4 ms·
At the risk of doxxing myself, (who am I kidding), I have experience working with a global, fully remote team. My experience is that, when you select for talent
by kache_ 6y ago
At the risk of doxxing myself, (who am I kidding), I have experience working with a global, fully remote team. My experience is that, when you select for talent in a larger pool (globally) you get people who are incredibly skilled and driven, so much so that that the effective reduction in productive capacity is eclipsed by talent of the team that you can form. However, this is anecdotal & I may be biased due to luck with landing with an exceptionally talented team.
Remote work actually is a drawback for the employee rather than the employer. Human contact is something that is quite important for relationships to form. Some people adapt well to it because they grew up on computers & grew up making friends on the internet, but for others in person communication is quite important.
- blakesterz 6y ago> Remote work actually is a drawback for the employee rather than the employer. I'd say it's a drawback for SOME employees, yes, but some others (Maybe the majority of the prepandemic remote force?) it's not, at all. It's awesome, and there are many of who never want to work in an office and deal with the commute every day again. We (somehow I'm speaking for all of us now) get enough human contact through our online relationships with our coworkers, and seeing them once or twice a year IRL. > luck with landing with an exceptionally talented team. For sure! I do consider it pretty lucky when you're able to do that. We seem to have done the same thing where I work, we just had someone leave for the first time in about 6 years!
- donnythecroc 6y agoI'm in this boat one hundred percent. Guess what happens when two hours a day isn't commuting. You spend more time with real friends rather than passing work acquaintances.
- bryanrasmussen 6y ago>My experience is that, when you select for talent in a larger pool (globally) you get people who are incredibly skilled and driven, so much so that that the effective reduction in productive capacity is eclipsed by talent of the team that you can form I would think that you would also increase the risk of bad hires if you had any sort of inefficiency in your hiring process because then you would be less able to actually know the quality of who you were hiring by local reference.
- Retric 6y agoHaving overpaid underperforming workers is almost entirely a function of not letting them go. FANG companies onboard plenty of incompetent people, but they don’t last that long. However, to get away with that requires high levels of compensation otherwise people will take the safer option.
- more_corn 6y agoReally? Have you worked at a FAANG company? Have you hired at one? I don't mean to be rude, but your comment sounds like it is coming from a parallel universe. My experience is the reverse. It's super hard to get hired at a FAANG company (strong initial screening for incompetence), it's also super hard to get fired. (weak ongoing screening for low performers). At google they're so firing averse that they have manager training on "managing out" where you work with a poor performer to convince them to quit rather than just outright firing them. Just curious if you have personal experience that runs counter to mine.
- ghaff 6y agoWhich sounds pretty normal for mid- to large tech companies (and I daresay many others). Outside of layoffs or significant teams being dismantled, you're probably going to be on a performance improvement plan before being fired--and that typically has a pretty high bar.
- Retric 6y agoI know multiple people let go from Google. While Amazon seems the most willing to cut their losses at any point, their all perfectly willing to let someone go after a few months. Also, “managing out” is one way of coddling a team but it’s not a choice. At best it convinces team members these people quit, but that’s hardly the reality of what’s going on.
- golergka 6y ago> Remote work actually is a drawback for the employee rather than the employer. Human contact is something that is quite important for relationships to form. Some people adapt well to it because they grew up on computers & grew up making friends on the internet, but for others in person communication is quite important. I'm not so sure about it. Sure, if you compare work-related human contact to no human contact, the latter option is obviously worse. But when you move to remote work, you get a lot of extra time and energy, which often creates more opportunity for socialisation. And this socialisation is, in my opinion, much healthier than with your colleagues. Want it or not, you're constantly "selling" yourself to your work peers: their opinion about you will greatly affect your career, and therefore income, and therefore a lot about your life. We all create a better, public version of ourselves, even if we do it semi-consciously. I don't even mean being dishonest (you should never do that), but just building a facade and toning down everything "negative". Spending less time and energy doing that, and more time with people with whom you can be honest and open was one of the best things I've got out of switching to remote work.
- Viliam1234 6y agoI worked at a company with branches in multiple cities. My team consisted of people living in different cities, so we only communicated with each other by Skype... and it worked okay. Yet somehow the idea of working from home was unpopular with management (this was before COVID-19), because "it is important for employees to interact with each other in person". I think it is all just rationalizations and prejudices. Sometimes teams work better, sometimes they work worse, and the distance is just one of many possible factors.