I don't disagree; Google says "take it easy" means "proceed calmly and in a relaxed manner" which I think fits what I described (and you'll probably get more work done this way, too if you already have a good idea of what you need to do.)
If you don't have measurable inputs and outputs (i.e. Tickets, service requests, widgets, cases, etc), you typically lose productivity. Not necessarily because of the employee, but also because of managers who don't function well with out of sight people.
Personally, I think in many cases you'd get better outcomes out of sending people home at noon on Fridays than having them telework.
Of course if you're not giving employees anything to do, you'll get reduced productivity. That's also true if you force them to sit in a chair in the office and do nothing. If you can't come up with anything for them to do (slow season, sales pipeline stalled) maybe let them pitch ideas for things they'd like to work on and give the ok on some.
Either way, if they have something to do and you keep in touch with them on how things are going, things should keep moving even without specific granular measurements. But why not use tickets or tasks or something to make it visible?
> also because of managers who don't function well with out of sight people
Those people probably shouldn't be managers, at least not working with remote workers. Communication is critical. A remote team should feel like they're communicating at least as much as an in-office team, if not more.
My viewpoint is exactly that, my viewpoint. I make it well known that when I am working from home it is likely because I have 9-5 errands to run, but I will be available throughout the day.
Maybe this is the case for the specific type of person who ends up working where you work. But it isn't universal. Many of us don't need "adult supervision" in order to be highly productive.
Neither are people being highly productive without "adult supervision."
In all seriousness, I find your comment incredibly insulting. I gave an opinion based off of experience, that doesn't mean that I'm some sort of child that needs to be supervised.
> the specific type of person who ends up working where you work
I typically prefer to keep my comments here civil, but seriously? Fuck you.
> I gave an opinion based off of experience, that doesn't mean that I'm some sort of child that needs to be supervised.
It also doesn't mean you're an expert. Next time you give your opinion, try not being insulting, and help us understand why you have that opinion. You gave one sentence that painted everyone working from home as lazy, and stated it as a fact.
I work from home when I need to be more productive. The office has too many coworkers with ad hoc questions that apparently aren't important enough to ask online.
A few times we got "work from home" day when teams moved from one building to another. You would expect more emails that day than usual as you could not just talk in person. Well, both number of email and commits went down significantly which tells me that people mostly "worked" from home that day.
That was a one-off event. Folks who don't regularly remote work will think of that as a "treat". In their minds they're probably viewing it as an unofficial day off.
Assuming that's comparable to a true remote work policy is silly.
If you're measuring productivity by email and commit volume, and you're a manager, you should be fired. It's the digital equivalent of "hours in the chair".
Personally, I can't effectively work at home. If you send me home to work, I'm going to be constantly distracted. If you want me to be productive, make sure I have an office.
So, with forewarning, I'm not the only person like this, and if a manager or executive wants to make this kind of decision and expect productivity to not suffer, they're being... stupid.
When I work from home (or often, a cafe), I don't waste time commuting and going out to a long lunch. I get more hours of work done and less stress from navigating traffic.
