Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fog Creek’s Remote Work Policy

blog.fogcreek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 128 posts

Re: Fog Creek’s Remote Work Policy

#61

Post by RogerL »

mistermann wrote: post #39
mberning wrote: post #25

This is true old school thinking at its worst. If my employer is going to put up all these rules and barriers maybe I should put up a few of my own. I bet the managers or whatever they fancy themselves to be at Fog Creek have very little appreciation for all of the small yet tangible things that employees go out of their way to do for them. Things like answering important emails in the evening, especially when it is…

I'm just picking your comment at random out of this thread...do you know Joel Spolsky who runs Fog Creek? I'm reading all these critical comments in this thread and reconciling it in my head with what I know of him (from his extensive blogging and podcasting) and I'm thinking, have so many years passed that no one knows who this person is they're criticizing? For example: > I bet the managers or whatever they fancy t…

This blog post was not written by Joel, nor does not sound like Joel. I think the comments are justified; the blog post feels quite abrasive to me. It's a little hard to put my finger on it, but the repeated distinction between work and vacation is a bit grating. Contrast this with a company like Netflix that don't count vacation days, and that assume that it their job to ascertain the productivity of their employees. I don't know, the whole post just doesn't sit 'right' with me. It's sort of "I bust my gut for you, I even try to work while I'm visiting with family, and you put me down for not having a room with a door that shuts and tell me I'm on vacation?!? (expletive deleted)" That's probably not at all how it is as Fog Creek, but that's the feeling I get from this blog post. Probably just unfortunate wording.

Re: Fog Creek’s Remote Work Policy

#62

Post by kamaal »

LordHumungous wrote: post #18
fphhotchips wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me this isn't about seeming friendly or unfriendly, it's about defining boundaries of what is vacation time and what isn't. It's about saying "No, what you're doing isn't working from home, it's vacation. Don't feel guilty about not getting anything done, just go and have a break." Compare that to being fuzzy about it - you're not really having a decent break (because you're trying to get work done) and you're not…

That's why a good manager should define goals of things that need to get done. As long as the goals are being met, management should allow their developers the freedom to choose their own work environment and hours, within reasonable bounds. Demanding that your employees have headsets at home is called micromanaging.

>>That's why a good manager should define goals of things that need to get done.

Good managers are nearly extinct species, whom you encounter once in a while in years. The remainder get to become managers by their political work and a results oriented work environment is something they will never build. Because if we were to measure progress by results, those managers will be the first to be fired.

>>As long as the goals are being met, management should allow their developers the freedom to choose their own work environment and hours

Their goals are very different than our goals. The goal of leaders is to produce results. The goal of management is to keep the wheels running, regardless of whether the running produces any results.

A good manager is automatically a leader.

Re: Fog Creek’s Remote Work Policy

#63

Post by parennoob »

slantyyz wrote: post #60
parennoob wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Well, if I was working at a low morale Taco Bell, then yeah, I think I would want to work at your local McD's. Otherwise, asking someone who works in technology if they want to work in fast food is kinda pointless.

> Well, if I was working at a low morale Taco Bell, then yeah, I think I would want to work at your local McD's.

Yes, if you work in the industry equivalent of a low morale Taco Bell (dunno, Oracle?), Fog Creek sounds like a great place to work.

Re: Fog Creek’s Remote Work Policy

#65

Post by OldSchool »

After decades of successful remote work on both sides of the paycheck, I find this recent trend pushing against it with formality and micromanagement pretty revolting. There are jobs that require specifically to-the-second availability called "customer service agent" or "receptionist," and timeliness is their whole point of existing and they pay a lot less which tells me that just being there isn't worth all that much.

Otherwise, wherever and whenever you're working, you should be judged on the outcome of those projects for which you're responsible, nothing else. If collaboration is required, your smart people (you hire people that are smarter than you in their field right?) will know they need to deliver their best in order to keep their jobs so they will work it out themselves. How that's going to happen, whether if it means getting together in an office, temporary conference room, Skype, or google hangout they probably know more options than you do. If you want to reasonably keep status on them, hold a standup once a day. Anything regularly beyond that specifically for no other purpose than management is telling them that you don't trust them and therefore they shouldn't trust you.

Re: Fog Creek’s Remote Work Policy

#66

Post by nilkn »

I actually don't think these rules are unreasonable at all for permanent remote work (though they seem a tad stringent for ad hoc temporary remote stints). I mean, is it seriously asking that much for you to get a good headset and have a room for working? Working from home at all is a tremendous privilege, and these strike me as relatively minor requests over the long run. If it was requested that you dress up, then yes, that would be ridiculous.

However, the tone of this post honestly sounds a little frustrated with remote work rather than supportive of it, and I think that is what is leading to the comments here. After reading this, my impression is the author doesn't trust remote developers (despite a claim to the contrary) and that he generally looks down on remote developers. I would worry that remote developers are not seen as first-class citizens of the developer ecosystem at the company.

In short, even though I agree with these rules for the most part, remote development is something that needs to either be rejected or embraced, not regulated. There's not much middle-ground, because that's going to lead to micro-management.

Re: Fog Creek’s Remote Work Policy

#67

Post by slantyyz »

parennoob wrote: post #63
slantyyz wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if I was working at a low morale Taco Bell, then yeah, I think I would want to work at your local McD's. Otherwise, asking someone who works in technology if they want to work in fast food is kinda pointless.

> Well, if I was working at a low morale Taco Bell, then yeah, I think I would want to work at your local McD's. Yes, if you work in the industry equivalent of a low morale Taco Bell (dunno, Oracle?), Fog Creek sounds like a great place to work.

Ok, I'll bite. I work in a place with high morale and I'd still LOVE to work for Fog Creek.

I've used Fogbugz for years, have been a fan of Joel Spolsky's writing, and I'm pretty familiar with what he has strived to achieve with his company in terms of creating a great work environment for developers. From everything that I know of Fog Creek, it is a good place to work.

Re: Fog Creek’s Remote Work Policy

#69

Post by slantyyz »

kevin wrote: post #28
wging wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems targeted at people who are remote long-term. Maybe a little more reasonable in that light. But for short-term people, >Approval from your team lead. Basically, just tell someone well in advance if you’re going to be altering your work arrangement, temporarily or permanently. seems counterproductive. Sometimes problems come up and you suddenly need to be at home tomorrow to meet the cable guy, who has committed…

I think "approval" is less formal than you might imagine for a company like Fog Creek and most startups. Sending a quick email to let the person in charge know that you're going to be some place unexpected is totally reasonable.

Your point is right on, but I think Fog Creek has been around long enough to no longer be considered a startup.

Re: Fog Creek’s Remote Work Policy

#70

Post by misterjangles »

utnick wrote: post #3

This seems like a lot of rules... and kind of unfriendly. Especially for just a short stint working remotely. Whats the worst that could happen if one of the workers has a less than ideal setup while temporarily working remotely for a few days? Would it really affect company outcomes? If not, I think developer happiness would be improved by having a more laissez-faire attitude from management.

If you ever own a company and you find yourself writing a salary check to somebody who you suspect did jack-shit all week - it's kinda amazing how difficult it is to not go into Ebeneezer Scrooge mode. Even if you know that people are not "on" 24/7. It can be tough to walk by somebody's desk and see them screwing around on Facebook instead of working - when you are the guy writing the checks. It takes a lot of faith. This is the same whether they are working on site or remote. It's easy to talk a big talk about what a generous boss you would be - but it is very different when you are responsible for meeting payroll week after week. I would challenge anybody to try it.

Joel's rules strike me as a little more specific than necessary, but I can very much relate to his feelings. I have experienced devs "working from home" who disappear all day and hold up the whole team because we can't find them to ask a quick question. The point is that when you say you are on the clock - then you should be working. I personally wouldn't care so much about the exact specifics of your internet connection or whatever. But, if you tell me that you're working then I expect that you're actually at your computer working and not laying by the pool or playing video games.

It's equally easy to say that you'd just fire somebody who you did not trust to work at home with no rules. But, as with many things, it's easy to take this hard line approach with your imaginary company and theoretical employees - quite another thing in reality though. Some people are very productive but maybe not so disciplined. A few sensible rules and expectations can prevent problems.

Post reply on HN