10 ms·

I think that the 'importance of face-to-face interaction' argument is a helplessly contrived one, an attempt to avoid the elephant in the room. There are plent

I think that the 'importance of face-to-face interaction' argument is a helplessly contrived one, an attempt to avoid the elephant in the room. There are plenty of examples that show that working remotely without daily face-to-face interaction can work very well. What's markedly different about environments that successfully adopted remote work are aspects like: - a lack of cargo cult work organisation and office politics - an atmosphere of trust rather than petty control freaks who need to constantly keep an eye on their subordinates in order to know they're still 'working' - adapting to different forms of communication When people say that they can't communicate as well with someone who isn't in the same room that doesn't necessarily mean that a remote setup doesn't work. It could simply mean they're just lazy and not willing to adjust to a different kind of work environment. Working remotely requires the participants to be much more communicative because in such a setting communication for the most part doesn't just happen serendipitously, you have to work to make it happen.

majewsky 9y ago
Another huge problem is the transition path from "everyone in the same office" to "everyone working remote". If you have 60% of your team sitting in the office, and 40% remote, you can be absolutely certain that those 40% will be out of touch on all those important decisions that just emerge during a watercooler conversation. (The watercooler also provides a way for different teams to get to know each other, even if they do not work with each other directly, thus forging bonds that might later turn out helpful.) With all that (plus what you said), most individual employees will prefer the office over remote access. So remote would only work if you moved everyone from the office to remote access at a single point in time.
- switch007 9y ago
  I try those watercooler conversations: the rare occasion the bosses aren't avoiding the proles on purpose, they just quickly make their drink then make excuses to disappear. If you touch on an important topic, it's not taken seriously because you're not in a meeting room. Colleagues on the same level that hang out and discuss the latest new TV series seems that's good, but I don't think the bonds that builds are always strong.
  - majewsky 9y ago
    Depends on your boss. I had plenty water cooler conversations with mine.
    - gerardflo 9y ago
      I would say that is not professional. If there is anything work related, you book a meeting and then discuss. For this reason I know few people are on the look out when to go get the water without stumbling upon a boss or a manager, because they take it as a harassment. This adds huge amount of stress and knocks the productivity. Workplaces with "we are big family" approach are the worse. This should be illegal.
      - salvar 9y ago
        This seems like a very restrictive and unproductive way to do things. Does no work-related discussion take place without someone booking a formal meeting?
        gerardflo 9y ago
        Why would you discuss things that are not work related? Some people don't have boundaries apparently.
        salvar 9y ago
        I'm having trouble understanding you. Are you saying that: 1. All work-related discussion should take place in formal meetings. and 2. No non-work-related discussions should ever happen in the workplace. ?
        wolco 9y ago
        The poster is saying if you are discussing non work related things it is unprofessional because you are paid to work not socialize. If you are having a discussion with your boss don't bother him when he is on a break, book a meeting. I agree with parent poster in large orgs but in orgs where the founder eats lunch with you that level of formalness is awkward
- rpazyaquian 9y ago
  If you have that many employees working remotely, you should have already transitioned to an independent, accessible source-of-truth for all your discussed changes and plans. Slack convos, Confluence, a wiki, a Google doc, something.
- markshead 9y ago
  I've worked on distributed teams that had an always-on video conference that everyone joined all day, every day. This facilitated much of the communication you are describing. The team still used instant message and email, but if someone needed to have a conversation, it was just a matter of looking at them to see if they looked they were busy and just saying "Hey!" If other people were interested they would listen in. If they had something to add, it was just a matter of speaking up.
- wolco 9y ago
  The watercooler / hallway discussions are the signs of a culture lacking documentation processes. If requirements or changes are communicated in this way what happens when someone leaves or tries to QA the latest changes? What if there is a disagreement where one person assumed something else during the hallway discussion? Without documentation a company starts to fall apart after the team grows bigger than 6-12 people.
Swinx43 9y ago
These are points that I have found to be true as well. In many organisations where remote work is not allowed I found there to be generally worse communication, masked by meetings that achieve very little other than giving people a false sense of "work being done". There also seems to be a lack of properly planning tasks and as such this lack of planning is papered over with the sort of serendipitous spontaneous communication that happens when you have to walk over to someone and ask them what on earth is going on. A focused remote worker can be orders of magnitude more productive than the typical office worker who is simply doing "busy work".
- DarronWyke 9y ago
  And working remote can give better focus. Sure, there's always the risk of distractions by home events. I personally have slacked off while working remote -- when my workload was nil (ie, tasks are waiting on other people now). But at the same time you can be there to respond, so there's less stress about things happening at home, no matter what they are. You're not worried about the HVAC tech fixing your AC and making sure it's done right while you're in the office. You're not worried about your sick spouse or sick kid, since you're there.
crdoconnor 9y ago
Right, except the elephant in the room isn't laziness or the value of face to face interaction, it's trust. The driver of this lack of trust is the rise of managers (e.g. MBAs) who have limited expertise in the fields which they manage. For jobs where there are measures of performance that are accurate and not gameable (e.g. certain call center workers) and/or it is a job executives probably reckon that they could do themselves, they are generally happy to let employees work from home. IMO this is why Github and Mozilla are remote-first - by and large they're managed by developers.
- pythonboi 9y ago
  I don't understand why you are being downvoted. I just started working as a software developer 10 months ago and my supervisor had told me the work culture has changed so much since upper management has transitioned to MBAs and previous military over promoting workers from within who have worked on projects. I doubt that the government will allow any remote work any time soon because most of the people here have never heard of a VPN or even know what a secure password is.
  - wernercd 9y ago
    I doubt it's just "Stupid MBA's and military 'intelligence'"... We live in a post Snowden world. It only takes one mistake to have all your data out in the wild. I think attributing changes away from trusting employees to simply "bad management" and ignoring issues like employee malfeasance... is overly simplistic and dilutes complicated issue conversations. There needs to be a balance between trust and security. It's easy to take it too far in either direction.
    - AstralStorm 9y ago
      Different kinds of trust. Trust that you will get the work done properly vs trust that you will not steal or expose critical business data.
- bluGill 9y ago
  The best managers are the ones who know they don't know how to do your job so they get out of your way. The worst are those who don't know how to do your job and get in the way. Those who know how to do your job at least don't get in the way when they help.
walshemj 9y ago
unfortunately there are many more examples where it is proven that collocated teams work far better
- gerardflo 9y ago
  and then you forget to list them.
  - wernercd 9y ago
    Just like you forgot to list the counter-argument examples of remote teams being better. But seriously... I would expect there to be examples of both - Good remote teams. Good office teams. Bad remote teams. Bad office teams. And every shade in between. I'd, personally, prefer a mix? Couple days in the office... couple days remote. Time to "schmooze" with the team. Time to be in a quiet place to concentrate. Why does it have to be one or the other? Anyone that claims one extreme is better or worse generally misses the truth: The best option is generally somewhere in the middle of the extremes.
    - eurticket 9y ago
      I agree, we seem to shove such strict guidelines on ideas that can very easily be left to considering a mixture of both instead of one over the other.
  - walshemj 9y ago
    Rapid Software devopment by Maconnal
- PeterStuer 9y ago
  When I did consult and visited a lot of workplaces (>95% open plan) in the IT sector, the typical 'collocated teams' reality was something like 2 to 3 socialites with apparently non too busy schedules behaving like the place was basically a bar without alcohol, free banter, jokes and non-work related conversations filled the room. Then 10 others wearing heavy headphones, always the one guy wearing explicit building site type noise protectors, and a preppy semi tech function junior type oblivious to the subliminal messages tapping people on the shoulders to get some basic info that is on the first page of the intranet or easily to google in 10 seconds. Did I already mention the 2 people that were just sitting there all day staring, waiting for the others to go home to finally find the peace to get some work done?
nunez 9y ago
I personally wouldn’t want to work somewhere where I hardly ever saw my coworkers. I’m pseudo-remote as a consultant and wish I got to have more face time with my peers.
- PeterStuer 9y ago
  Can you tell us why?
  - nunez 9y ago
    Sure! I like people. People make work fun. People that disagree with you (or that you disagree with) make life fun. Most of us spend the majority of our working hours working, and that work makes it easy to spark conversations with others that would otherwise not be had. Not having that for 8+ hours would make me feel incredibly lonely after a while. (I love working at the cafe and shared work spaces, but that isn’t the same.)
ransom1538 9y ago
"Working remotely requires the participants to be much more communicative because in such a setting communication for the most part doesn't just happen serendipitously, you have to work to make it happen. " Yes. Having managed remote teams and being a remote dev, it's all about response time. If someone slacks you, the response should be as quick as if it were verbal in the office. If it takes 2 hours to get a response out of someone - then they are not participating correctly on a remote team. The team should work in a way they can all be online at the same time so communication can flow freely. If someone is interrupting you and you need concentration just explain it to them - like you would in the office. Immediate responses is a remote team. Day long responses is contract work. Week long responses is open source projects and government work.
- dasmoth 9y ago
  I'm going to disagree here. It's entirely possible to work effectively with others via mostly-asynchronous communication. Open source projects, as you point out, can be a pretty good example of this. I'd further argue that for some (I suspect many...) people work much better when they can have long stints of focus without fear of interruptions. Two-minute responses on Slack absolutely is a model that can work, and perhaps it's the easiest transition for people who've been working in a "teamy"/open-plan on-site setup. But I'm also convinced that it's not the only viable setup.
  - rpazyaquian 9y ago
    Open source projects don't have deadlines, product owners, antsy investors, runways, or quarterly goals, though.
  - SaltySolomon 9y ago
    But open source projects have no other way so they need to work that way, also there is little pressure to meet deadlines and such.
  - bluGill 9y ago
    Open source projects work that way because we have to, not because we want to. Large projects have semi-regular meetups/sprints where they can all get together face to face. Small one muddle through and try to prevent the problems not meeting face to face causes.
salvar 9y ago
> When people say that they can't communicate as well with someone who isn't in the same room that doesn't necessarily mean that a remote setup doesn't work. It could simply mean they're just lazy and not willing to adjust to a different kind of work environment. Let's say you're right and people are to blame for being lazy. How would you address this?
- BjoernKW 9y ago
  Mainly by advocating a different style of work and communication. By teaching and coaching people how to communicate in a more organised rather than haphazard manner. This isn't all that different from what in larger organisations is nowadays called agile transformation. How often do we hear "Yeah, that whole agile thing is nice but it doesn't work for us."? The reason why 'agile' (or any other new approach for that matter) doesn't work in these cases often is that people are only used to doing things a certain way and are too lazy or otherwise unwilling to let go of that way and try a different approach. Bringing about change on that scale is a long and often painful process. It's not that people are inherently lazy or stupid. It just can take considerable effort to unlearn habits you've gotten used to over a long time. The crucial difference - at least so far - between the adoption of remote work and that of agile methods is that the latter for better or for worse nowadays seem to be largely accepted as the common approach for organising work (in the software industry at least). As for remote work on the other hand there's no large-scale buy-in by (middle-)managers. I think this points to a larger issue at play here: Implementing remote work can surface shortcomings and waste. If remote work requires workers to proactively communicate amongst themselves anyway what do you need traditional facilitators like middle-management for? With agile software development methods there are at least still roles like Scrum master or product owner that to some extent still resemble those traditional roles. With remote work implemented properly we could very well arrive at a point where those roles aren't needed at all anymore.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> There are plenty of examples that show that working remotely without daily face-to-face interaction can work very well. There are extensive sets of studies that show all of that it generally doesn't, where it especially doesn't, and why it doesn't (which the article mentions.) Data > anecdote.
- BjoernKW 9y ago
  There are also studies that show otherwise, which the article - perhaps conveniently so - fails to mention: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/working-papers/does-working-home-work-evidence-chinese-experiment https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/working-papers... http://www.cosocloud.com/press-release/connectsolutions-survey-shows-working-remotely-benefits-employers-and-employees http://www.cosocloud.com/press-release/connectsolutions-surv... https://www.zenefits.com/blog/remote-employees-happier-and-more-productive/ https://www.zenefits.com/blog/remote-employees-happier-and-m...
tbrownaw 9y ago
When people say that they can't communicate as well with someone who isn't in the same room that doesn't necessarily mean that a remote setup doesn't work. It could simply mean they're just lazy and not willing to adjust to a different kind of work environment. It could also mean they actually have sufficient social skills that they're able to make full use of the higher bandwidth available face-to-face, and aren't willing to suffer thru the markedly inferior communications that are all that's possible over the 'net.
- PeterStuer 9y ago
  And that they probably are also not afraid to use that 'full bandwidth', disrupting everyone workflow, repeatedly, like calling an hour long team status update meeting for a communication that could have perfectly occurred in a 2 line email message. Which you'll also receive. Oh yeah, who's taking the minutes by the way?
  - BeetleB 9y ago
    >And that they probably are also not afraid to use that 'full bandwidth', disrupting everyone workflow, repeatedly, like calling an hour long team status update meeting for a communication that could have perfectly occurred in a 2 line email message. To be frank, people using IM to communicate with me disrupt my flow a lot more. They start a thread/conversation/request, and then are slow to respond, or disappear. You can't do that face to face. Face to face (or even telephone) forces people to prepare. Rarely do I see people work that way with IM. People tend to realize that they are interrupting someone if it's a face to face. In my experience, many (most?) workers don't view IM as a significant interruption to the other party. So they feel much more free in using it.
    - FullMtlAlcoholc 9y ago
      >They start a thread/conversation/request, and then are slow to respond, or disappear. That's the primary benefit of qorking remotely IMO. Not having to immediately stop everything im doing allows me to stay in flow state. It also improves the quality of my responses and solutions since i can let the request percolate in my head. Usually, I come up better answers when Im not actively thinking
sethammons 9y ago
The article has links to studies that say face to face is important for complex problems. What is your counter aside from saying there are examples supporting your view? Source? (I would link the links here but am on mobile and running late)
- BjoernKW 9y ago
  Here are a few that back up my view: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/working-papers/does-working-home-work-evidence-chinese-experiment https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/working-papers... http://www.cosocloud.com/press-release/connectsolutions-survey-shows-working-remotely-benefits-employers-and-employees http://www.cosocloud.com/press-release/connectsolutions-surv... https://www.zenefits.com/blog/remote-employees-happier-and-more-productive/ https://www.zenefits.com/blog/remote-employees-happier-and-m...
  - sethammons 9y ago
    I don't find your links to counter the links in the article. Yours say that remote work increases productivity (for a call center specifically) and increases employee happiness. The article's links call out that collaborative and complex tasks along with spontaneous new ideas benefit from face to face. I think these are both true and would advocate for a work solution that allows amble work from home but encourages common face to face time especially if a team is tackling a complex issue. Maybe two or three days per week remote?
- wolco 9y ago
  Really? I can't imagine how. Most important discoveries were not found by committees.
  - sethammons 9y ago
    In the article, a linked study of some IT folks doing complex infrastructure tasks and set up benefited from face to face interaction as compared to collaborating over email. Complex tasks does not mean pushing the needle on human advancement in science. Those in the study did not try to invent tcp/ip. They were just working on complex tasks. Remote vs face to face debate is about the interplay of folks trying to earn a living, providing value to an organization, living life, and companies making profits. In this regard, it looks like a balance of remote to face to face could increase productivity, happiness, and ability to work on complex tasks.
wpietri 9y ago
What you ignore is that the amount of work a person can do is finite. I can either put a lot of time and effort into remote communication, or I can work closely with people in a space that supports direct communication, putting that time and effort into whatever we're actually trying to do. I freely grant that most office setups are shitty, so that for many people they waste time commuting and then waste plenty of time dealing with a bad office space and bad office culture. But that doesn't mean that offices can't be great places to work. If I have my choice, it will always be working in close physical proximity with a team, just as long as we have a good space for that and a culture that supports actually getting things done. I like writing and am good at remote communication, but I'd rather save that energy for actual productive work.
- wolco 9y ago
  Offices are great places, some of the best times were drinking, goofing off after work or dating a co-worker or pulling pranks. But regardless you need to put in the same effort documenting in person. Being able to talk over a solution doesn't help anyone when you've left the company.
dsacco 9y ago
> - a lack of cargo cult work organisation and office politics Speaking as someone who has worked in three different remote companies of varying sizes, I have not found any evidence that remote teams achieve this any more frequently than conventional ones do. > - an atmosphere of trust rather than petty control freaks who need to constantly keep an eye on their subordinates in order to know they're still 'working' Again, I have not seen that remote teams make this any easier than conventional ones. Moreover, I think proponents of remote work in general are unaware of, or vastly underestimate, how many remote coworkers fudge their productive time because they can get away with it. You can just as easily establish a culture of trust in a conventional office environment. > - adapting to different forms of communication Sure, but it’s unrealistic you’ll appeal to everyone’s favorite mode of communication, and many people don’t really care to adapt because they don’t need to. It is just as unreasonable to expect in-office coworkers to adapt to remote workers as it is to expect remote workers to come into an office for face-to-face communication. I agree with you that remote teams can be effective in communication and productivity; however, I think your comment does more to support the position you’re arguing against than it does to negate it. Listen to what you’re saying here: > Working remotely requires the participants to be much more communicative because in such a setting communication for the most part doesn't just happen serendipitously, you have to work to make it happen. This is fundamentally why most companies do not have remote teams. It’s attractive to remote workers and to teams that are entirely remote, but most people don’t really want to work remotely most or all of the time. What you are stating evidences this friction, because you keep reiterating that remote teams can be just as good if they put in the work, but that’s precisely the point - most people and teams really don’t want to put in the work because it’s an extra hassle. You started your comment by attacking the idea that face-to-face interaction is important, but it quite demonstrably is important. By your own comment (and my experience, as well), remote teams need to invest a significant amount of “cooperative machinery” to make communication and productivity as seamless as it is in face-to-face interaction. That’s obviously not to say it cannot happen, or that it shouldn’t be a goal, but my point here is that this is an additional hurdle that companies considering remote teams need to be work on, which is frankly unattractive. Some people are disciplined and motivated enough to work productively in any environment, and that’s fantastic. Some people are not intrinsically so, but they become that way in the environment of an office. And some people are simply never optimally productive! Also consider that while a very vocal minority of people want to work remotely, this does not typically jive with people who are in-office and who then have to deal with an additional friction to communicate with some subset of coworkers. I guess to put my point more succinctly: yes, of course remote work can be wonderful and properly engaging for optimal productivity if the majority of your coworkers are intrinsically motivated and really want to work remotely. But that’s not the world we live in, and it’s not reasonable to put the effort of achieving that ideal on companies that have already established a culture that works for them through face-to-face interaction in the office.
user15672 9y ago
Calling the argument contrived is really rather immature. It's not contrived, it's very real and important. Please stop being so quick to dismiss those that you disagree with as it's childish at best. You speak of cargo cult, but your entire comment reeks of it. Ok, we understand, you like being able to isolate yourself. That's nice, and I'm glad you found a niche, but it's not the same for the vast majority of jobs and people. You call other people lazy, but I think perhaps that's just you. Social interaction and moving above an intermediate level where you can isolate yourself is hard work. Don't be so dismissive of others that strive for more. Working remotely is great for the unambitious and the antisocial. Please stop trying to put those who do more down though.
- mnemicmeme 9y ago
  Working remotely doesn't mean someone is unambitious or antisocial. The ability to focus without interruptions while still communicating/documenting clearly is easier done with remote work (in my experience). I think you touched on a sad aspect of tech. For anyone to be "ambitious" or to "move above an intermediate level" they essentially have to become managers, which means less technical work. The likelihood of you joining the VP/higher ranks and still working on low level issues, as a respected technical fellow, are low to nill (Google, FB, MS have some positions but otherwise you're filtered into a manager to "move up."). Your comment about "striving for more" is disrespectful to most developers/engineers. How are people who spend their entire work days talking to others, but not actually working, "doing more?" I've seen more talkative/social people not getting work done than "antisocial" workers being "unambitious" or stagnant.

majewsky 9y ago

Another huge problem is the transition path from "everyone in the same office" to "everyone working remote". If you have 60% of your team sitting in the office, and 40% remote, you can be absolutely certain that those 40% will be out of touch on all those important decisions that just emerge during a watercooler conversation. (The watercooler also provides a way for different teams to get to know each other, even if they do not work with each other directly, thus forging bonds that might later turn out helpful.) With all that (plus what you said), most individual employees will prefer the office over remote access. So remote would only work if you moved everyone from the office to remote access at a single point in time.

switch007 9y ago
I try those watercooler conversations: the rare occasion the bosses aren't avoiding the proles on purpose, they just quickly make their drink then make excuses to disappear. If you touch on an important topic, it's not taken seriously because you're not in a meeting room. Colleagues on the same level that hang out and discuss the latest new TV series seems that's good, but I don't think the bonds that builds are always strong.
- majewsky 9y ago
  Depends on your boss. I had plenty water cooler conversations with mine.
  - gerardflo 9y ago
    I would say that is not professional. If there is anything work related, you book a meeting and then discuss. For this reason I know few people are on the look out when to go get the water without stumbling upon a boss or a manager, because they take it as a harassment. This adds huge amount of stress and knocks the productivity. Workplaces with "we are big family" approach are the worse. This should be illegal.
    - salvar 9y ago
      This seems like a very restrictive and unproductive way to do things. Does no work-related discussion take place without someone booking a formal meeting?
      - gerardflo 9y ago
        Why would you discuss things that are not work related? Some people don't have boundaries apparently.
        salvar 9y ago
        I'm having trouble understanding you. Are you saying that: 1. All work-related discussion should take place in formal meetings. and 2. No non-work-related discussions should ever happen in the workplace. ?
        wolco 9y ago
        The poster is saying if you are discussing non work related things it is unprofessional because you are paid to work not socialize. If you are having a discussion with your boss don't bother him when he is on a break, book a meeting. I agree with parent poster in large orgs but in orgs where the founder eats lunch with you that level of formalness is awkward
rpazyaquian 9y ago
If you have that many employees working remotely, you should have already transitioned to an independent, accessible source-of-truth for all your discussed changes and plans. Slack convos, Confluence, a wiki, a Google doc, something.
markshead 9y ago
I've worked on distributed teams that had an always-on video conference that everyone joined all day, every day. This facilitated much of the communication you are describing. The team still used instant message and email, but if someone needed to have a conversation, it was just a matter of looking at them to see if they looked they were busy and just saying "Hey!" If other people were interested they would listen in. If they had something to add, it was just a matter of speaking up.
wolco 9y ago
The watercooler / hallway discussions are the signs of a culture lacking documentation processes. If requirements or changes are communicated in this way what happens when someone leaves or tries to QA the latest changes? What if there is a disagreement where one person assumed something else during the hallway discussion? Without documentation a company starts to fall apart after the team grows bigger than 6-12 people.

Swinx43 9y ago

These are points that I have found to be true as well. In many organisations where remote work is not allowed I found there to be generally worse communication, masked by meetings that achieve very little other than giving people a false sense of "work being done". There also seems to be a lack of properly planning tasks and as such this lack of planning is papered over with the sort of serendipitous spontaneous communication that happens when you have to walk over to someone and ask them what on earth is going on. A focused remote worker can be orders of magnitude more productive than the typical office worker who is simply doing "busy work".

DarronWyke 9y ago
And working remote can give better focus. Sure, there's always the risk of distractions by home events. I personally have slacked off while working remote -- when my workload was nil (ie, tasks are waiting on other people now). But at the same time you can be there to respond, so there's less stress about things happening at home, no matter what they are. You're not worried about the HVAC tech fixing your AC and making sure it's done right while you're in the office. You're not worried about your sick spouse or sick kid, since you're there.

crdoconnor 9y ago

Right, except the elephant in the room isn't laziness or the value of face to face interaction, it's trust. The driver of this lack of trust is the rise of managers (e.g. MBAs) who have limited expertise in the fields which they manage. For jobs where there are measures of performance that are accurate and not gameable (e.g. certain call center workers) and/or it is a job executives probably reckon that they could do themselves, they are generally happy to let employees work from home. IMO this is why Github and Mozilla are remote-first - by and large they're managed by developers.

pythonboi 9y ago
I don't understand why you are being downvoted. I just started working as a software developer 10 months ago and my supervisor had told me the work culture has changed so much since upper management has transitioned to MBAs and previous military over promoting workers from within who have worked on projects. I doubt that the government will allow any remote work any time soon because most of the people here have never heard of a VPN or even know what a secure password is.
- wernercd 9y ago
  I doubt it's just "Stupid MBA's and military 'intelligence'"... We live in a post Snowden world. It only takes one mistake to have all your data out in the wild. I think attributing changes away from trusting employees to simply "bad management" and ignoring issues like employee malfeasance... is overly simplistic and dilutes complicated issue conversations. There needs to be a balance between trust and security. It's easy to take it too far in either direction.
  - AstralStorm 9y ago
    Different kinds of trust. Trust that you will get the work done properly vs trust that you will not steal or expose critical business data.
bluGill 9y ago
The best managers are the ones who know they don't know how to do your job so they get out of your way. The worst are those who don't know how to do your job and get in the way. Those who know how to do your job at least don't get in the way when they help.

walshemj 9y ago

unfortunately there are many more examples where it is proven that collocated teams work far better

gerardflo 9y ago
and then you forget to list them.
- wernercd 9y ago
  Just like you forgot to list the counter-argument examples of remote teams being better. But seriously... I would expect there to be examples of both - Good remote teams. Good office teams. Bad remote teams. Bad office teams. And every shade in between. I'd, personally, prefer a mix? Couple days in the office... couple days remote. Time to "schmooze" with the team. Time to be in a quiet place to concentrate. Why does it have to be one or the other? Anyone that claims one extreme is better or worse generally misses the truth: The best option is generally somewhere in the middle of the extremes.
  - eurticket 9y ago
    I agree, we seem to shove such strict guidelines on ideas that can very easily be left to considering a mixture of both instead of one over the other.
- walshemj 9y ago
  Rapid Software devopment by Maconnal
PeterStuer 9y ago
When I did consult and visited a lot of workplaces (>95% open plan) in the IT sector, the typical 'collocated teams' reality was something like 2 to 3 socialites with apparently non too busy schedules behaving like the place was basically a bar without alcohol, free banter, jokes and non-work related conversations filled the room. Then 10 others wearing heavy headphones, always the one guy wearing explicit building site type noise protectors, and a preppy semi tech function junior type oblivious to the subliminal messages tapping people on the shoulders to get some basic info that is on the first page of the intranet or easily to google in 10 seconds. Did I already mention the 2 people that were just sitting there all day staring, waiting for the others to go home to finally find the peace to get some work done?

nunez 9y ago

I personally wouldn’t want to work somewhere where I hardly ever saw my coworkers. I’m pseudo-remote as a consultant and wish I got to have more face time with my peers.

PeterStuer 9y ago
Can you tell us why?
- nunez 9y ago
  Sure! I like people. People make work fun. People that disagree with you (or that you disagree with) make life fun. Most of us spend the majority of our working hours working, and that work makes it easy to spark conversations with others that would otherwise not be had. Not having that for 8+ hours would make me feel incredibly lonely after a while. (I love working at the cafe and shared work spaces, but that isn’t the same.)

ransom1538 9y ago

"Working remotely requires the participants to be much more communicative because in such a setting communication for the most part doesn't just happen serendipitously, you have to work to make it happen. " Yes. Having managed remote teams and being a remote dev, it's all about response time. If someone slacks you, the response should be as quick as if it were verbal in the office. If it takes 2 hours to get a response out of someone - then they are not participating correctly on a remote team. The team should work in a way they can all be online at the same time so communication can flow freely. If someone is interrupting you and you need concentration just explain it to them - like you would in the office. Immediate responses is a remote team. Day long responses is contract work. Week long responses is open source projects and government work.

dasmoth 9y ago
I'm going to disagree here. It's entirely possible to work effectively with others via mostly-asynchronous communication. Open source projects, as you point out, can be a pretty good example of this. I'd further argue that for some (I suspect many...) people work much better when they can have long stints of focus without fear of interruptions. Two-minute responses on Slack absolutely is a model that can work, and perhaps it's the easiest transition for people who've been working in a "teamy"/open-plan on-site setup. But I'm also convinced that it's not the only viable setup.
- rpazyaquian 9y ago
  Open source projects don't have deadlines, product owners, antsy investors, runways, or quarterly goals, though.
- SaltySolomon 9y ago
  But open source projects have no other way so they need to work that way, also there is little pressure to meet deadlines and such.
- bluGill 9y ago
  Open source projects work that way because we have to, not because we want to. Large projects have semi-regular meetups/sprints where they can all get together face to face. Small one muddle through and try to prevent the problems not meeting face to face causes.

salvar 9y ago

> When people say that they can't communicate as well with someone who isn't in the same room that doesn't necessarily mean that a remote setup doesn't work. It could simply mean they're just lazy and not willing to adjust to a different kind of work environment. Let's say you're right and people are to blame for being lazy. How would you address this?

BjoernKW 9y ago
Mainly by advocating a different style of work and communication. By teaching and coaching people how to communicate in a more organised rather than haphazard manner. This isn't all that different from what in larger organisations is nowadays called agile transformation. How often do we hear "Yeah, that whole agile thing is nice but it doesn't work for us."? The reason why 'agile' (or any other new approach for that matter) doesn't work in these cases often is that people are only used to doing things a certain way and are too lazy or otherwise unwilling to let go of that way and try a different approach. Bringing about change on that scale is a long and often painful process. It's not that people are inherently lazy or stupid. It just can take considerable effort to unlearn habits you've gotten used to over a long time. The crucial difference - at least so far - between the adoption of remote work and that of agile methods is that the latter for better or for worse nowadays seem to be largely accepted as the common approach for organising work (in the software industry at least). As for remote work on the other hand there's no large-scale buy-in by (middle-)managers. I think this points to a larger issue at play here: Implementing remote work can surface shortcomings and waste. If remote work requires workers to proactively communicate amongst themselves anyway what do you need traditional facilitators like middle-management for? With agile software development methods there are at least still roles like Scrum master or product owner that to some extent still resemble those traditional roles. With remote work implemented properly we could very well arrive at a point where those roles aren't needed at all anymore.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> There are plenty of examples that show that working remotely without daily face-to-face interaction can work very well. There are extensive sets of studies that show all of that it generally doesn't, where it especially doesn't, and why it doesn't (which the article mentions.) Data > anecdote.

BjoernKW 9y ago
There are also studies that show otherwise, which the article - perhaps conveniently so - fails to mention: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/working-papers/does-working-home-work-evidence-chinese-experiment https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/working-papers... http://www.cosocloud.com/press-release/connectsolutions-survey-shows-working-remotely-benefits-employers-and-employees http://www.cosocloud.com/press-release/connectsolutions-surv... https://www.zenefits.com/blog/remote-employees-happier-and-more-productive/ https://www.zenefits.com/blog/remote-employees-happier-and-m...

tbrownaw 9y ago

When people say that they can't communicate as well with someone who isn't in the same room that doesn't necessarily mean that a remote setup doesn't work. It could simply mean they're just lazy and not willing to adjust to a different kind of work environment. It could also mean they actually have sufficient social skills that they're able to make full use of the higher bandwidth available face-to-face, and aren't willing to suffer thru the markedly inferior communications that are all that's possible over the 'net.

PeterStuer 9y ago
And that they probably are also not afraid to use that 'full bandwidth', disrupting everyone workflow, repeatedly, like calling an hour long team status update meeting for a communication that could have perfectly occurred in a 2 line email message. Which you'll also receive. Oh yeah, who's taking the minutes by the way?
- BeetleB 9y ago
  >And that they probably are also not afraid to use that 'full bandwidth', disrupting everyone workflow, repeatedly, like calling an hour long team status update meeting for a communication that could have perfectly occurred in a 2 line email message. To be frank, people using IM to communicate with me disrupt my flow a lot more. They start a thread/conversation/request, and then are slow to respond, or disappear. You can't do that face to face. Face to face (or even telephone) forces people to prepare. Rarely do I see people work that way with IM. People tend to realize that they are interrupting someone if it's a face to face. In my experience, many (most?) workers don't view IM as a significant interruption to the other party. So they feel much more free in using it.
  - FullMtlAlcoholc 9y ago
    >They start a thread/conversation/request, and then are slow to respond, or disappear. That's the primary benefit of qorking remotely IMO. Not having to immediately stop everything im doing allows me to stay in flow state. It also improves the quality of my responses and solutions since i can let the request percolate in my head. Usually, I come up better answers when Im not actively thinking

sethammons 9y ago

The article has links to studies that say face to face is important for complex problems. What is your counter aside from saying there are examples supporting your view? Source? (I would link the links here but am on mobile and running late)

BjoernKW 9y ago
Here are a few that back up my view: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/working-papers/does-working-home-work-evidence-chinese-experiment https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/working-papers... http://www.cosocloud.com/press-release/connectsolutions-survey-shows-working-remotely-benefits-employers-and-employees http://www.cosocloud.com/press-release/connectsolutions-surv... https://www.zenefits.com/blog/remote-employees-happier-and-more-productive/ https://www.zenefits.com/blog/remote-employees-happier-and-m...
- sethammons 9y ago
  I don't find your links to counter the links in the article. Yours say that remote work increases productivity (for a call center specifically) and increases employee happiness. The article's links call out that collaborative and complex tasks along with spontaneous new ideas benefit from face to face. I think these are both true and would advocate for a work solution that allows amble work from home but encourages common face to face time especially if a team is tackling a complex issue. Maybe two or three days per week remote?
wolco 9y ago
Really? I can't imagine how. Most important discoveries were not found by committees.
- sethammons 9y ago
  In the article, a linked study of some IT folks doing complex infrastructure tasks and set up benefited from face to face interaction as compared to collaborating over email. Complex tasks does not mean pushing the needle on human advancement in science. Those in the study did not try to invent tcp/ip. They were just working on complex tasks. Remote vs face to face debate is about the interplay of folks trying to earn a living, providing value to an organization, living life, and companies making profits. In this regard, it looks like a balance of remote to face to face could increase productivity, happiness, and ability to work on complex tasks.

wpietri 9y ago

What you ignore is that the amount of work a person can do is finite. I can either put a lot of time and effort into remote communication, or I can work closely with people in a space that supports direct communication, putting that time and effort into whatever we're actually trying to do. I freely grant that most office setups are shitty, so that for many people they waste time commuting and then waste plenty of time dealing with a bad office space and bad office culture. But that doesn't mean that offices can't be great places to work. If I have my choice, it will always be working in close physical proximity with a team, just as long as we have a good space for that and a culture that supports actually getting things done. I like writing and am good at remote communication, but I'd rather save that energy for actual productive work.

wolco 9y ago
Offices are great places, some of the best times were drinking, goofing off after work or dating a co-worker or pulling pranks. But regardless you need to put in the same effort documenting in person. Being able to talk over a solution doesn't help anyone when you've left the company.

dsacco 9y ago

> - a lack of cargo cult work organisation and office politics Speaking as someone who has worked in three different remote companies of varying sizes, I have not found any evidence that remote teams achieve this any more frequently than conventional ones do. > - an atmosphere of trust rather than petty control freaks who need to constantly keep an eye on their subordinates in order to know they're still 'working' Again, I have not seen that remote teams make this any easier than conventional ones. Moreover, I think proponents of remote work in general are unaware of, or vastly underestimate, how many remote coworkers fudge their productive time because they can get away with it. You can just as easily establish a culture of trust in a conventional office environment. > - adapting to different forms of communication Sure, but it’s unrealistic you’ll appeal to everyone’s favorite mode of communication, and many people don’t really care to adapt because they don’t need to. It is just as unreasonable to expect in-office coworkers to adapt to remote workers as it is to expect remote workers to come into an office for face-to-face communication. I agree with you that remote teams can be effective in communication and productivity; however, I think your comment does more to support the position you’re arguing against than it does to negate it. Listen to what you’re saying here: > Working remotely requires the participants to be much more communicative because in such a setting communication for the most part doesn't just happen serendipitously, you have to work to make it happen. This is fundamentally why most companies do not have remote teams. It’s attractive to remote workers and to teams that are entirely remote, but most people don’t really want to work remotely most or all of the time. What you are stating evidences this friction, because you keep reiterating that remote teams can be just as good if they put in the work, but that’s precisely the point - most people and teams really don’t want to put in the work because it’s an extra hassle. You started your comment by attacking the idea that face-to-face interaction is important, but it quite demonstrably is important. By your own comment (and my experience, as well), remote teams need to invest a significant amount of “cooperative machinery” to make communication and productivity as seamless as it is in face-to-face interaction. That’s obviously not to say it cannot happen, or that it shouldn’t be a goal, but my point here is that this is an additional hurdle that companies considering remote teams need to be work on, which is frankly unattractive. Some people are disciplined and motivated enough to work productively in any environment, and that’s fantastic. Some people are not intrinsically so, but they become that way in the environment of an office. And some people are simply never optimally productive! Also consider that while a very vocal minority of people want to work remotely, this does not typically jive with people who are in-office and who then have to deal with an additional friction to communicate with some subset of coworkers. I guess to put my point more succinctly: yes, of course remote work can be wonderful and properly engaging for optimal productivity if the majority of your coworkers are intrinsically motivated and really want to work remotely. But that’s not the world we live in, and it’s not reasonable to put the effort of achieving that ideal on companies that have already established a culture that works for them through face-to-face interaction in the office.

user15672 9y ago

Calling the argument contrived is really rather immature. It's not contrived, it's very real and important. Please stop being so quick to dismiss those that you disagree with as it's childish at best. You speak of cargo cult, but your entire comment reeks of it. Ok, we understand, you like being able to isolate yourself. That's nice, and I'm glad you found a niche, but it's not the same for the vast majority of jobs and people. You call other people lazy, but I think perhaps that's just you. Social interaction and moving above an intermediate level where you can isolate yourself is hard work. Don't be so dismissive of others that strive for more. Working remotely is great for the unambitious and the antisocial. Please stop trying to put those who do more down though.

mnemicmeme 9y ago
Working remotely doesn't mean someone is unambitious or antisocial. The ability to focus without interruptions while still communicating/documenting clearly is easier done with remote work (in my experience). I think you touched on a sad aspect of tech. For anyone to be "ambitious" or to "move above an intermediate level" they essentially have to become managers, which means less technical work. The likelihood of you joining the VP/higher ranks and still working on low level issues, as a respected technical fellow, are low to nill (Google, FB, MS have some positions but otherwise you're filtered into a manager to "move up."). Your comment about "striving for more" is disrespectful to most developers/engineers. How are people who spend their entire work days talking to others, but not actually working, "doing more?" I've seen more talkative/social people not getting work done than "antisocial" workers being "unambitious" or stagnant.