Fog Creek’s Remote Work Policy • Hacker News Board

Re: Fog Creek’s Remote Work Policy

#41

Post by jacques_chester » Fri, Sep 13, 2013, 4:26 AM UTC

Iftheshoefits wrote: post #34

jacques_chester wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yeah, it's an insane number of rules. I think this is hyperbole. They all basically boil down to: if you work from home, please work from home. And keep in touch. I work from home. As a rule, the best-running projects are those with daily video meetings. The 2nd best involve phone calls. The worst involve emails. Faces have enormous bandwidth. Voices a bit less. Email has bugger all for the things that matter .

As a rule...for you and your team. Companies like this don't pay developers for face-time, BS meetings just to "check in" (which is the vast majority of all face-to-face meetings), and so on. They pay us for our expertise in writing software or doing other similar technical work. If a company offered me the choice between working from home under the conditions listed for Fog Creek or not working from home at all, I'd…

> Companies like this don't pay developers for face-time, BS meetings just to "check in" (which is the vast majority of all face-to-face meetings), and so on. They pay us for our expertise in writing software or doing other similar technical work.

They pay us to make business problems go away. It just so happens that our tool for that is usually software.

A major insight of agile methods is to put the developers close to the coalface, because infrequent or indirect contact leads to the wrong thing being built.

I frequently find while working with customers that we have entirely different mental models of the project. And I only find that out because I am constantly asking them questions about their business.

Re: Fog Creek’s Remote Work Policy

#42

Post by mistermann » Fri, Sep 13, 2013, 4:26 AM UTC

parennoob wrote: post #36

mistermann wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your opinion would it be safe to assume employee morale at Fog Creek is low due to working in such an obviously tyrannical environment?

Employee morale at my local McDonald's is tremendous. They also have tons of these micro-managey rules. Does that mean you would instantly want to work there?

> Does that mean you would instantly want to work there?

I really don't understand the point you're trying to make. Personally, I don't prefer micromanagement, but it doesn't make me unhappy if other things are being run productively.

Re: Fog Creek’s Remote Work Policy

#43

Post by corresation » Fri, Sep 13, 2013, 4:27 AM UTC

jacques_chester wrote: post #21

seiji wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it's an insane number of rules. (is video chat required? why video chat?) Down the page they mention The burden is on you to show that you’re being productive. -- that just sounds outright authoritarian and demeaning. Strict policies calling people out as "do this ... or else" don't exactly engender trust. I think they cover most of our complaints in the poorly worded Known availability and overlap with your te…

> Yeah, it's an insane number of rules. I think this is hyperbole. They all basically boil down to: if you work from home, please work from home. And keep in touch. I work from home. As a rule, the best-running projects are those with daily video meetings. The 2nd best involve phone calls. The worst involve emails. Faces have enormous bandwidth. Voices a bit less. Email has bugger all for the things that matter .

if you work from home, please work from home.

Do they have a "if you work in the office, please work in the office" list of rules?

My experience has been that most people "working" in an office aren't working at all for the overwhelming majority of their day. But that's just office life and it's just the way it is. Marissa Mayer wants everyone in the office because she wants to set a "good" example: businesses like Yahoo absolutely depend upon vacuuming away the activities of people sitting in droll offices.

Re: Fog Creek’s Remote Work Policy

#44

Post by LordHumungous » Fri, Sep 13, 2013, 4:28 AM UTC

bliti wrote: post #33

I think these are reasonable expectations. Working remotely does not imply that you get to set the boundaries and rules of employment. It merely allows you to work from another place. I have been working remotely for the past 4+ years, and actually do so in the way they describe. I have an office with a door, do not babysit or have people around during work hours, let people know (family included) that I am at work,…

Their ideas are actually good but I think phrasing it in a tone of "do this or we will think you are a slacker" is counter productive. A better approach would be to say "if you are working from home, here are some ideas that we highly encourage to make your work environment better."

Re: Fog Creek’s Remote Work Policy

#45

Post by general_failure » Fri, Sep 13, 2013, 4:30 AM UTC

parennoob wrote: post #20

"You still have stuff like chat, commit messages, code reviews, cases, Trello boards, etc. Be a little paranoid for this time about showing your work. It will help you feel good about your time, and us feel good about granting it." Run through a de-weaselizer, this reads: "Be a good little pet, and do an extra set of tricks when we take you out to the park, so you feel good about running around in the park and we fee…

The problem is not about the other person enjoying vacation. Its about you not being able to enjoy your work day because of their absence.

Re: Fog Creek’s Remote Work Policy

#46

Post by calinet6 » Fri, Sep 13, 2013, 4:31 AM UTC

parennoob wrote: post #20

"You still have stuff like chat, commit messages, code reviews, cases, Trello boards, etc. Be a little paranoid for this time about showing your work. It will help you feel good about your time, and us feel good about granting it." Run through a de-weaselizer, this reads: "Be a good little pet, and do an extra set of tricks when we take you out to the park, so you feel good about running around in the park and we fee…

I feel like these rules are direct results of frustrations experienced in real life and trying to put them down in a shared manner.

I know, because I've experienced about 70% of these frustrations. I usually ignored them, and thought "whatever, I'm sure things are fine," and then I realized my views of remote work are impacted negatively by these slight annoyances.

Maybe if people had that slightly better headset, or a connection that doesn't piss you off due to choppiness, hey, maybe it would make things work better. I think it might help. These aren't bad suggestions taken at face value.

Codifying them as rules is a bit harsh-sounding I agree, but it seems like they're just Things That Work, and in the sense of Paying People Real Money For Doing Things, they might as well be Things That Work, and not things that are just annoying and less functional, even if, as you say, in the unmeasurable ways they are beneficial (which I still think is true).

It sounds like they're not trusting people. I don't like that part, and I don't think it's effective to reduce autonomy like this. Maybe they need to work on the wording, or the philosophy, I don't know.

Re: Fog Creek’s Remote Work Policy

#47

Post by mistermann » Fri, Sep 13, 2013, 4:34 AM UTC

ISL wrote: post #27

sigre wrote: post #9

This reads like yet another autocratic, micro-managing HR document. "Have a room with a door that shuts." Seriously? How about this: hire smart people you trust, give them whatever tools and support they need to do their jobs most productively, then get out of the way.

One co-founder of Fog Creek has this to say, as a goal for the company [1]: "* great work environment, with the goal of every engineer having an office with a door that closes" And, in an oft-cited "Joel Test" [2]: "8. Do programmers have quiet working conditions?" Furthermore, the company itself says [3]: "The average Fog Creek developer has 694 square inches of screen real-estate, 2 desktop computers, and an Aeron…

From reading the comments in this thread, I don't think very many people in this thread know who Joel Spolsky is.

Re: Fog Creek’s Remote Work Policy

#48

Post by bliti » Fri, Sep 13, 2013, 4:37 AM UTC

LordHumungous wrote: post #44

bliti wrote: post #33

I think these are reasonable expectations. Working remotely does not imply that you get to set the boundaries and rules of employment. It merely allows you to work from another place. I have been working remotely for the past 4+ years, and actually do so in the way they describe. I have an office with a door, do not babysit or have people around during work hours, let people know (family included) that I am at work,…

Their ideas are actually good but I think phrasing it in a tone of "do this or we will think you are a slacker" is counter productive. A better approach would be to say "if you are working from home, here are some ideas that we highly encourage to make your work environment better."

Good point. I did not think the tone would create that impression in others. One point in your feedback I might be confusing is the following. Seems that some people might believe that working remotely allows them other freedoms. Am I interpreting this incorrectly? If not, may you ( or another member) elaborate more?

Re: Fog Creek’s Remote Work Policy

#49

Post by parennoob » Fri, Sep 13, 2013, 4:38 AM UTC

calinet6 wrote: post #46

parennoob wrote: post #20

"You still have stuff like chat, commit messages, code reviews, cases, Trello boards, etc. Be a little paranoid for this time about showing your work. It will help you feel good about your time, and us feel good about granting it." Run through a de-weaselizer, this reads: "Be a good little pet, and do an extra set of tricks when we take you out to the park, so you feel good about running around in the park and we fee…

I feel like these rules are direct results of frustrations experienced in real life and trying to put them down in a shared manner. I know, because I've experienced about 70% of these frustrations. I usually ignored them, and thought "whatever, I'm sure things are fine," and then I realized my views of remote work are impacted negatively by these slight annoyances. Maybe if people had that slightly better headset, or…

They aren't a bad set of suggestions (although apart from the headset bit, the rest are fairly obvious and I try to implement them anyway while working remotely. Yeah, I need a decent up bandwidth for Google Hangout. Where do I sign up for the newsletter?)

What I don't like is making them into a "remote work policy" rather than "here are some things which might make your remote work more smooth for your team". That basically means (as you said) that there is a lack of trust amongst your team members. And lines like the suggestion to "Over-communicate and over-deliver." are just plain Microsoft-management-style bullshit which prevents anyone who is actually working remotely from enjoying their day.

> Maybe they need to work on the wording, or the philosophy, I don't know.

Probably both, the post would be pretty good as a set of suggestions without the hubris, and if they actually gave technological suggestions that you might not know off the bat. A set of scripts that makes remote VPN login seamless and smooth? Perfect. A set of things that sounds like Captain Obvious combined with some pseudo-motivational nonsense from an IBM manager training session? Probably not so much.

Re: Fog Creek’s Remote Work Policy

#50

Post by georgebonnr » Fri, Sep 13, 2013, 4:38 AM UTC

I think the only thing that would dissuade me from working at this company is the poor communication of these rules.

There is an easy way to communicate clear goals and principles without sounding passive aggressive and authoritarian. This writer obviously wasn't aware of it didn't care. I can handle high expectations. But I would be miserable somewhere where poor communication was the norm.