Home working: Why can't everyone telework?
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
I work from home on occasion, but I also consider my workplace to be a society that I enjoy being a part of.
I like talking to the people in my office throughout the day. I like going to lunch with them sometimes. I like that I am in a building of experts and collaborators.
I suppose I am more fortunate than most in that I can walk to work and that my work is on Main Street, surrounded by many wonderful cafes and restaurants. But that many people do not share such suitable conditions I think is an argument against their conditions (poor commute, poor workplace location), and I don't think their conditions necessarily point to teleworking as the best solution, while it is certainly a better alternative than a miserable commute, I don't see it as an ideal.
So I must Ask HN: If your work was closer to you and in a pleasant location, would you still want to work from home primarily?
The freedom to work from home doesn't mean you have to be cooped up inside your house. You can work from cafes, parks, anywhere and everywhere with wi-fi. Sick of the same restaurants and bars? Take a weekend flight to Europe and work from there. It's the sort of romantic nonsense that some of us find appealing.
I love how casual you make this sound.
That said, half the time I work from home winds up being spent in a Starbucks 5 minutes from the house, just for the change of scenery (and free coffee).
Email, text chat, even video chat just ain't the same as having a guy next to you that you can interrupt at a whim to discuss things with. In particular the ability to recognize that someone gets what you are saying is severely hampered with remote technologies, making technical communication much less efficient. Then you have the informal and overheard communication that takes place in a (sanely laid out) office. Then you have lunches. It all just piles up.
I work remotely and I hate the inefficiencies it introduces.
I suspect that the guy who is being interrupted "at a whim" would prefer to be working at home.
If I'm in the middle of something tricky, it's most efficient if it has my full attention. Once I get everything into an acceptable state, I'll typically check my IMs and emails to answer any questions that people might have for me.
For a couple people working this way, the workflow upon running up against a problem might be:
1. Send IM or email to a team member who almost certainly has the answer.
2. Wait a half minute or so for a reply.
3. (Optional) Seek the answer yourself for a few minutes.
4. If the problem is urgent, make a phone call to the team member.
5. Otherwise, work on something else until you get the reply.
I'll take the interruptions and discussions involved in a highly social work environment that keeps me from writing code that is not necessary over a silent monastery that lets me build gleaming cubes of intellectual perfection that no one needs or that have been already built. (Caveat: with idiot coworkers, none of this applies.)
Sure, flow is important at times. It's also addictive. Programmers are introverts, undervalue communication and overestimate their understanding of, well, everything.
Know thyself.
Also: I'm not introvert. That makes me assuredly talk to people perhaps more than many introverts would at home. I know some of the people I work with kids names, and we still ask how weekends, etc went.
Skype works fine for communication (along with emails). Screensharing is much more useful than video chat in my experience. I also have various other tools like that queued up for when they're better (Copilot for instance).
Also: you really have to develop your phone skills. I think lots of people have underdeveloped phone skills these days, so aren't good at working at a distance. They don't know how to do a phone call well, wether it be pacing, tough issues, agendas or any of that. They especially don't deal well with understaters or the like. Lastly, for many important calls, you MUST follow it up with a summary by email. You also need to learn basic drawing, as a quickly sketched diagram saves the bacon in the middle of some calls (which you then throw in your feed scanner that automatically turns it into a pdf).
I think a lot of people who work in offices lack the ability to express themselves well in these situations, and that's why they feel ineffective (they are a bit, but could get better with practice).
You also need to live in a reasonable place. You have to have a fast internet connection. If this means you have to live at the exurbs instead of a rural farm, well too bad. I personally have 2 different ISPs and a router which combines the connections for failover purposes. (I also live in the middle of a relatively large city, Midtown Atlanta).
I don't think most people handle those issues well face to face either. Most f2f meetings I've been in have been abysmal wastes of everyone's time.
Can you not get better internet at home?
Of course most companies are global and so my development team are in Poland and my home office is in England or Switzerland, so I would never get to interact with them in any 'high-performing-team' kind of way; but that's what big companies like to do anyway - split up their workforce, divide and conquer, choose mediocrity over performance.
So, if you work for a big dumb organisation, work from home. If you work for a small agile organisation, work from the office. If you work for yourself, give up.
Even being 30 seconds away across the office is inferior. Working from home is appalling by comparison.