|
|
|
|
|
|
by hobofromabroad
2439 days ago
|
|
|
> > (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. |
|
|
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.