A lot of people are pointing out drawbacks to working at home. Noisy, cramped, no separation of home work life, etc etc etc.
None of those are valid criticisms of the idea being discussed. We say 'work from home' as shorthand. It doesn't literally mean YOU MUST WORK AT YOUR DOMICILE AND NOWHERE ELSE.
It means you can work anywhere you can make arrangements to work.
Yeah, this is exactly what I do, I work remotely but have a bright, relaxed office 10 minutes walk from my house. I can see this being a more popular arrangement in the future. Perhaps instead of companies spending money on giant cubicle offices they give their employees an 'office allowance'. Taking London as an example, you have many people commuting into the city from areas with cheaper housing to expensive offices that are located in the heart of the city. The money spent on deskspace for that worker in the city would go a lot further if they had office space where they'd just come from. Not to mention the transport savings, both for the individual and the system as a whole (which is already making some cattle carts look roomy during rush hour). Walk round London for a day and you'll find windows filled with rows of people staring at their computers. The majority of the time they're just stuck there looking at that computer. Making them travel 2,3,4 hours each day seems unnecessarily cruel, a relic of a time before email and skype. Let's not discount the value of face to face, but the fact is that this makes up a small part of the average worker's work. Most companies implicitly acknowledge this by reserving only the dayless rooms of their basement for meetings.
There's a startup idea or two waiting in this space, there are many fundamental inefficiencies in the way business is currently conducted. There's potential for both improving quality of life and reducing costs.
I am in exactly the same position - 20 min walk and an office to work with people 4000 miles away.
I don't think however there are startup solutions here (well there are a growing number of office space providers) but its really a massive public policy issue - in London Crossrail, new tube investments, road building, road pricing, almost all transport infrastructure is based around assumptions about masses of people commuting daily - and if that is wrong we are building a lot of white elephants
I still think its problematic. I like to have a place where i work and nothing else. When in the coffe shop or a nice place i just enjoy it for what it is without trying to squeeze some productive time in. To me its the same seperation issue, its not so much about the place home but the mindset of spending work time in a private life enviroment. Just my view of course.
There are coworking spaces for that exact purpose. All of this discussion is about not forcing people to commute and chaining people to the desks at a central office, and giving them freedom to choose their own workplace where it is convenient for them.
Yeah. Always thought I'd love to work at home; now I'm doing it and I'm not a big fan. I desire to have a separate place to go just for work. I think what people (myself included) really want is the ability to leave the office whenever they want/need without being judged. Commute times are also a problem, especially in the US with its poor city planning, but a lot of times it's due to their election to live in distant suburbs. If people adjust the amount of space they think they need, we can make strides to reducing commute times and building up urban infrastructure, with the bonus that people can easily step in and out of the office as they please.
I'm the minority, i guess, who does not wan't to work from home. I like to have some routine, like waking up, taking shower, putting on clean clothes and going outside, see the sun, see the people, have a lunch in a nice restaurant - to feel being alive. I'm currently telecommuting, but ... i have rented a desk from co-working space, where i go every day. I don't have to, but i do. Home is toxic for me.
I work from home 99% of the time and what you say makes sense for me too. But I think the point DHH is making is more to do with companies requiring you to be in the office almost every day when everyone else is there which is completely unnecessary in a lot of cases.
You enjoy the office, your coworker may not. There are tools now that help both of you be happy doing the same job together.
I've worked from home for about four years now. I keep in regular contact with my Co-workers (Campfire) and friends (IRC). It would take a lot to get me back into an office.
Yeah, me to. I'd have to get at least a $30,000 raise to go into an office. Even then, I'd still probably say no. Peace of mind, family time, more productivity and fewer vehicle expenses are worth their weight in gold.
One of the advantages of having your work space separated from your private space, is that in the evening you can close the office door behind you and stop thinking about work until you come in next day morning.
I dont see working from home as the solution to everything as described here.
I have worked from home for years and slowly the urge to do some work crept into every situation in my private life. I started to constantly felt guilty when not at my desk working and "home" wasnt a place to relax anymore.
I feel much better now with a desk in a Coworking space, where i am not all alone and can talk to other engineers if i want to and when i leave in the evening its much easier to relax at home.
I do occasionally work from home when i feel like it or on the weekends, but as its opt-in it feels totally different.
YMMV of course, but imo there are also serious downsides.
I prefer the term ”remote work” over ”working from home.” I almost never work from my apartment, beyond the occasional email. But by working from co-working offices or a coffee shop, I avoid the constant “hey, quick question man” and “let's just have a quick meeting” and driving during rush hour and having to ask permission to work from a beach in Florida because I scored cheap flights like happened last week.
So a bit of a false dichotomy (not judging, just mentioning): "Remote working" does not necessarily mean "working from the space I also sleep in." That would drive me nuts.
Sure but for me its pretty much like an office. I like daily routines, getting out of the house in the morning. I do even enjoy a short commute to just think.
However i still get the mentioned interruptions as i work on pretty big projects, but its mostly via IM. Working from the coffe shop or even the beach is not for me though, id just grab my girlfriend for a short trip and catch up on work on the next weekend.
He didn't say it was the solution to everything, you know. In fact, he pointed out "Of course, it’s not all without drawbacks either." Somebody at Forbes wrote that headline.
Working from a Coworking space instead of from your company's office for me is still "working from home".
The essential part is basically that you work from wherever you find yourself most productive. Personally, as long as I can avoid commutes of over an hour, I'm happy enough.
Working from my actual home has some extra benefits (like going out with my dogs whenever I take a short break etc.), but I definitely appreciate working from another place every now and then.
It chimes with a flow of history I think we are seeing - that source code literacy is roughly equivalent to read and writing literacy, and we have already seen Gutenberg invent the printing press (Www).
Now we are seeing what Europe saw from 1451-1590 - what happens when you go from 2% literacy rates to 20%+. Just imagine the advantages a company in 1500 enjoyed if its top staff were literate, and engaged with all the other literate employees in the industry. How many competitive advantages could it take to make up for that single one?
We are lucky members of that 2 % and should not see it as a permanent elite - but we should also recognise the changes coming. I think DHH hits it right
I'm still a student, and I know that I don't yet have the personal discipline to work from home. I know that I'll find it difficult to have a routine, so I will work at odd times, and I know that because of this, all the time I'm not working I'll feel like I should.
I need to do the 9-5 thing for a few years. Once I've done that, I want a flat/house where I can designate one room as my 'work' office, in which I will only do work, and all work will be done in it. Anything that is not work related I'll have to do outside that room. I think if I have this separation I'll be able to focus on work, and on personal things much better.
When Marissa Mayer made her announcement about the work at home policy at Yahoo the reaction was easy to predict. Many people would say that she was wrong. What I didn't expect was to see so few people make the case that the answer is: it depends.
There is no one-size-fits-all work practice. The fact that nearly every writer about this fails to acknowledge context is severely troubling.
Oh my god. People always look at work from home as they are a good fit for work-from-home-culture. The important issue to discuss is how we hire people that fit to work-from-home-culture? I think 37signals should share more how they hire the people that fit this culture.
I just pretend there are multiple concrete implementations of the written English syntax. I then have a substitution macro I run automatically in my mind when I encounter a grammar rule that is inconsistent with my own implementation. I almost always end up being able to understand the intent of the writer.
Some minds are like the compiler that shouts, "I know you meant a semi-colon, but you didn't type a semi-colon so I'm just going to complain" and some minds are more forgiving and say "Let me just put a semi-colon here for you, no worries." :-)
I wouldn't have said anything if this was from a blog, but it surprised me coming from Forbes. It appears they simply publish email interviews without so much as reading them...?
Don't know about them to be frank, but I've seen major newspapers and magazines go from 10-20 copy editors down to 2-3.
That's due to the news industry crisis, and also due to the switch to the internet -- for one, 24/7 pushing of new articles tends to lower the overall quality compared to the daily/weekly/monthly magazine editions of the past, and second, the publishers don't seem to care as much to have copy editors available (well, the lower margins on the net also play their role).
One should note that this is actually not a case of syntax, and it's not pedantic to point it out. It's incorrect punctuation, and Forbes should have caught it. There's no way I would have let that go if I were an editor there.
Working at home is not for everybody If you work with people who have a strong intrinsic motivation it's ok to work from home but otherwise it's a nightmare for the company.
I like Thursday as a work from home day. It's far enough into the week that you're sick of going to the office, and it doesn't connect to the weekend so you don't slack off.
Does nobody think that working in the same building as coworkers actually improves social dynamics? I find it odd that no one has bothered to mention it
DHH: "Email gets a lot of hate these days, but it truly is the king of communication. Yes, we all get a lot, but consider the alternative: Every email that would otherwise had been a meeting or a phone call."
I used to believe that email was the king of communication. Then I was exposed to this idea that "email is not communication". I rallied against this idea, and with my engineer hat on, I still do. I have written some great technical emails that have gained praise from co-workers for their clarity, accuracy, and logic. These mails have saved long, uninformed discussions, and the time put into crafting them easily saved in the moment, and often again in the future.
But then I started to think, and observe the wider climate... all those times that a well crafted email was written and well received, but a key (senior) team player ignored the resulting email thread, or when you needed to persude and not just inform, or when you're about to meet a client, and you need that answer you emailed about a week ago, and never got.
This pattern occurs again and again with overloaded resources: they see a long, detailed email thread between senior team members, but they don't have time (can't be bothered?) to read it. They assume that those involved are being "lazy" and not picking up the phone (oh, poor misguided people - crafting clear written communication takes much longer). This, usually senior person, needs to get a handle on the issue, so they drop a meeting into the calendar with the key players (and usually everyone else who doesn't really care). When the meeting gets underway you're ultimately asked to summarise 2000 words of concise emails in 5 minutes, (which turns into 15 because of interruptions from the meeting organiser, who is often your boss). The result is that the meeting organizer has most of the picture, and assumes that their calling the meeting means they fixed the problem - but there was no lack of working to a solution before. Even if you start to include exec. summaries of discussions, threads, etc. this still happens.
It's how the senior person can affirm their status. Some of you will say that that's broken, or that's toxic, but it's the norm in every environment I've worked in: both remote and not. At least, when it's not remote, these discussions can happen around a whiteboard, and naturally attract or call over the right people to resolve it more quickly... which will still then get documented in an email/wiki/Basecamp. In both cases, email alone is insufficient. (My best practice now: organise a f call every time there is a complex issue arising, and then write the email. This wastes my engineer time because no one really understands what the issue is, but hey: the issue cannot be "missed" or "forgotten"; no one has been "left out"; I have not been "lazy". The email thread still ensues, but this time the senior peoples feel included. Then if it drags on, pick up the phone again).
The second case - I'm not a copy writer. I doubt I ever will be. My writing has always been logical and technical in nature. I'm trying to explain a defect/complex trouble shooting procedure/entity design/user interaction flow/describe an algorithm/the logical meaning of the constructs in an API. But as I rise in seniority I'm expected to get people on board with initiatives, with new tools, new ways of working. I'd love to think that the facts will win that argument, and they can be laid out in a nice email. Well, I've been there, and tried that. In response I get numerous requests for screencasts or meetings to explain these things. Why? It's not a lack of understanding. These people see some value in what I propose, but they want convincing. They need to hear the passion, enthusiasm, have the opportunity to ask questions - they don't want it to be a directive, but a collaborative decision. Email is never going to work in that situation. And infact writing the email in the first place seems to be a waste of time.
(I work remotely ~3 days a week, have lead teams of fully remote staff. My remaining ~2 days a week are spent visiting customers or in the office. In the office, I rarely meet my team or my project teams. But I do get to interact with people from marketing, HR, other product consultants, go to lunch with them, build a social relationship that is not so easy to do over the phone. I'd never want to give up the freedom of remote working, but I have to have those ~2 days of face to face connection - that's how you build a company culture.)
There is the matter of work control--i.e., the company, by virtue of having each remote worker on the payroll, exercises an employer-employee relationship, as opposed to a client-consultant relationship. However, the company further benefits because the remote workers are/become experts in the software--they are going to know the code better than constantly bringing in contractors--and may see measurable quality improvements by having the same people working consistently on the codebase. I'd imagine companies also appreciate knowing they don't have to worry about conflicting schedules and the like, which can arise with frequency among people who are contracting full-time.
And, just maybe, the company actually values the remote workers enough that they want to make sure they keep them around with a good salary, generous time off, and an intrinsic work relationship that shows value to their workers' personal time and needs.
No, that's not true. Communication is all. For example, you can have the repository send off commit messages to every team member, so they can see what everyone is working on.
So what are the differences between an employee and an independent contractor? There are a number of factors that determine which category a worker falls into. The most important of these is called the right of control. Does the employer have the right to exercise control over the worker? Basically, this means that the employer has the right to hire and fire the worker. But it also means the employer has the right to dictate both the means and the manner in which the worker performs the job. If this is the case, then the relationship is that of an employer and an employee. However, if the employer can control only the final results of the work, then the parties have an employer-independent contractor relationship.
None of those are valid criticisms of the idea being discussed. We say 'work from home' as shorthand. It doesn't literally mean YOU MUST WORK AT YOUR DOMICILE AND NOWHERE ELSE.
It means you can work anywhere you can make arrangements to work.
That is a huge difference.