| Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying. It sounded to me like you were suggesting an hour or three a day of actually focusing your attention on your workplace is plenty for a full-time, salaried employee. If that's not what you mean, then I've obviously misunderstood you. What do you suggest regarding hours of "butt in seat" when WFH? It's a truly wretched metric for productivity, but I think ignoring it entirely is unwise. I would (and do) encourage my teammates to use whatever editor or IDE they want, as long as it doesn't cause issues for the rest of the team (which I have seen crappy obscure tools do, in one memorable case by converting line endings to classic Mac OS style across many files, but only on edited lines). > That's like asking all else being equal, would I hire the person who wore Air Force 1s to the interview or the person who wore chelsea boots. That has nothing to do with your performance of your job and any distinction on that matter is personal preference. The only thing that is important is are you getting the job done on the pace it needs to get done. Whether a candidate thinks they should put in 8 hours a day vs. two or four, if that's all their current task takes, is directly relevant to how effective an employee they will be. It is not at all like what kind of shoes they wore to the interview, which is indeed unrelated to their technical skills or workplace conduct. As far as ethics or working hard mattering, I think of them as necessary but not sufficient. If I have a great work ethic and bust my butt but do not achieve anything, I'm a poor employee. When I have a task estimated at four hours but it takes me two, I don't think "Sweet, HN until lunchtime," I grab the next thing off the stack. Like I said, perhaps I'm not understanding what you're trying to describe. |