7 ms·

Working remotely pretty much destroyed my career for two reasons: (1) my networking opportunities plummeted to zero and (2) I was fired for reasons I believe co

Working remotely pretty much destroyed my career for two reasons: (1) my networking opportunities plummeted to zero and (2) I was fired for reasons I believe could have been avoided if I had worked in an office and had stronger relationships with more co-workers. My remote job was at a fully distributed company with good compensation. I worked there for about five years, receiving only positive reviews. Groups in the company worked in a very silo-ed manner — there was not a lot of work overlap or cross-team communication. But I loved my team and work so it was fine with me. Once the company started struggling, they re-organized our group several times, and eventually a non-technical manager with more seniority than me was brought in. Although I was highly effective, well-reviewed, and never had issues with other managers, the non-technical manager and I dealt with all of the classic issues that come up in this scenario: unrealistic deadlines and expectations, scope creep, etc. I tried to deal with this in an ego-less, professional manner, but he took our issues personally and lobbied HR to have me fired. At that point, after all of the re-organizations, I was the only dev left on my team, and my other managers who I had good relationships with had moved on. I had no one to vouch for me. I believe that if I had worked in an office, in a less silo-ed manner, I would have had more opportunities to network with other developers within the company and my accomplishments would have been more visible, which would have at least allowed me to switch teams. Instead, I was quietly led out the back door and disappeared. In a remote company it's a lot easier to be fired. It's a lot more difficult to resolve interpersonal issues over IRC than face-to-face. There is a huge amount of value to passing people randomly in the hallway, by "the watercooler," or at a social event. These kinds of relationships are critical and are just not replicable via remote work.

remote_gal 9y ago
The last thing I'll add since edits don't seem to be working ... My advice to you is that unless you are at the end of your career, or value working from home over your career prospects for family or health reasons, avoid working 100% remotely, even in fully distributed companies. The ideal is a situation where you work in an office, but have a flexible schedule where you can work from home 1-2 days a week, or 1-2 months a year.
- astura 9y ago
  New users can't edit posts after they get up votes. I presume it's to prevent a throw away account editing an insightful comment into spam.
- draw_down 9y ago
  I agree that’s ideal. I did it once and really liked it. I thought I could do it again but my current company shut the office in my city shortly after I joined.
- SerLava 9y ago
  Anyone have an opinion about 4 days remote, 1 day in office? (The whole company doing this)
  - bproven 9y ago
    Probably fine - you just want to remain visible. Honestly, I think every company should encourage at least a few days a week of WFH for stress, employee health, traffic reasons - especially in IT where there is often no reason not to. You still get your face time for collab. Society would be better off. I really wish companies were incentivized to do this - especially in the bay area.
  - wsc981 9y ago
    In The Netherlands this is really quite common.
    - pretentiousPear 9y ago
      +1 I know a couple of fellows from the Netherlands working 3d remote (or other jobs) + 2d in the office. Sounds perfect to me
      - bproven 9y ago
        Nice! Can we get this going in the supposed progressive, innovative SF bay area?? Please... (maybe I'm beating a dead horse :))
ravenstine 9y ago
It's both fortunate and unfortunate that forming relationships with people has more impact on job security than actual performance. That's been my experience, anyway. It works on at least two tiers; people in charge of companies are inclined to hire people they like(we're all tribalistic human apes), and even if they end up not liking you they will hesitate to fire you if that choice will be unpopular with the rest of your team. I know that analysis seems Machiavellian to some extent, but it's the honest truth. Society is never going to be a true meritocracy unless it's run by robots(and even then probably not), but I wouldn't want it to be like that anyway. As humans, we should be allowed to have other redeeming qualities work for us as long as we are forced to work for a living.
user5994461 9y ago
No job and no project is forever. 5 years is a lot, many times the average. If it can make you feel better, an in office situation would probably have gone the same. Companies and team changes slowly over time, people move on.
- escanda 9y ago
  > 5 years is a lot There must be something wrong in this industry if 5 years is a lot. 5 years per company over a 40 years time spam yields 8 different companies. That seems a lot to me.
  - stefantheard 9y ago
    The thing that is wrong is compensation. It is much more lucrative to not be loyal. If you are loyal you are compensated with really slim raises, a lot of times single digit percentages.
  - prepend 9y ago
    Really? 5 years seems really long to me. A university is only 4 years. Changing companies every few years helps to expand networks and learn new skills.
    - escanda 9y ago
      Not really. Beware you can be easily replaced in your new company without any compensation. Risk is often not accounted for. If you're a twenty something it's ok, but imagine you're a parent of 3 and you have to switch jobs every two years: unbearable.
      - user5994461 9y ago
        There are very few projects spanning 5 years or even close to that. Even if you want to stay in a company, you might not have the option.
      - lsc 9y ago
erikb 9y ago
And I believe such a situation is not just "interpersonal issues". Higher, well paid positions are rare, therefore the on-site manager might have just considered you competition for his advancement.
spraak 9y ago
It sounds very company specific. I worked remotely for the very first startup job I had an advanced very quickly in promotions in the company, and eventually landing a 40% higher paying job somewhere else, also remote.

remote_gal 9y ago

The last thing I'll add since edits don't seem to be working ... My advice to you is that unless you are at the end of your career, or value working from home over your career prospects for family or health reasons, avoid working 100% remotely, even in fully distributed companies. The ideal is a situation where you work in an office, but have a flexible schedule where you can work from home 1-2 days a week, or 1-2 months a year.

astura 9y ago
New users can't edit posts after they get up votes. I presume it's to prevent a throw away account editing an insightful comment into spam.
draw_down 9y ago
I agree that’s ideal. I did it once and really liked it. I thought I could do it again but my current company shut the office in my city shortly after I joined.
SerLava 9y ago
Anyone have an opinion about 4 days remote, 1 day in office? (The whole company doing this)
- bproven 9y ago
  Probably fine - you just want to remain visible. Honestly, I think every company should encourage at least a few days a week of WFH for stress, employee health, traffic reasons - especially in IT where there is often no reason not to. You still get your face time for collab. Society would be better off. I really wish companies were incentivized to do this - especially in the bay area.
- wsc981 9y ago
  In The Netherlands this is really quite common.
  - pretentiousPear 9y ago
    +1 I know a couple of fellows from the Netherlands working 3d remote (or other jobs) + 2d in the office. Sounds perfect to me
    - bproven 9y ago
      Nice! Can we get this going in the supposed progressive, innovative SF bay area?? Please... (maybe I'm beating a dead horse :))

ravenstine 9y ago

It's both fortunate and unfortunate that forming relationships with people has more impact on job security than actual performance. That's been my experience, anyway. It works on at least two tiers; people in charge of companies are inclined to hire people they like(we're all tribalistic human apes), and even if they end up not liking you they will hesitate to fire you if that choice will be unpopular with the rest of your team. I know that analysis seems Machiavellian to some extent, but it's the honest truth. Society is never going to be a true meritocracy unless it's run by robots(and even then probably not), but I wouldn't want it to be like that anyway. As humans, we should be allowed to have other redeeming qualities work for us as long as we are forced to work for a living.

user5994461 9y ago

No job and no project is forever. 5 years is a lot, many times the average. If it can make you feel better, an in office situation would probably have gone the same. Companies and team changes slowly over time, people move on.

escanda 9y ago
> 5 years is a lot There must be something wrong in this industry if 5 years is a lot. 5 years per company over a 40 years time spam yields 8 different companies. That seems a lot to me.
- stefantheard 9y ago
  The thing that is wrong is compensation. It is much more lucrative to not be loyal. If you are loyal you are compensated with really slim raises, a lot of times single digit percentages.
- prepend 9y ago
  Really? 5 years seems really long to me. A university is only 4 years. Changing companies every few years helps to expand networks and learn new skills.
  - escanda 9y ago
    Not really. Beware you can be easily replaced in your new company without any compensation. Risk is often not accounted for. If you're a twenty something it's ok, but imagine you're a parent of 3 and you have to switch jobs every two years: unbearable.
    - user5994461 9y ago
      There are very few projects spanning 5 years or even close to that. Even if you want to stay in a company, you might not have the option.
    - lsc 9y ago

erikb 9y ago

And I believe such a situation is not just "interpersonal issues". Higher, well paid positions are rare, therefore the on-site manager might have just considered you competition for his advancement.

spraak 9y ago

It sounds very company specific. I worked remotely for the very first startup job I had an advanced very quickly in promotions in the company, and eventually landing a 40% higher paying job somewhere else, also remote.