|
|
|
|
|
|
by mindcrime
5100 days ago
|
|
|
I could go on.... Yes, I wouldn't argue against the notion that - in general - co-location is better for (at least short-term) productivity. The question, to me, is "what about the other effects?" Does forcing co-location decrease job satisfaction, for example, and what's the effect on turnover? Or what about morale, and it's impact on productivity over a longer period of time? There are also issues like "what if the super talented developer I want to hire will only work remotely?" Am I better off forgoing his/her talents completely, or accepting a (perhaps less than optimal) remote work arrangement? I don't think any of these issues have black and white answers; and I think that determining the ideal work environment is still a bit (art|black magic|luck|etc) and not yet a science. |
|
|
That said - it's generally been my experience that people are happy when they're being most productive, and vice versa. The most productive, gelled and happy teams I've worked with have all been co-located (which does not mean I think distributed teams are unhappy or unproductive).
I think many folk see teleworking as a solution to a bad onsite working environment. Often those people are not in a position to "fix" their normal working environment and it's the only option they have to be happier and more productive. More power to them.
Unfortunately, since poor onsite working environments are common, when those people are in a position to build their own teams, working environments and businesses they often miss the opportunity to build a great productive onsite environment - and then miss out on the productivity (and general happyness IMHO) wins that can get you.