Why Remote Work Is So Hard -- and How It Can Be Fixed (newyorker.com) 85
Cal Newport, writing at the New Yorker: Technological transitions often stumble when we expect them to sprint. In 1989, the Stanford economist Paul David wanted to understand why so many companies were so slow to adopt computer technology; for historical perspective, he turned to the history of the electric dynamo, which had been invented around a hundred years before, and which, before it transformed industrial production, had also been adopted slowly. In his paper "The Dynamo and the Computer: An Historical Perspective on the Modern Productivity Paradox," published in the American Economic Review, David explained that, at the turn of the century, most factories were powered by massive central steam engines. The engines turned overhead shafts, which were connected by an intricate array of belts and pulleys to close-packed machinery. When electric motors were first introduced, factory owners tried to integrate them into their existing setups; often, they'd simply replace the hulking steam engine with a giant electric dynamo. This introduced some conveniences -- no one had to shovel coal -- but also created complexities. It was hard to keep all the electrical components working; many factory owners opted to stay with steam.
It took decades for factory owners to figure out how to make the most of electric power. Eventually, they discovered that the best approach was to put a small motor on each individual piece of machinery. Since a factory no longer needed to draw power from a central engine, its equipment could be spread out. This, in turn, changed the nature of industrial architecture. Buildings that no longer required reinforced ceilings to house shafts, belts, and pulleys could incorporate windows and skylights, of the sort we know today from urban loft buildings. Inertia, David found, had been part of the problem. Factory owners who had spent a lot of money and time building physical plants organized around central-drive trains were reluctant to commit to complex, expensive overhauls. There were imaginative obstacles: powering each machine with its own individual motor may seem like an obvious idea now, but in fact it represented a sharp break from the centralized-power model that had dominated for the previous hundred and fifty years. Finally, technological barriers stood in the way -- small issues, compared to the invention of electricity, but persistent and important ones nonetheless. Someone, for instance, had to figure out how to construct a building-wide power grid capable of handling the massively variable load created by many voltage-hungry mini-motors being turned off and on unpredictably. Until that happened, it was central power or bust.
In some respects, we may be in an electric-dynamo moment for remote work. In theory, we have the technology we need to make remote work workable. And yet most companies that have tried to graft it onto their existing setups have found only mixed success. In response, many have stuck with what they know. Now the coronavirus pandemic has changed the equation. Whole workplaces have gone remote; steam engines have been outlawed. The question is whether, having been forced to embrace this new technology, we can solve the long-standing problems that have thwarted its adoption in the past. Some useful innovation is possible on an individual level. As a newly minted remote worker, you may find that demands on your attention are actually more incessant and intrusive than they used to be -- a natural consequence when a workplace depends more than ever on phone calls, e-mails, and video conferences. You might respond by consolidating all of your appointments into a given half of the day -- say, between 1 p.m. and 5 p.m. -- preserving the other hours, by default, for actually working on the items discussed.
It took decades for factory owners to figure out how to make the most of electric power. Eventually, they discovered that the best approach was to put a small motor on each individual piece of machinery. Since a factory no longer needed to draw power from a central engine, its equipment could be spread out. This, in turn, changed the nature of industrial architecture. Buildings that no longer required reinforced ceilings to house shafts, belts, and pulleys could incorporate windows and skylights, of the sort we know today from urban loft buildings. Inertia, David found, had been part of the problem. Factory owners who had spent a lot of money and time building physical plants organized around central-drive trains were reluctant to commit to complex, expensive overhauls. There were imaginative obstacles: powering each machine with its own individual motor may seem like an obvious idea now, but in fact it represented a sharp break from the centralized-power model that had dominated for the previous hundred and fifty years. Finally, technological barriers stood in the way -- small issues, compared to the invention of electricity, but persistent and important ones nonetheless. Someone, for instance, had to figure out how to construct a building-wide power grid capable of handling the massively variable load created by many voltage-hungry mini-motors being turned off and on unpredictably. Until that happened, it was central power or bust.
In some respects, we may be in an electric-dynamo moment for remote work. In theory, we have the technology we need to make remote work workable. And yet most companies that have tried to graft it onto their existing setups have found only mixed success. In response, many have stuck with what they know. Now the coronavirus pandemic has changed the equation. Whole workplaces have gone remote; steam engines have been outlawed. The question is whether, having been forced to embrace this new technology, we can solve the long-standing problems that have thwarted its adoption in the past. Some useful innovation is possible on an individual level. As a newly minted remote worker, you may find that demands on your attention are actually more incessant and intrusive than they used to be -- a natural consequence when a workplace depends more than ever on phone calls, e-mails, and video conferences. You might respond by consolidating all of your appointments into a given half of the day -- say, between 1 p.m. and 5 p.m. -- preserving the other hours, by default, for actually working on the items discussed.
It's not technically hard. (Score:5, Interesting)
Remote work isn't technically hard. Any half-competent IT outfit should be able to have remote capabilities for their computer-based (vs say, carpenters, painters etc) to work remotely. That's a non-issue.
The issue is retarded upper management being obstinate and dense about allowing remote work. They want us chained to the desk 8 to 5.
Well, 2020 showed them it's doable, in many cases it's more productive, and it has knock-on benefits in terms of cost reduction, pollution reduction, etc.
So yeah, the problem, as always, is management. Same as it ever was, same as it ever will be.
Re: (Score:3)
I think it's generally more that *any* management doesn't really have the knowledge (not technical knowledge) - how to make sure their team is on track and doing what they need to do, without at the same time being obtrusive and holding endless meetings (which obviously eat into the time and morale of the team trying to do something).
The old paradigm of being able to walk over and have a 30 second chat doesn't completely hold up remotely, and I think it is more about new remote management techniques than it
Re:It's not technically hard. (Score:5, Interesting)
My tone is of one who used to remote work for 2 great years, and then things changed and got chained back to the desk until now.
My tone is of one fed up to the teeth with upper management. In my current position, upper management is powering a massive rotating door, the churn here is unbelievable. Have you ever been in a position where the avg. middle manager has only 2 years time in service, and the average engineer has maybe 3? No? If you do, you may develop my tone too -- jaded, cynical, and frankly baffled at how any of it still works.
Our team works very well with exceedingly minimal supervision. Basically if the boss says "peep" something's wrong. Otherwise we don't hear from the boss except for IM banter.
But I do realize not all teams are like this. Some are like herding cats and can barely be managed. But even those have worked it out over the past 2 months and are mostly functional.
I'm done with being all quiet and an appeaser. Doesn't work. I've called out the BS where there is BS, and I'm still employed, and the BS has been addressed to a large degree.
I've been the middle manager a few times, can't say I have any love for it. It's not like in the movies. You get asked to do a lot of stupid, insane and sometimes even unethical things, all in the interest of "business" -- and sometimes have to hide it from my guys. I have no appetite for that. I prefer to be a grunt. It's more honest.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The old paradigm of being able to walk over and have a 30 second chat doesn't completely hold up remotely, and I think it is more about new remote management techniques than it is about "obstinate and dense".
Even if your office routines are not built around a current all-purpose communications system like Slack, why can't workers just text each other at times like that? Text is a high-priority call for attention, but not an interrupter like a voice call.
Re: It's not technically hard. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Communication by text has a lower bandwidth than face to face communication.
Re: (Score:3)
It shouldn't be that hard - if they're meeting goals and deadlines, they're on track.
That said, in my current job with a small company, "management" has been clueless on whether we're on track and doing what we need to do, even before remote working was forced on them. T
Re: (Score:3)
That can be too late. I don't want to find out at the deadline that they're stuck on a problem and have been for the past 3 weeks. I want to find out when they got stuck, or maybe a week later so I can get them help.
It's not easy to find out if someone is stuck - they can ask all sorts of probing questions and appear to make progress but still fail to proceed. You can have daily status updates and maybe they'll open up (so
Re: (Score:2)
Re: It's not technically hard. (Score:1)
30 second chat? When someone would synchronously interrupt what oneâ(TM)s doing?
Text and video chat are better substitutes on multiple levels.
Re: (Score:2)
I seriously don't understand all the bellyaching.....I've been doing this for years now and it's been a blessing.
I get MORE done for the job, I actually get more of MY stuff done too...while jobs are running, instead of chatting in break room, or back then going out for a smoke, I now can start some laundry, or vacuum...or start dinner prep, etc.
Hell, I get so much of MY house work/chores done during the week blended in with my job work....the weekends are now MORE free and my time for fun rather tha
Re: (Score:1)
And really do you seriously miss all those meetings that waste time that could be spent on real work?
If you're a meeting type.....likely as not, you're not really contributing that much to the company to begin with....
Meetings and remote work are not mutually exclusive.
If you work somewhere where you have a lot of stupid meetings that hinder productivity, you are working at a bad place. No remote work in the world will change that.
If you work at a place that only requires you to go to meetings when you are at the office and lets people who work remotely to skip them, it is a very weird workplace.
And some meetings are really helpful or even necessary. The trick is to hold these meetings and stop holding those that a
Re: (Score:3)
Having a good boss is essential since they can also shield you from people that can't wrap their head around 'alternative work styles'. I think the 9-5 is fantastic for some people. I am not one of those people.
No two weeks working from home ever look the same. One time I took a mental health break afternoons with matinee movies (Back when MoviePass existed) and crank through work 9PM to ~1-2 AM. There were some days that felt as productive as a work week in the office but that was 4 hours of complete unin
Re: (Score:2)
How many people buy treadmills, weights, etc. for their home? How many people actually use that stuff at home?
The average person has grand plans. They have dreams. They can achieve anything! Then reality, time, obesity, diabetes and early a premature death that gets labeled COVID-19 hits.
Work from home. Then the dog needs something. They need to run to the store when there are no lines in the middle of the day. They can wrap it up in the evening, one beer is a good idea, they'll get up early tomorrow a
Re: (Score:2)
That's fewer interruptions than I get at the office!
Re: (Score:1)
Then tell your co-workers and boss that you need to be able to do your own work without too many interruptions, or be assigned to only be support to all the other workers that apparently can't do shit without you helping them all the time.
When I worked in tech support, it was literally in the in the job description to be interrupted. I might do some system work/upgrades, but when a user came for help I was there to help them so they could continue working.
Later when I had an office work, but everyone knew
Re:It's not technically hard. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm doing a contract for T-Mobile right now.
Recently the high-muckety-muck, a guy named "Shyam", sent out an email instructing every manager to query every employee and every team to find out which ones needed to work in the office to get their stuff done or collaborate. He was really hoping for a loud clamoring of folks dying to get back to the office and "normalcy".
Instead, every single manager and employee responded back with, "Nah, we're good."
No one wants to go back to the office, NO ONE.
And the truth is that T-Mobile is humming right along, everything is working and if you didn't know that 99.9% of the employees were working remote, you'd never know that 99.9% of the employees are working remote.
Old Paradigm, I'd like to introduce you to the guy that'll be replacing you, his name is New Paradigm.
Yes, it IS hard (just not "technologically" hard) (Score:2)
If you have any extrovert tendencies at all, working remotely 100% is very hard, indeed. I agree it's not a "technical" issue in the sense that we can't figure out the technology needed. It is hard having to always use that clumsy technology to do what used to be simple and breezy.
For example, now everything has to be written out. This message has to be written out. Your response has to be written out. Don't know about you, but I talk many times faster than I write. Having a brief chat on the way to the lun
Re: (Score:3)
If you have any extrovert tendencies at all, working remotely 100% is very hard, indeed.
All the extrovert bosses who have been torturing us introverts for decades with the multi-person, insanity-inducing hellscape known as "The Workplace" are finally understanding what it's like being forced into a situation they hate. For us introverts (which I would wager describes most software types), this forced work from home period has been Heaven on Earth.
It is hard having to always use that clumsy technology to do what used to be simple and breezy.
It's AWESOME being able to use those technological filters to weed out the unwanted interruptions from people who seem to be unable to do their jobs
Re: (Score:2)
I understand the convenience of chatting with someone you just happen to see. But I would welcome the boss putting more things in writing. He talks a lot*, always responds to anything you say even when it doesn't want a response, a
Re: It's not technically hard. (Score:1)
Agree with much of your post â" until the clueless use of the R word. Why not through the N and C words in too?
Re: (Score:2)
There has been
Working remote is not hard! (Score:5, Insightful)
Just my 2 cents
Burnout (Score:3)
My company is concerned that we are working too much. They are making us take the 4th of July week off, and asking our customers not to bother us that week. I've found a decent balance (I start early, but take a chunk of time off in the middle of the day) but I know people working 60+ hours a week, now that they don't have to commute.
Re: (Score:1)
LOL. Your company is doing that (forced vacation) so they can take accrued paid vacation days off the books, not because you are "working too hard". That is a very old accounting trick. Usually that means that further cost-cutting/layoffs are coming soon.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL. Your company is doing that (forced vacation) so they can take accrued paid vacation days off the books, not because you are "working too hard". That is a very old accounting trick. Usually that means that further cost-cutting/layoffs are coming soon.
LOL. They gave us four extra days of PTO.
They are asking us to voluntarily use up our PTO, though. I don't think they'll be laying anyone off. During the last recession they only got rid of contractors. They haven't done that yet.
Re: (Score:2)
The CEO told everyone in my company to take a mandatory 1/2 day off every week since everyone's been working so hard.
I'm getting so much more done from my home office versus our open plan office. My equipment is better, there's no one talking around me, no walk up questions and I'm steps away from a fully stocked kitchen. I've had a backlog of projects to finish and it's been easy to work 12 hour days without noticing since I can focus on my tasks.
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is entirely the wrong mindset.
We have the discipline... the problem is different from that. The idea that we do not have it is dangerous and what leads to the "middle man" mentality. There is a middle man for everything... and they were never needed. They drive up the cost of doing business and they create perverse incentives to lie and cheat to each other. Businesses that call employees family yet lay them off when the bottom line looks threatened whether true or not.
You get children when
Re: (Score:2)
We have the discipline... the problem is different from that.
You really think the average person has discipline? Does the average person have six months of expenses in a cash account for emergencies. Does the average person have 10x their annual salary in their retirement account by their late 60's? Does the average person get 30 minutes of exercise 5 days a week? The list could go on and on. Some of this is due to inequality, but even though I am a strong proponent of inequality being a significant contributor to these problems I still concede that nearly anyone cou
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No kidding. I have a great place to work at home. If I need to get something done on a Sat, I drive to the office and knock it out. At home, it is way too easy to procrastinate.
Re: (Score:3)
It does require discipline, which most do not have.
Yep. This is key.
I find the IT folk that are engineering, development and networking work very well remote. We basically already do even in the office, communicate with IM of some sort, or short, terse phone calls. All three of these disciplines seem to have discipline already baked-in.
Been like this almost everywhere I've been. Can't really think of a place where it wasn't.
Re: (Score:2)
The advice to just consolidate your meetings into a certain time period is ignorant. I don't set the time for meetings, other people do. Even working at home I've got meetings from 7am to 8pm, with little bits in the middle for trying to get stuff done (a meeting never gets stuff done), or to have breakfast or lunch.
I get the ridiculous excuse of "it was the only time you were free". That excuse only works if that meeting is the most important thing that is happening, and if it is that important then hav
Re: (Score:1)
If it is the only time that you are free, then you may not be managing your calendar correctly.
Your calendar isn't a repository for meetings, your calendar is an indication of your priorities. If you put your priorities on your calendar you get the right of first refusal to new entreaties to your time.
That being said; you can't just mark you calendar as BUSY 100% of the time.
Organization efficiency trumps individual efficiency. If you are 100% productive in what you are doing but 10 people can't do what the
Re: (Score:2)
I have declined meetings, but then I get an email saying "please tell me what time works for you", and I want to say "never". But I'm a manager so often I don't get a choice and am told I have to attend.
Re: (Score:2)
Came here just to bitch about the analogy.
What engineering and work in general needs is more plain talk, with fewer buzzwords.
Please revise your manuscript and resubmit to our editorial board.
I will tell you what is wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea that humans are just resources to be mined by big business. That is the problem.
You want to fix the problem? Require businesses to profit share 50% of net with employees.
Humans do not want... but NEED to have a stake in the game or they abuse it. This is for everything, there are no exceptions. Any separation from this starts us down the path of eventual perversion of work/life balance. At this point, people can be allowed to ruin their own lives instead of someone else helping to ruin it for them while also taking too much from them.
I used to work put in extra for work... now I only do what needs to be done to keep the job and a little extra to make sure my work is quality because I want that for myself... but I am absolutely not burning my candle for any business to gain at my expense.
Being remote has nothing to do with anything other then no having a boss breathing down your neck on the job site and how much your employer is openly admitting they think you are a slacker that needs to be monitored.
If your work output is such that the results of your work is not enough to quantify your contribution, then there is a different problem, one too big to discuss in a forum like this... and unfortunately... that is most definitely one of the biggest problems today.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Humans do not want... but NEED to have a stake in the game or they abuse it. This is for everything, there are no exceptions
I don't feel this way at all. I'm super low maintenance, and pretty much the only reason I work at all anymore these days is because I'm bored otherwise.
Re: (Score:1)
Profit sharing doesn't mean they don't get their salaries too.
I'd say they could share off the net profit (positive or negative so they got dinged if the company did too) but we know how well that works for the artists.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You want to fix the problem? Require businesses to profit share 50% of net with employees.
This is a nice sentiment, but doesn't really work well in practice in many/most situations. People who are paid with profit are those who can afford to take that risk. Most people need their salary and cannot just get half their salary one year just because it wasn't a great year. For businesses to share their profit they would need to share their risk too. It wouldn't just be their normal salary plus a huge bonus for a good year. It would be closer to a salesman, but even more risky since a salesman could
Nothing New Here (Score:5, Insightful)
The solution (well it worked for me) was to convert the shed into a private office (AC, Closing door, big monitor, nice desk, wired for internets). Having a quiet private space turned out to make it easy to work productively.
This is what you would expect since we know from workplace data that giving people a private office with a door that closes is good for productivity - compared to open cubes. The being-at-home thing has nothing to do with it. It's all about the quiet, private space.
Re: (Score:2)
The solution (well it worked for me) was to convert the shed into a private office
Might you be thinking of getting another? [youtube.com]
Life goals!
dynamo ? (Score:2)
Re: dynamo ? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
But the term motor and generator are not interchangeable. Modems can modulate and demodulate, but can't randomly interchange modulate with demodulate. Even simple phone can transmit as well as receive, you can talk, as well as listen, to the phone. But that does not let you mix talk and listen randomly.
A dynamo can be a generator. But when you are talking about its function,
Confusing article (Score:3)
Converting the single steam engine to an electric motor was a quick and cost effective way to convert from coal power to electric power. But then the article goes on to say "his introduced some conveniences -- no one had to shovel coal -- but also created complexities. It was hard to keep all the electrical components working; many factory owners opted to stay with steam."
What does he mean by "all the electrical components"? There was just the one central motor.
Re: (Score:2)
Overloads, fuses, contactors , breakers, disconnects, those were all new technologies at the time. The wires were wrapped in wax soaked cloth. There were a lot of bugs to work out.
Also, the maintenance people knew how to fix the steam engine, they could tell what was wrong by looking or listening, and fix it with familiar tools. The mechanic who tried to fix the contactor with a screwdriver died with a bright blue flash. It took awhile before people really understood it.
My challenge (Score:4, Interesting)
May be a problem at my specific company, but the challenge is the interruptions. Like most people, when my work day starts, I have a set idea of things I will get done in the day, but sometimes I get to about none of those things. But (like over the past hour) it's common for me to be hit up by 3-4 people over slack - an endless stream of "quick question"s. In addition to meetings and tickets that come in through the day. I need to have the ability to shut down ALL communication for a good period of time in order to work effectively. Then on top of that is messages/calls from friends and family, which I have more control over.
Re: (Score:2)
In my company the solution to these micro-interruptions was make everyone agree in first try to solve any "little questions" by yourself before micro-interrupt anyone. Only ask someone immediately if you have a blocking issue, otherwise, try to accumulate and solve many questions at once, at specific periods of day (typically after the team daily meeting, after lunch or near the end of shift).
And that applies to in-person work as well.
Factory owners (Score:2)
I doubt that the factory owners' resistance to new thinking was the main issue as the summary makes out. While there may have been some hold-outs as soon as an engineer could show a reliable and inexpensive solution it would have been quickly adopted. I think the problem was that reliable and inexpensive solutions were probably not readily available. Who knows how reliable the electricity supply was for example ? or how financially stable the electric supply company was.
TFS draws some sweeping conclusions t
We won't know until things are "normal" (Score:3)
For some people work from home was totally normal. They have dedicated office space, someone to take care of all the distractions during the day, and love the productivity they find. What's not normal is having your entire family home while you're working, having your spouse need to work at home as well, and having your kids to care for and educate because schools are closed. On top of that, most people don't have some fancy man cave/she shed they can work from...the people stuck in city apartments doing this must really be feeling like they never leave work.
I tend to not be an extroverted salesy type, so I don't NEED to be in an office. I don't desperately crave human interaction, especially the manufactured kind you get in an office setting. So, I had no issue doing 2 days a week at home and going in for the rest, or even more sometimes. However, that wasn't where we were headed. Our company is doing a "DevOps by fiat" led by management consultants...and they're all about the scrums and the teams and the collaboration fantasy. No one gets work done unless they're staring at each other packed around a table surrounded by sticky notes...because that's what the FAANGs do and we're cargo-culting it. It will be VERY interesting to see what happens to this idea of requiring people to be in the office all hours of the day.
For remote work to work, you need a dedicated office space, a way to communicate effectively that doesn't become a surveillance tool, a supporting management culture, and the distractions need to go away. I don't know how my wife and I are going to handle this summer since summer activities are probably cancelled. It works great when the WFHer just outsources all the distractions to the other spouse, but most families aren't like that. I do worry about a new form of discrimination happening if we can't get back to normal school schedules at some point...the childless person willing to put in 14 hour days will win out over someone who can only work a normal workweek and has periodic distractions.
remote first vs. workplace first (Score:2)
The truly needed paradigm shift is from a "remote first" working environment - not "workplace first" - when making all business decisions.
Example of one: We've been 60/40 telecommute/in-office for years now, and we consider ourselves to be savvy with telecommuting, but we still have an "office first" mentality in subtle ways. Biggest example: Setting Tuesdays/Thursdays as mandatory in-office days for in-person meetings to be scheduled. It made scheduling meetings easier, but it's "office first" foundation h
Remote work isn't hard (Score:2)
Bullshit.
Remote work isn't hard. Adjusting to a new paradigm can be hard for some people though.
For a lot of people they feel like they've lost a central part of their life - the office - and they don't know what to replace it with. They feel adrift, lost, bored, confused, and aimless.
Not me, lol.
My take on it... (Score:4, Interesting)
Is that people that can get stuff done at the office can get stuff done at home. It is more about self motivation and discipline than management oversight. My team is now 100% remote and just as efficient, if not more efficient, than before. If we need management involvement we ask for it. Otherwise, they leave us to do our thing. They treat us like adults and trust our judgement. Seems to be working really well.
What I have noticed though is that there are some people that are entirely reliant on being in an office. These are the "cheerleader" types. The ones that organize the company outings and conduct tours of the office for new recruits and engage in general PR stuff. When we are all remote these people become utterly useless. Even when we were in the office I question their value. Naturally, these are the ones that are pushing to get everyone back to the cube farm so that they can resume whatever they do while the rest of us focus on getting actual work done :-)
The general consensus among my team is let's stay remote, even after the Covid stuff passes. A few of them might want to go in a day or two a week for some social interaction. Me? I'd just as soon save some commuting time and gas money while doing my bit to reduce traffic and pollution.
Re: (Score:3)
There are a lot of behaviours that require in-person interaction to work. Most of which should be discouraged by the business as much as possible. Along with the ones you mention I would add people that book meetings with the people that do the work to appear involved. Anyone that climbs the corporate ladder with politicking and appearance in place of work or competence. Which is probably why a lot of people feel that middle-managers want everyone in the office. Their manager is probably someone like that.
T
People need to learn to type (Score:3)
Text chat fixes this, and creates a permanent, searchable record of the meeting. It forces people to gather their thoughts into concise statements instead of flapping their jaws until they feel satisfied.
Speech is a slow, inaccurate way to convey complex information.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. I hate emails/texts/chat as it is 100% inefficient work back and forth and get consensus. I have a policy I follow that if I have emailed back twice, or chat back and forth more than 2 times - I call. I get on voice. This way I get immediate feedback, and an immediate resolution. I don't wait days for responses, I get immediate buy-in.
The only time emails/texts/chat is effective for yes/no questions, one time things. I am an architect, so I require complex solutions and reading walls of te
Re: (Score:3)
Malarkey (Score:1)
dynamo != motor (Score:2)
electric motor = becomes a prime mover when electricity is supplied, it can turn other things.
A central dynamo powering a complex set of shafts, pulleys and belts is not possible. Finding it difficult to take one seriously if that person uses dynamo and electric motor interchangeably.
It is as bad as the time when the local attache from the embassy acted as a translator to a lecture by a Soviet co
There are technical challenges (Score:4, Insightful)
My home network is much worse than the company's network. So any work that deals with large files naturally gets much slower.
My network also has some technical issues which I find hard to resolve and don't matter that much for everyday usage (Netflix or whatever), but apparently cause problems with video conferencing and occasionally remote work. At work there are no such problems, and if there are, there are IT people to handle it, so I don't have to take time off my own work (or private time) to try to deal with it.
I'd say that without company IT services and paying for better home networks in such cases (which aren't always possible, because infrastructure isn't great; I can't even technically get the speed that my company has to the outside world, let alone the LAN bandwidth), working from home won't be always practical.
That's not saying that it won't be fine for some people and some projects.
I'd say that also in general, I don't like the idea of people becoming even more isolated. Modern technology already many of us on our phones when we're with others, and I, at least, find it better to be able to discuss something with a coworker just by stepping over, instead of making a call or discussion. It's not that it's impossible, but when a team that works well together works together in the same place, I think that can provide better results than remote interaction. Of course, if the team is not working well together, might as well separate them. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Why Msmash writes shitty clickbait headlines - (Score:1)
we all know how that can be fixed. Why is this idiot still an editor on this site. If I wanted to read Buzzfeed, I'd read buzzfeed.
Lack of informal contact (Score:3)
I work as an engineer among many other engineers. I'm slightly introverted, but the lack of personal contact during the first weeks at home from mid-March was driving me crazy. (The feeling of impending doom on society didn't help either.) We addressed that by having "chat breaks" (with a video link) and it sort of works for me and the roughly half of the people who need social contacts.
But I have come to realize that we're coasting on interpersonal relations that had been forged in the pre-COVID era and in a project that had quite a bit of momentum. I don't bump into people outside my team anymore. I no longer walk past people's desk and ask "hey! that's an interesting plot/CAD design/microscope photo on your screen; what are you working on?" These unplanned encounters would lead to interesting discussions and occasionally new ideas about how to solve technical problems.
I'm in a project with about 30 people (organized in four smaller teams). Of those, there are about ten that I have barely communicated with during the last ten weeks, including one who is in my team.
Getting used to people's personal quirks is much faster with in-person contacts. I know most of the people I work with, but people come and leave in these projects. I expect it to be much harder to learn to work with someone that you've never met in person.
I see a lot of posts here along the lines of "I don't need a freakin' manager to slow me down with meetings". Maybe you're all very experienced and know how to use your time effectively. But I have seen many times (including with the younger me) how motivated junior engineers spend a lot of effort, with a great drive, on solutions for nonexistent problems or that would break too many other things to be worth the trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
wait a minute! (Score:3)
"Someone, for instance, had to figure out how to construct a building-wide power grid capable of handling the massively variable load created by many voltage-hungry mini-motors being turned off and on unpredictably. Until that happened, it was central power or bust."
This right away tells me the author had NOT done his homework.
This was exactly the problem Edison had to solve in order to deploy power to homes and businesses... Before a factory owner even began to think about putting a "dynamo" in place.
BTW, a dynamo generates electricity. A motor uses it.
I think it safe to discount what this author thinks.
Dynamos _first_ became smaller and _then_ ... (Score:2)
... industry could put them in each individual machine.
Big dynamos were because that's what could be made cost effectively at the time. So it was industry adopting something when it became small and cost effective.
Is that the case now with remote work?