Thanks for this Bob. As someone who has 'worked from home' since about 1991 I have experienced many of the pros and cons outlined in the 2nd article. I think the writer is right to emphasise that different work may need different environments. For example, if I am wrestling with an NUnit test or trying to write something credible for a publication, the very last thing I want in my universe is another human being distracting me from the job in hand. But if I want to understand somebody else's perspective on a common problem (and therefore understand the problem better) the depth of my understanding increases exponentially in proportion to the bandwidth of communication. Email, great to pass on facts/data. Skype, better, more interactive but still (for me) like thinking inside a tube. Face to face, the best by far, preferably with a large whiteboard in the room. I also think there is another dimension to this. Whilst the nature of the work in hand may make a task more or less suited to remote working the nature of the worker also makes a difference. Finding the best scenario for solving a particular problem is not just picking the environment that generally suits such problems well. It also needs to look at the people engaged in the task. Some will be temperamentally better suited to working as a colocated team, others may not be. It strikes me that understanding the people is the key to the best outcome for the task. If we are purely task, or problem focussed we are in danger of using people as resources rather than celebrating and developing their gifts.
1 comment
Sign in to join the conversation.
Thanks for this Bob. As someone who has 'worked from home' since about 1991 I have experienced many of the pros and cons outlined in the 2nd article. I think the writer is right to emphasise that different work may need different environments. For example, if I am wrestling with an NUnit test or trying to write something credible for a publication, the very last thing I want in my universe is another human being distracting me from the job in hand. But if I want to understand somebody else's perspective on a common problem (and therefore understand the problem better) the depth of my understanding increases exponentially in proportion to the bandwidth of communication. Email, great to pass on facts/data. Skype, better, more interactive but still (for me) like thinking inside a tube. Face to face, the best by far, preferably with a large whiteboard in the room. I also think there is another dimension to this. Whilst the nature of the work in hand may make a task more or less suited to remote working the nature of the worker also makes a difference. Finding the best scenario for solving a particular problem is not just picking the environment that generally suits such problems well. It also needs to look at the people engaged in the task. Some will be temperamentally better suited to working as a colocated team, others may not be. It strikes me that understanding the people is the key to the best outcome for the task. If we are purely task, or problem focussed we are in danger of using people as resources rather than celebrating and developing their gifts.