I work with the data analysis guys in a large UK public-sector organisation and yes it can be very useful to be talking about the significance of different data sets, how data could be collected, how measurement can be improved - just to chew this stuff over. It can also be very useful for new team members, when they are in their first few months to get to know the rest of the crew and to feel they can ask questions in a natural way, not feeling that they are being annoying by cranking up a Teams call or chat.
Ii’m a big old fan of Teams and collaboration software in general, but face to face interaction can definitely be better in some circumstances. Yes - I’m also a big fan of being able to work from home a couple of days a week
I’m also a big fan of being able to work from home a couple of days a week
Partial work from home is ridiculous. They fully admit that it isn’t necessary to be in the office but at the same time still want to have some kind of control. So they settle for this not at all a reasonable compromise compromise.
If you want to go into the office fine that’s your prerogative, but I don’t think it’s fair to pretend there’s some kind of justification for it.
So why are they allowing part-time work then. If working in the office is necessary then surely it is necessary 100% of the time. So if they are allowing anyone to spend some time working outside of the office then clearly they can spend all their time working outside the office.
Ah, so you’re the guy who vomits every little thought into the office when your teammates are clearly trying to concentrate on other stuff? You have email for a reason bro
The arbitrary n days a week requirement is just a simple lazy way of ensuring people visit the buildings consistently so there is a valid reason to keep them paid for. It will also continue to be n+1 until things return to as they were or peoples investments are no longer going to benefit with more forced return to office.
Face to face meetings can be organised anywhere. Its just inefficient to be using a building and requiring people to travel for what does mostly amount to sitting on your own on teams calls anyway. The requirement to have people sitting in places where you occasionally bump into them just smacks of bad management.
In person meetings can be useful for improving social relations. Mandating n days a week on the off chance you might have a useful meeting is asinine.
Its just inefficient to be using a building and requiring people to travel for what does mostly amount to sitting on your own on teams calls anyway.
Absolutely agreed, that’s why it is usually best to try and get the team together on agreed days - having a couple a week allows for flexibility, but also makes it likely you get critical mass
I work with the data analysis guys in a large UK public-sector organisation and yes it can be very useful to be talking about the significance of different data sets, how data could be collected, how measurement can be improved - just to chew this stuff over. It can also be very useful for new team members, when they are in their first few months to get to know the rest of the crew and to feel they can ask questions in a natural way, not feeling that they are being annoying by cranking up a Teams call or chat.
Ii’m a big old fan of Teams and collaboration software in general, but face to face interaction can definitely be better in some circumstances. Yes - I’m also a big fan of being able to work from home a couple of days a week
Partial work from home is ridiculous. They fully admit that it isn’t necessary to be in the office but at the same time still want to have some kind of control. So they settle for this not at all a reasonable compromise compromise.
If you want to go into the office fine that’s your prerogative, but I don’t think it’s fair to pretend there’s some kind of justification for it.
Do they? I don’t think so.
So why are they allowing part-time work then. If working in the office is necessary then surely it is necessary 100% of the time. So if they are allowing anyone to spend some time working outside of the office then clearly they can spend all their time working outside the office.
The managers just don’t want them doing that.
Ummmm, no?
That’s a deflection. Not a retort.
Because it’s a ludicrous assertion. Just because something is useful on a regular basis, that does mean it is required constantly.
“Why are they letting people get out of bed? If people need beds, they clearly should be lying in them all day”
Ah, so you’re the guy who vomits every little thought into the office when your teammates are clearly trying to concentrate on other stuff? You have email for a reason bro
I’m that guy, to the extent that you’re the guy who never leaves his basement. I.e neither are true
The arbitrary n days a week requirement is just a simple lazy way of ensuring people visit the buildings consistently so there is a valid reason to keep them paid for. It will also continue to be n+1 until things return to as they were or peoples investments are no longer going to benefit with more forced return to office.
Face to face meetings can be organised anywhere. Its just inefficient to be using a building and requiring people to travel for what does mostly amount to sitting on your own on teams calls anyway. The requirement to have people sitting in places where you occasionally bump into them just smacks of bad management.
In person meetings can be useful for improving social relations. Mandating n days a week on the off chance you might have a useful meeting is asinine.
Absolutely agreed, that’s why it is usually best to try and get the team together on agreed days - having a couple a week allows for flexibility, but also makes it likely you get critical mass