, but it does require everyone to do regular video chats and pair programming.

Ironically, the in office folks have the hardest time with this because they feel they need to get up from their desk and find an overly booked conference room as you mentioned.

Simple solutions are context dependent, but could be along the lines of a) work remote if you have the discipline, b) asynchronous slack based standups, c) report status as you go in your tickets, d) every day or two peers and managers sync up 1 on 1 or in person depending on their preference, e) have clear goals as a company and a team, f) have good technical product people writing 1-3 day user story tickets including completed designs if it’s ui work, g) have good tech leads writing 1-3 day technical improvement task tickets, h) vote as a team on contentious technical decisions, then disagree and commit, i) generally chill out a bit and let work be enjoyable.

At least that’s a start...

[ergothus]

> I had a manager I loved that would drop by every few days and just ask “how’s it going”? Then I’d fill him in. It was fun and low key and highly productive.

> Also, it seems managers get so overloaded that 1 on 1s and stand ups end up being mostly a waste of time because it’s too hard to remember all the little details.

I'm not sure how the first quote doesn't count as a 1:1 - the goal isn't to have a highly formalized process, it's to have communication. Some about the specific work, some about general work and workplace, but communication.

Total agreement about the overloading of management though - I haven't had a boss in years that didn't regularly have most of their schedule booked and often double-booked. I had to fill in for my manager while he was on vacation for week and it reaffirmed my lack of desire to do management - and I only had to deal with pieces that couldn't wait a week! I sometimes think the recent shift to focus on regular management 1:1s is all about reclaiming enough time to actually know what their team is doing.

[davidjnelson]

> I'm not sure how the first quote doesn't count as a 1:1 - the goal isn't to have a highly formalized process, it's to have communication. Some about the specific work, some about general work and workplace, but communication.

Yes, you’re right, I guess those were a form of 1 on 1s :-)

> Total agreement about the overloading of management though - I haven't had a boss in years that didn't regularly have most of their schedule booked and often double-booked. I had to fill in for my manager while he was on vacation for week and it reaffirmed my lack of desire to do management - and I only had to deal with pieces that couldn't wait a week! I sometimes think the recent shift to focus on regular management 1:1s is all about reclaiming enough time to actually know what their team is doing.

Absolutely! It’s wonderful to have empathy for this! :-D

[hobofromabroad]

> > (1) all employees are trusted and unmeasured, but you have to tap people on the shoulder every once in a while to confirm that they're on track. Naturally, this is easier if everyone is on-site.

> I don't get it - shouldn't one-on-ones and regular progress check-ins (be those standups, metrics (This is your #2), whatever) give you that information? None of those are easier when on-site. In fact, given today's move towards open offices, any form of 1:1 collaboration is easier remotely where you don't have to fight for precious meeting room space.

This is not quite the case everywhere. We have agile 5-8 person offices and people are still supposed to walk out for longer phone calls occupying one of the smaller meeting rooms.

But I actually like that different teams can mix a lot easier.

[ergothus]

> But I actually like that different teams can mix a lot easier.

I've heard this claim for open offices a lot. I never understand it. It's not like I'm AGAINST easy collaboration. But I spend (or try to spend) more time on my own, and everyone "collaborating" around me and expecting that I can turn off my peripheral vision and hearing with a brain that is hardwired to NOT ignore those things just makes the majority of my time worse.

Plus, in the last 20 years and 5 companies (spanning 8 offices if you count office moves) I've never had adequate meeting room space (defined as: We need a space to spontaneously talk without disturbing others, can we find it trivially?) for more than a 3 month span after moving to a larger building. Hardly scientifically conclusive, but personally persuasive.

So I'm all for collaboration between people, including between teams, but I don't understand sacrificing the REST of the time in the name of that one thing.

[benhurmarcel]

> But I actually like that different teams can mix a lot easier.

My team shares an open office with another one, working on a different project. We see them every day.

I don't think anyone knows any name of the people in the other team.

[JimboOmega]

"I just stare at my desk. But it looks like I'm working!" - Office Space

[VonGuard]

Reminds me of an old adage about tech work and other skilled labors: If you give me a task that takes a normal perosn 8 hours, and I finish it in 30 minutes, you're paying me for the skill, knowledge and experience that allows me to do it in 30 minutes. I do not owe you another 7.5 hours of work. I owe you the job being done, not the hours it should take to do it.

[Chirael]

Isn't that one of the reasons Hacker News exists, to fill those other 7.5 hours?

[umvi]

> I do not owe you another 7.5 hours of work.

Only if you are a contractor and you've fulfilled your contract. If you are a salaried employee I expect you to keep your hopper of tasks full so you aren't sitting around idle 95% of the day waiting for me to feed you 30 minute taskers

[malvosenior]

Judge people by their output. If someone is performing well and shipping, then it doesn't matter if that takes 10 minutes or 8 hours. Many people work better with a lot of space. If you fill someone's hopper so they're forced to work 8 hours a day, then you'll quickly find the tasks that used to take them 10 minutes to complete now take multiple hours due to: burn out, stress, context switching and most likely bad management.

[SketchySeaBeast]

Why? As a salaried employee you're literally paying me for my ability to get work done, not for my hourly output. If the goal is to keep me busy for X number of hours a day, instead of getting a job done whatever it requires, why am I salaried?

[umvi]

> If the goal is to keep me busy for X number of hours a day, instead of getting a job done whatever it requires, why am I salaried?

The "goal" in a lot of cases is nebulous (i.e. "keep developing the product", "improve stability", etc). There might not be a manager feeding you tasks every time you run out. At least in my company, you are expected to figure out on your own how to continually make the product better and proactively do it, not sit around idle after rapidly finishing the last task your manager gave you.

If you are just a dumb worker that can only work when your manager fills your queue, you are not valuable to me as a salaried employee (you are more valuable as a contractor who I can call upon for a one-off difficult task that you can then complete in 30 minutes).

[SketchySeaBeast]

So you're not trusting the salaried employee to use their judgement on how best to utilize their time, but instead assuming they instead use their skill to be a butt in a seat and working for at least 40 hours? What's special about the salary then? It's just easier than an hourly system?

[umvi]

You seem to be presenting confused ideas.

Here's what I believe:

If I pay you a salary, I want (roughly) 40 hours per week of productive work at your current skill level. Note: I consider sitting around thinking about things relevant to the product or company to be productive work. If you believe your level of output deserves higher compensation than you are receiving, come talk to me or find a company that will pay what you think you are worth. However, accepting a salary and then doing tasks really fast and then going idle (watching netflix, working on side projects, etc.) until your manager cattle prods you is not acceptable for a salaried employee; that would be more appropriate for a contractor where you can idle on your own dime.

[Xelbair]

Great way to turn that 30 minute task into 8 hour task.

If employee is getting extra works as a reward for being efficient guess what will happen.

[r00fus]

As someone who works with client billable hours, actual work usually takes the least amount of time. The communication about your completion, testing/confirmation, documentation and shadow/knowledge sharing take the remaining 7.5h (using your analogy).

If you're truly doing all those things in 30m, you should be running the show.

Sometimes taking the full 8h allows you to put in the packaging to confirm you've done the "hard" part.

[VonGuard]

Everyone in this thread below is assuming after the 30 minutes I just fuck off and do nothing. LOL, why would anyone pay me if I did that? Obviously, there's always a ton of stuff to do. But, again, it's about results, not hours worked. There's times when you have to put in almost 48 hours non-stop, others where you don't have to work all week. The point is that if your employees have tasks to do and they're doing them, who gives a fuck about how long it takes them? The 40 hour work week is fucking horrible, anyway, and as is pointed out later in this thread, creative work like coding goes on in your mind pretty much 24/7. If I come up with the solution to a problem Saturday night you can damn well be sure I'm taking some time off to compensate for that. Otherwise I'll burn the fuck out.

Sure, some unknown quantity of people can just fuck around and hide from work, but again, you're not paying me because I'm a fuck off person, yer paying me because I have the decades of experience, and because you know with certainty I'll do the damn work, find more work when I need more, and will never miss a deadline on my own fault. Everyone on HN just assumes bad faith all the time, geez....

[davidjnelson]

If I finish stuff early there’s always more that can be done to help the team. Our ci can be improved, our ux can be polished, app perf can be profiled, engineers can be mentored, customers can be listened to, relationships can be strengthened, unit tests can be added, refactoring can be done, architecture can be simplified, etc.

It feels good to help people, as long as it’s with healthy boundaries so as to prevent burnout.

[xyzzy_plugh]

This is only true if you're getting paid the equivalent of a normal person working 8 hours.

Most tech workers get paid a bit more than that.

[watwut]

I would find it unethical, including in team where I am fastest.

[malvosenior]

What's unethical about it? If someone produces what needs to be done, then does it matter how they do it?

[watwut]

Just like I don't want employer to flip it into "we need 12 hours worth of work" or hold unrealistic deadline over mu throat, I will ask for new task if original estimate was too short.

I did actually signed contract that actually specifies fI'll time - 40 hours.

[malvosenior]

That's not how creative work works though. Do you ever think about your code at night or the weekend? Mental work is basically always on and can't be judged by the amount of time at the keyboard implementing it. The whole concept of tasks per hour doesn't map well to software development.

[watwut]

The actual example was "I was done in 0.5 hour, I dont owe you another 7.5 hours of work". Unless you signed contract that is for specified amount of work, you do.

I you wanna count weekend thinking into it, is a different question.

[malvosenior]

Why can they not be trusted and measured? I trust my employees and encourage them to be creative and autonomous. I also expect people to ship their progress regularly and work in strategic alignment as helped by the direction I provide in our regular meeting cadence.

It's a weak manager that's constantly concerned about their reports not being productive. Nothing in the world is easier to spot than someone who doesn't produce. You don't need to optimize for that, when it happens, deal with it. Optimize toward keeping your team motivated.

[justbaker]

Does the employee deliver? That should be a yes/no answer. Micromanging employees minutes is an ineffective distraction to reaching that goal of delivery. The more autonomous each is while still moving in the direction of the common goal of the team, the more trusted they can be.

[malvosenior]

Absolutely. You will get the best work out of an employee if they have as much autonomy and creative input as possible. I've never understood why that's so difficult for a lot of managers to realize. I suspect most people aren't cut out for leadership because they don't have the trust, confidence or lack of ego required to motivate people without power tripping on them.

[Xelbair]

>> Micromanging employees minutes is an ineffective distraction to reaching that goal of delivery.

i would say that it is a very quick way for employee to reach towards a new company.

[otakucode]

I would like to suggest a tremendously simple (4) : Every day, each employee spends no more than 5 minutes reporting what they did the prior day, and what they are planning to work on that day. If they're blocked by anything, they can mention that and ask for assistance.

I just finished working on a fully remote contract that worked that way, every day at noon there was a conference call that never took longer than 15 minutes. It worked great. A couple manager types were on the call, and they'd share any developments on the contract side of things, feedback from the customer, things like that, but mostly they just listened and took note of potential issues and made sure they got resolved (so like if you mentioned a problem one day then didn't the next, they'd ask if it got dealt with).

[fizx]

Making standups useful to everyone on mid-to-large teams (i.e. > 6:1 employee:manager ratio) is quite challenging, but yes, you raise a good point that this is viable, particularly for smaller teams.

[wolco]

Sounds horrible. Have meetings when they are necessary. Talk to people throughout the day. Send weekly status reports.

Don't waste a day resolve that issue now.

[bonestamp2]

From my experience, as long as the company is divided into small project teams, a project manager can take 10 minutes every day to have a group meeting for everyone to share what they worked on yesterday and what they're working on today. Call it a scrum meeting or a stand-up or whatever, but it doesn't have to follow any specific model as this will probably vary depending on your type of work.

We have 8 people on our current project team and we can typically finish this meeting in under 5 minutes each morning. We have some people on each coast, and half the people are remote so we do it at 10:30 am Eastern.

It keeps everyone accountable to the company and each other, and because everyone knows what everyone else is working on, it makes it easier to avoid overlap and divide up tasks in the most logical way possible.

[baron_harkonnen]

In the many jobs I've had I've never seen "things go side ways" because those tricky employees have finally found a way to not do any work! By and large the vast majority of workers have the capitalist cultural logic deeply ingrained in their psyche and personally feel value only when they produce meaningful work. Most people are not trying to get away with doing less, and, at least in my experience, feel the most satisfied and secure when they are working hard and creating visible products of their labor.

When I've seen "things go side ways" it's almost exclusively at higher levels of management when politics create goals other than "create an amazing product". Anyone who has worked both in a large company and a small startups has likely seen the difference between "my boss's goal is for us to create a best in class product" vs "my boss's goal is for him to get L_current +1 promotion".

There are no companies that have failed because the workers have finally figured out how to sneak their way out of doing work. But workers do have a hard time being productive when "productivity" is some weird game that no one will really explain the rules to.

But the logic of blaming workers who get "off track" is a huge part of the culture we need to get rid of to have successful remote work.

[fizx]

Agree that 90% of people want to do effective work. The problem is that 6 people have 7 opinions about what effective means.

It's not about blame, it's about trying to ensure the team works together cohesively, and that individuals are unblocked.

[MaxBarraclough]

> There are no companies that have failed because the workers have finally figured out how to sneak their way out of doing work.

I suspect there are such companies, but that the guilty individuals weren't serious professionals. Hire bad enough 'developers' and I can see it becoming a problem.

If the job is shovelling snow, I imagine it becomes one of the management's chief concerns.

[davidjnelson]

2 seems to work well. Keep people updated as you go. It’s compassionate - managers have a lot on their plate, give them an assist.