Monday 4 March 2013

Home Alone


About two weeks ago I noticed a friend’s post on Facebook wherein she said that she was getting used to working from home. I replied and my post went something like this: Don’t do it. You’ll regress / lose your voice / vocabulary / figure /sense of proportion / your friends and sanity. It’s mans’ worst invention.

Last week, Marissa Mayer, CEO of Yahoo, (in)famously banned employees from working from home. Indeed the newspapers, radio and the telly-box have been brimming with related stories ever since. Some pieces have focused on productivity issues and others on the sociological impact of home-working, or the trust factors involved between employer and employee, namely, are you having a laugh at their expense?

Already the camps for and against are pretty well defined and entrenched. It seems that those employers who are doing the reigning-in are being branded as draconian and unreasonable and it will be interesting to see how or if this eventually affects their brands.

I can understand why home working is appealing to some or why it’s pivotal to others – those with children for example – but I also know that it’s lethal, especially if you live alone as I do, sans husband, partner, children, cats, dogs or budgies. I think that this is really an argument about personal growth and this is my two-penneth.
 
We all need Scalextric lines.
 
We know that kids need certainties, routines, structure and boundaries, because those things make them feel secure and they provide a framework for development and adults are no different. People start to unravel without them. If you work from home the onus is on you to create a framework and that is not as easy as it sounds. The distractions are legion, from the washing that becomes a point of fascination, to the walk to ‘get your head around something’ which transmorgifies into a shopping trip or lunch. The rituals and ceremonies of the office (even the process of getting there) provide the bends and curves in the day that keep us psychologically on the straight and narrow. I work very hard to inject structure into my days. I make a point of going to a public space for a portion of every day, thus mimicking the process described above. It keeps me sane.
 
Work expands to fit the time available.
 
Or more accurately, work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion’, as Parkinson decreed. It should really be recognised as the official motto of the home worker. In the office shame-factors are at work and the close proximity of others makes it more likely that we will ‘get on with it’ because they can see if we’re not. 

I can also tell you that your backside and your gut will eventually expand to fit any garment available. You just don’t move as much when you’re at home and the absence of co-workers’ beady eyes means inevitable self-sanctioning of multiple dips into the Hob-Nobs, fridge, crisps or chocolate. One can easily get to the point when Pimms ‘O’ Clock is anytime you want it to be. Add to all of that the absence of the daily walks to the tube or rail station, or the cycle to work, or the stairways en route and on site and the general workout the office provides (even a beetle to your neighbour’s desk in your wheelie-chair, which, incidentally is great exercise) means the negation of the benefits of your morning gym session or run and hastens your introduction to elastic waistbands. 

A word about words.

Work alone for long enough and they stop flowing. If your only conversations, even for a couple of days, are with shopkeepers or yourself, you start to lose your voice both literally and figuratively because you’re not using it and the lack of interaction, intelligent or otherwise, means that your vocabulary suffers as a result. Words are increasingly likely to be found sitting on the tip of your tongue as you continue to spend more time sitting on your ar*e.
 
Falling between the craics.
 
The banter, the cliques, the gossip, the politics, the intrigues, it’s all important stuff. We all know that don’t we? I can tell you that if you’re a nobby-no-workmates the craic is what you miss the most. A beer on Skype on a Friday night is no substitute and never will be. People say that technology brings people together, that it makes you feel like you’re a room away. But it’s not true, because you’re always sending stuff somewhere else. The craic is about belonging, which promotes well-being, whereas home working promotes a sense of detachment and a dilution of one’s sense of proportion because we have no one to tell us we’re being stupid / wrong / rude / nice or a tw*t. You begin to understand that even the assholes you work with have a function.
 
Home alone. Over blown.
That’s what I think.
 
Yours, Nobby.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

14 comments:

  1. Nice. Now picture the situation if you were a project manager, dealing with back to back meetings and emails instead of whatever individual-contributor role you currently perform. You might find that you get enough personal interaction to keep you on your toes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies



    1. Sue Turner25 March 2014 12:13

      I don't need anyone to keep me on my toes as you may have discovered if you read my profile. You, like many of your ilk, imagine that you are the oil in the engine...you are not.
      Delete

      Delete
  2. If you are going to take a superior, pseudo-intelectual position, at least make sure you can actuall write correctly. This is low-level chav snobbery at best.
    AND, (I know it's wrong to start with an and) the English speaking people of the world, which automatically exludes all countries to the Atlantic west, spell the word as "arsehole", not the way idiots in the Americas have polluted our language with their meaningless drivel television crap. If you have been Americanised, the strength of your intellect is well and truly questionable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How do you actuall tell the difference between an intellectual and a pseudo-intellectual?

      Delete
  3. Generally, and only generally, speaking, intellectuals would be less inclined to post something that would make them look silly. By the way, read your post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only silliness here is coming from your end.

      Delete
  4. I have only just seen these comments. Frank Collins, whoever you are, This is not chav snobbery nor is it pseudo-intellectual crap or drivel. You seem to be chomping (frothing) at the bit for some reason. This is based on my own experience. End of. It's my experience and my take on why home working is bad. Where do you get the chav thing from? Are you, I wonder, the bible-bashing idiot going by another name? I think you might be.

    As to 'And' at the start of a sentence, I think you'll find that it's perfectly acceptable. It's about writing style. How much do you read, I wonder. You, darling, are probably younger than me, yet you appear to be stuck in a rote mentality. If you are who I think you are then you should know that. 'And it came to pass...'

    You're a sad, sorry individual. AND you are not worth my attention.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wow....somebody sure has thin skin! Running a blog with polarizing opinions is sure to provoke strong reactions from people. Lashing out with belligerent sarcasm and petty insults reflects poorly on one's professionalism. Better toughen up there lady, you'll never get anywhere in life being such a sensitive crybaby.

    ReplyDelete
  6. That is my name, so that is “whoever I am”, and no, I am not a bible-basher. You do appear to attract unusual people, like minds perhaps?
    You seem to have some difficulty with comprehension, and should read the words written, not your highly emotively driven misunderstanding. I am not chomping (at the bit, to complete the expression), nor am I frothing; that is what you are doing in the post above.
    As to asking how much I read, what does that have to do with anything? That question is like most of your post, logically unsound and a tawdry resort to ad hominem. Your “appeal to age” is another logical fallacy to which only intellectually weak defer. Since you refer to age, I am 58 but from your photo, you do look much older. (See, ad hominems are easy but so low level. Only done to demonstrate how silly yours are.)
    You don’t know me and I go out of my way to avoid people like you so we will never meet. Your last sentences make me laugh; I am so unworthy of your attention that it took FOUR attempts to get the post to its current state.
    I think this interchange says a lot more about you than it does me.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Wrong, just because you say so? Oh dear, little Susie's feathers have been ruffled so she has stamped her foot and gone home upset.

    Hahahahah, you love to dish it out, but, as soon as someone tears yours nonsensical ramblings apart, you can't engage in a reasoned and reasonable discourse.

    ReplyDelete
  8. No. Just saw this one year later. What an inconsequential twat you are.

    ReplyDelete
  9. For viewer's information, the critics were sellers of this or that. Bollocks in other words.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "For viewer's information, the critics were sellers of this or that. Bollocks in other words."

      I can understand why you might be good at "marketing"; you can bullshit without compunction.

      Delete