4 ms·
> if your company is purely remote Pure remote companies are likely to be rare. But we may see a proliferation of hybrid companies that maintain office spaces
by nilkn 6y ago
> if your company is purely remote
Pure remote companies are likely to be rare. But we may see a proliferation of hybrid companies that maintain office spaces but allow certain roles to work remotely most of the time.
I think your analysis here is one-sided and is ignoring all the major problems with 100%-work-in-office cultures. Housing costs are absolutely out of control in major urban centers, and newcomers are sacrificed at the altar of NIMBYism in order to make existing homeowners/landowners wealthier. People are wasting away commuting hours a day. Folks have been getting crammed into denser and denser open floorplans and bullpens for years.
People are willing to put up with these things when they don't have any other options. But when other companies are investing in supporting hybrid environments and you're stuck still requiring people to relocate to San Francisco permanently, you're going to start losing talent. Not supporting some kind of hybrid remote policy is going to become a serious competitive disadvantage in the talent market. You can still maintain your trendy urban office space to attract the college graduates who want that lifestyle.
- anonytrary 6y agoI think you may be misinterpreting me. I am not advocating for pure in-person, I am only advocating against pure remote. I believe a hybrid approach is best.
- throw14082020 6y agoWell, your 2nd paragraph does imply no-remote. Your 3rd paragraph softens the stance.
- rorroe53 6y agoI agree, hybrid is definitely the best for most companies. Some in-person collaboration and socializing is always going to beneficial, even if rest of the work is done remotely. Having a long commute isn't that bad either if you only do it once or twice a week, so it gives people much more freedom over where they can live.
- j4yav 6y agoGitLab seems to be doing ok, and they get together in person only once every 8 or 9 months. Or would you consider that hybrid also?
- e9 6y agoOne off examples don't set the trend. For example, holacracy seems to be working out for Valve but that's about it.
- j4yav 6y agoSo the question is is GitLab an aberration or ahead of the curve? To me it feels like the latter but I admit I don't have evidence of what the future holds.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- ghaff 6y agoDepends what long means. A 2 hour commute each way is still going to be that day you dread even if it's just once a week. What seems a more common scenario in my experience is that people get together for a few days meetings maybe once a month and people who aren't local fly in.
- ahartmetz 6y agoIf the meetings are scheduled appropriately, you can commute in and out outside rush hours, which should make it less dreadful. Especially if you are not required to be present for 8 hours on meeting day(s).
- noir_lord 6y ago> Pure remote companies are likely to be rare They are, I work for one - it imposes challenges but in aggregate it is a vastly preferable way to work for me. Interestingly the people who do well 100% remote are quite different to the people who well 100% in office. Fundamentally the people who communicate the most effectively in written text and can concisely convey their thoughts/opinions do well. I love it but I can completely understand why some people wouldn't.
- hahaxdxd123 6y agoYep, there's no way any young person will want to stick in the Menlo Parks or Palo Altos of the world when there are companies with similar pay that will let them live wherever they want - whether that be dense urban cores, or small towns near national parks. Frankly, I can't think of a single reason you would want to live in the South Bay. Even if you liked the lifestyle, you could find it in a sunnier suburb near Santa Barbara for a quarter of the price.
- icedchocolate 6y agoThe commenter wasn’t talking about all people having to work at the office all of the time, merely that fully remote was not good and not favoured by young engineers. And he was spot on. I’m a young engineer in my 20s and if I don’t get in-person training soon (I started over a year ago and haven’t gotten any since we’ve been remote the entire time), I’m going to quit and go elsewhere. This is in spite of working in the best team of engineers in my city, working on an awesome problem. But I can’t sacrifice my career for their desire to work from home.
- ameister14 6y agoThe way you put it, it sounds like you're working with the best possible team you can - why would you be sacrificing your career to stay? Wouldn't it be the other way around? Sacrificing your career for social contact?
- throwaway3699 6y agoSocial contact is essential to the development of one's career. And to be honest, this might be a personal thing, but if a job isn't worth being in person for, then it's not worth pursuing at all. I know I'd much rather be with a few friends hacking projects together for pennies on the dollar than making 200k remote.
- matwood 6y ago> Social contact is essential to the development of one's career. Agreed, except the biggest movers for my career have been social contacts made outside of work. People incorrectly keep thinking about remote work only in a pandemic sense. Remote work doesn't mean zero social contact, it means more control over the social contact you have.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- dudeman13 6y agoSeems like a problem with your team instead of a remove vs non-remote thing. I'm a young programmer in my 20s and I get plenty of training working remotely.