3 ms·
Sure there's some really good telepresence - that enables eye to eye contact and full body language - and it creates better trust than regular telepresence(acco
by petra 11y ago
Sure there's some really good telepresence - that enables eye to eye contact and full body language - and it creates better trust than regular telepresence(according to research).
The missing piece is having it everywhere. Also maybe the issue of group telepresence at the home.
But even with that, it's still issues of culture and politics and power etc - why would venture capitalists want every startup to be remote ? why would big companies ? Is there difference in the cultures between such companies ?
- BjoernKW 11y ago> But even with that, it's still issues of culture and politics and power etc - why would venture capitalists want every startup to be remote ? why would big companies ? Is there difference in the cultures between such companies ? Saving costs for one thing. Office space is expensive, even more so in areas like the Bay Area. Add to that the cost for stressed or even burned-out employees and the macroeconomic costs caused by traffic and you have quite an incentive for using telepresence instead of having people commute to their place of work every day. The question is when this incentive will outweigh the incentive for keeping people in an office. Today, there's really no good reason for the latter other than office politics and power play. Meeting face to face from time to time certainly is important but why not mix those two options? Why not make remote work the default case and only have people meet in person when it's really necessary (this would have the additional benefit of doing away with useless meetings)?