4 ms·

I appreciate the long post, but that is a lot of opinion on remote work that isn't backed up by reality. Maybe you had a bad experience but it does not have to

by bwb 7y ago

I appreciate the long post, but that is a lot of opinion on remote work that isn't backed up by reality. Maybe you had a bad experience but it does not have to be that way. I'll try to share what I've seen and my experiences running remote teams over the last 20 years (largest was growing a company to ~135 over 18 countries). Remote can have cost savings benefit, but that is not the only reason why it is done. Remote can also improve productivity and innovation and create a different type of culture. If done right I think remote drives a lot more DOING and a lot less MEETING. Plus you can find and hire talent all over which is AWESOME. Here are the results from a 2 year Standford study on how much remote work from home can boost productivity: https://www.inc.com/scott-mautz/a-2-year-stanford-study-shows-astonishing-productivity-boost-of-working-from-home.html https://www.inc.com/scott-mautz/a-2-year-stanford-study-show... If done right remote can increase productivity. There are usually fewer distractions, communication has a clear point, and mindless meetings don't happen. It always depends on the culture and operations of the company, but remote puts roadblocks around informal communication that requires an organization to communicate well or fail. Offices make that easier, but too easy IMO and so much is run via rumor/gossip. Innovation can happen in any environment. That said, I think remote has advantages in getting a wider range of opinions from very different team members. I also think remote demands a bit more rigor around designing a process to support innovation, and I think that results in better results after you get over that hump. Offices might avoid that initial hump, but they also seem to hit the problem of meetings over doing and they struggle to build a system to drive innovation after they have ingrained habits. Culture doesn't matter at all, in my exp both office and remote culture develops the same way.

bwb 7y ago
Also, just because it was done one way doesn't by default mean it is better or done for a reason that has been tested. Most of the companies you name did it that way as its what they know and it is how everyone else is doing it. Plenty of companies are disproving that model that you named. I would imagine we see a lot more happening around remote as it becomes a more mature model.
e1g 7y ago
The ability to work remotely/from home should be table stakes at a young business. If a company does not offer this, they probably have some questionable ideas about people's work ethic etc. But this discussion is not about that - it is about whether the very first team in a startup should be remote-only. That is: no office, no co-location, and first people work on the core product in a fully distributed/remote manner. Or, if a team with comparable people would achieve more if they worked in-person 50%+ of the time, with option to work remotely/from home when they chose. This are two critical points: 1) first 10 employees, not employees after #100 and 2) "in-person first" with option for some remote, or "remote-only" with no option for in-person (beyond occasional sprints). Phrased differently, the OP is deciding whether in a small startup the founder and the core team should work in-person, or should rely on email/chat. > If done right I think remote drives a lot more DOING and a lot less MEETING. That's an argument against useless meetings, not for remote work. This discussion is bound by the context of a brand new startup (guessing 1-5 people?). A new initiative of that scale is more likely to have too few meetings/talks/reviews than too many, as might be the case for 150+ people company. > the results from a 2 year Standford study... The key qualifiers from the study: the company existed, and was successful already due to working primarily in-person. Management decided to allow employees to work remotely, after they spent first 6 months together. People start work in-person, build up knowledge and group mechanics, then can self-select to work remotely. At the end of the experiment, half of those remote workers changed their mind and wanted to come back to the office because they felt isolated. The situation would be only be worse if these people were remote-first (i.e. never had 6 months in-person collab) and were remote-only (i.e. no strategy to combat isolation). The study aligns with my position: start in-person, experiment with remote when in-person becomes a troublesome (you are so successful you are running out of office space, or you're in so many countries you can't have offices everywhere, or you hired every talent in your city etc). > remote puts roadblocks around informal communication that requires an organization to communicate well or fail Agreed. Remote makes communication harder for everyone, adds layers of complexity, and generates demand on the time of founders/managers. A new startup has low chances of success, and unlimited list of tasks that are hard - there is no upside to signing up for optional complexity and obstacles. > I think remote has advantages in getting a wider range of opinions from very different team members. This advantage is granted by working in a diverse team, with engaged people, following the same vision, with a sense of emotional support. Being remote-only is unrelated at best, and more often a strike against most of those points due to how difficult it is to nurture relationships (personal or professional) over text.

by bwb 7y ago

bwb 7y ago

Also, just because it was done one way doesn't by default mean it is better or done for a reason that has been tested. Most of the companies you name did it that way as its what they know and it is how everyone else is doing it. Plenty of companies are disproving that model that you named. I would imagine we see a lot more happening around remote as it becomes a more mature model.

e1g 7y ago

The ability to work remotely/from home should be table stakes at a young business. If a company does not offer this, they probably have some questionable ideas about people's work ethic etc. But this discussion is not about that - it is about whether the very first team in a startup should be remote-only. That is: no office, no co-location, and first people work on the core product in a fully distributed/remote manner. Or, if a team with comparable people would achieve more if they worked in-person 50%+ of the time, with option to work remotely/from home when they chose. This are two critical points: 1) first 10 employees, not employees after #100 and 2) "in-person first" with option for some remote, or "remote-only" with no option for in-person (beyond occasional sprints). Phrased differently, the OP is deciding whether in a small startup the founder and the core team should work in-person, or should rely on email/chat. > If done right I think remote drives a lot more DOING and a lot less MEETING. That's an argument against useless meetings, not for remote work. This discussion is bound by the context of a brand new startup (guessing 1-5 people?). A new initiative of that scale is more likely to have too few meetings/talks/reviews than too many, as might be the case for 150+ people company. > the results from a 2 year Standford study... The key qualifiers from the study: the company existed, and was successful already due to working primarily in-person. Management decided to allow employees to work remotely, after they spent first 6 months together. People start work in-person, build up knowledge and group mechanics, then can self-select to work remotely. At the end of the experiment, half of those remote workers changed their mind and wanted to come back to the office because they felt isolated. The situation would be only be worse if these people were remote-first (i.e. never had 6 months in-person collab) and were remote-only (i.e. no strategy to combat isolation). The study aligns with my position: start in-person, experiment with remote when in-person becomes a troublesome (you are so successful you are running out of office space, or you're in so many countries you can't have offices everywhere, or you hired every talent in your city etc). > remote puts roadblocks around informal communication that requires an organization to communicate well or fail Agreed. Remote makes communication harder for everyone, adds layers of complexity, and generates demand on the time of founders/managers. A new startup has low chances of success, and unlimited list of tasks that are hard - there is no upside to signing up for optional complexity and obstacles. > I think remote has advantages in getting a wider range of opinions from very different team members. This advantage is granted by working in a diverse team, with engaged people, following the same vision, with a sense of emotional support. Being remote-only is unrelated at best, and more often a strike against most of those points due to how difficult it is to nurture relationships (personal or professional) over text.