5 ms·

If you ask anyone inside IBM or Yahoo, going from remote to in-office was all about significantly reducing the headcount. The moves also coincided with reducing

If you ask anyone inside IBM or Yahoo, going from remote to in-office was all about significantly reducing the headcount. The moves also coincided with reducing the number of sites, so many people would have to move far away or resign. I think the benefits of working remotely are still poorly understood, and long-term the companies that are being built remote-first are going to have a significant engineering advantage over those that bolt remote working on after the fact.

tuna-piano 9y ago
If true, it seems like a silly way to reduce headcount. The employees who feel like they need the job will move, but those who know they can get a job elsewhere will not. This adverse selection leads to some of your best employees leaving, with your worst staying. Better to just pick and choose who you want to keep.
- snomad 9y ago
  Agree with your point and think your right. From the companies perspective, downsizing via changes on remote policy they spin a negative news headline into a positive ("Yahoo no longer allowing remote" vs "Yahoo lays off 2,000") and it is way lower risk in terms of labor law.
- restalis 9y ago
  "The employees who feel like they need the job will move, but those who know they can get a job elsewhere will not. This adverse selection leads to some of your best employees leaving, with your worst staying." So your argument is that the employees that choose to stay must be bad because there can not be other reasons for their decision but the limits of their career prospects? Even if that might be true to some degree, I'm afraid that if you use this logic to guide yourself it will someday backfire badly.
- eloisant 9y ago
  Not sure about the US, but in France it's pretty common to use these kind of sub-optimal ways to reduce headcount, like offering a "resign bonus" for the volunteers. Obviously highly employable people will leave, but the company saves the risk of strike, lawsuits, bad press etc. that come with lay-offs.
  - brational 9y ago
    That's common in the US as well.
- dreamcompiler 9y ago
  > This adverse selection leads to some of your best employees leaving, with your worst staying. Doesn't matter. Failing public companies like IBM and Yahoo don't care about better vs. worse employees; what they care about is reducing costs, and that tends to make better employees more likely to be laid off, because they're more expensive. Wall Street doesn't give a damn how good your employees are; it just wants them to be cheap.
  - skylark 9y ago
    That seems overly cynical. I doubt Google would be the company it is today by hiring cheap employees.
    - dreamcompiler 9y ago
      Is Google a failing public company?
- mprovost 9y ago
  This is called the Dead Sea Effect: http://brucefwebster.com/2008/04/11/the-wetware-crisis-the-dead-sea-effect/ http://brucefwebster.com/2008/04/11/the-wetware-crisis-the-d...
- spcelzrd 9y ago
  "Better to just pick and choose who you want to keep." But cheaper if they pick themselves.
_e 9y ago
I am on the fence about whether companies with 100% remote workers have an engineering advantage. First, you have more layers of (mis)communication with remote since non-developer/engineering stakeholders won't be able to know whether their points and concepts are properly being understood by developers. Body language and tonality (voice inflection) are lost online. There are ways to minimize miscommunication through agile and lean processes but that needs to be in place before working with people remotely. Second, tech companies might be known for having lavish office spaces so their employees want to be there. If their employees want to be there then it is easier to attract and retain them. On the other hand, bad egos can easily zap that synergy if not properly kept in check. Attracting and keeping human capital is a very difficult problem not just in tech.
- owebmaster 9y ago
  > Attracting and keeping human capital is a very difficult problem not just in tech. It is easier to do that if you are not fixed to the people in a 50km radius and can choose the cream of the crop of the world
- georgestephanis 9y ago
  > First, you have more layers of (mis)communication with remote since non-developer/engineering stakeholders won't be able to know whether their points and concepts are properly being understood by developers. Body language and tonality (voice inflection) are lost online We do Slack Audio/Video and Zoom when we need to get in touch and talk things through. That being said, the loggability and searchability of text conversations also resolves a lot of miscommunications.
- k__ 9y ago
  Miscommunication is a huge problem of all companies, not only in tech. Most companies that I worked for had this problem and only one of them was remote. If your process is "Lets go to the devs and ask what I did wrong", you have big issues in your company independent of the location of their employees.
RHSeeger 9y ago
> so many people would have to move far away or resign. I would think you could just say "No, I was hired to work <here>. If you want me to relocate and I don't want to, you can let me go (which comes with unemployment, etc)". I certainly wouldn't voluntarily resign without compensation.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

tuna-piano 9y ago

If true, it seems like a silly way to reduce headcount. The employees who feel like they need the job will move, but those who know they can get a job elsewhere will not. This adverse selection leads to some of your best employees leaving, with your worst staying. Better to just pick and choose who you want to keep.

snomad 9y ago
Agree with your point and think your right. From the companies perspective, downsizing via changes on remote policy they spin a negative news headline into a positive ("Yahoo no longer allowing remote" vs "Yahoo lays off 2,000") and it is way lower risk in terms of labor law.
restalis 9y ago
"The employees who feel like they need the job will move, but those who know they can get a job elsewhere will not. This adverse selection leads to some of your best employees leaving, with your worst staying." So your argument is that the employees that choose to stay must be bad because there can not be other reasons for their decision but the limits of their career prospects? Even if that might be true to some degree, I'm afraid that if you use this logic to guide yourself it will someday backfire badly.
eloisant 9y ago
Not sure about the US, but in France it's pretty common to use these kind of sub-optimal ways to reduce headcount, like offering a "resign bonus" for the volunteers. Obviously highly employable people will leave, but the company saves the risk of strike, lawsuits, bad press etc. that come with lay-offs.
- brational 9y ago
  That's common in the US as well.
dreamcompiler 9y ago
> This adverse selection leads to some of your best employees leaving, with your worst staying. Doesn't matter. Failing public companies like IBM and Yahoo don't care about better vs. worse employees; what they care about is reducing costs, and that tends to make better employees more likely to be laid off, because they're more expensive. Wall Street doesn't give a damn how good your employees are; it just wants them to be cheap.
- skylark 9y ago
  That seems overly cynical. I doubt Google would be the company it is today by hiring cheap employees.
  - dreamcompiler 9y ago
    Is Google a failing public company?
mprovost 9y ago
This is called the Dead Sea Effect: http://brucefwebster.com/2008/04/11/the-wetware-crisis-the-dead-sea-effect/ http://brucefwebster.com/2008/04/11/the-wetware-crisis-the-d...
spcelzrd 9y ago
"Better to just pick and choose who you want to keep." But cheaper if they pick themselves.

_e 9y ago

I am on the fence about whether companies with 100% remote workers have an engineering advantage. First, you have more layers of (mis)communication with remote since non-developer/engineering stakeholders won't be able to know whether their points and concepts are properly being understood by developers. Body language and tonality (voice inflection) are lost online. There are ways to minimize miscommunication through agile and lean processes but that needs to be in place before working with people remotely. Second, tech companies might be known for having lavish office spaces so their employees want to be there. If their employees want to be there then it is easier to attract and retain them. On the other hand, bad egos can easily zap that synergy if not properly kept in check. Attracting and keeping human capital is a very difficult problem not just in tech.

owebmaster 9y ago
> Attracting and keeping human capital is a very difficult problem not just in tech. It is easier to do that if you are not fixed to the people in a 50km radius and can choose the cream of the crop of the world
georgestephanis 9y ago
> First, you have more layers of (mis)communication with remote since non-developer/engineering stakeholders won't be able to know whether their points and concepts are properly being understood by developers. Body language and tonality (voice inflection) are lost online We do Slack Audio/Video and Zoom when we need to get in touch and talk things through. That being said, the loggability and searchability of text conversations also resolves a lot of miscommunications.
k__ 9y ago
Miscommunication is a huge problem of all companies, not only in tech. Most companies that I worked for had this problem and only one of them was remote. If your process is "Lets go to the devs and ask what I did wrong", you have big issues in your company independent of the location of their employees.

RHSeeger 9y ago

> so many people would have to move far away or resign. I would think you could just say "No, I was hired to work <here>. If you want me to relocate and I don't want to, you can let me go (which comes with unemployment, etc)". I certainly wouldn't voluntarily resign without compensation.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]