4 ms·

> you harm people out of the office I have seen this implication frequently in these discussions, that remote workers will get fewer promotions, lower ratings,

by garet2 5y ago

> you harm people out of the office I have seen this implication frequently in these discussions, that remote workers will get fewer promotions, lower ratings, etc. The assumption is that this therefore makes remote work non-viable. I don't really get that. Trading off better compensation through promos and ratings is just a business decision for the potential remote worker. Personally, I would trade never getting a promotion again for remote work. Google and the other companies like it already pay very, very well. If you've reached E6+, it's "FIRE in <10 years" well, even if you get "meets all" ratings forever. If you're in that position, you can be making 10x the median household income. You've basically won at money. Commuting is miserable, and I bike, easily one of the two least miserable methods (walking being the other) of doing so. Open offices are miserable. Flexibility at home is amazing. Having my own space is amazing. Making my own food for lunch, in my kitchen, is great. Feeling unfocused and deciding to just take a nap in my own bed for an hour. So yeah, maybe I'll never get a promotion. But, I don't think I'll do poorly enough to get fired, so... good enough for me.

foobarian 5y ago
> trade never getting a promotion again for remote work Trade you say? Sounds like win-win to me! Not being made to manage/lead a bunch of other engineers sounds pretty nice
- garet2 5y ago
  At these companies, "management is not a promotion"™, so it's not exactly that. But yeah, you usually have to deal with more people stuff, even as an IC.
- rhodozelia 5y ago
  Eventually you might master your domain of expertise and solving the same problem again and again for different customers may become boring. Helping more junior coworkers mostly do the projects themselves with your assistance for the cruxes could be rewarding and multiply your output far beyond what you could achieve just working on it yourself.
  - CaptArmchair 5y ago
    You don't need to enter a formal team lead or management role to coach / teach younger co-workers. Leadership also implies that you are responsible / accountable for the performance of your team. Both your team as well as outside stakeholders will look to you for answers. Hence "management is not a promotion". Not everyone is cut out take on such a role, and not everyone is willing to take on such so role. > Eventually you might master your domain of expertise and solving the same problem again and again for different customers may become boring Can I pick this apart? In the short run? Perhaps. In the long run? That's highly dependent on the industry and your role. Sure, the foundational challenges might be the same - e.g. reconcile user experience, content management and data storage - but the surface level solutions and problems are always evolving, which can keep the job engaging as you grow into it. The "you're going to get bored in 5 years time" argument is value attribution. Would you make the same assertion towards a medical specialist having a long career in liver or eye surgery? Or an artisanal cabinet maker? Or a shoe designer? Likely not. Then there are specialists in other industries like oil, welding, car body work, paint jobs,... I mean, even hair dressers - arguably - do the same thing year in year out. Many make careers out of those, and many others move out after a few years feeling that the job has stopped giving them value. Now, the big risk with a job is that it becomes extremely repetitive and there's little potential for agency as a worker to change the job. For instance, nobody gets happy spending 20 years in front of a screen clicking the same five buttons doing micro-jobs or data entry, or banging in the same 20 commands on a prompt for that matter,... But this has far less to do with the particular role, and everything with the work itself. In that regard, it's arguable that "move towards a leadership role", or even "coach co-workers", are the only career options to move out of job which just doesn't give you pride and satisfaction after some time. Moving lateral towards another engineering role, inside or outside your current organization, are completely valid strategies as well. Heck, it doesn't even have to be an engineering role at all. It's completely valid to leave the industry and do something totally different, if you have the financial freedom, and/or freedom from other personal obligations, to do so. Of the young co-workers I've coached over a decade ago, about half went on in IT, and the other half moved towards entirely different industries doing entirely different things with their lives. And that's entirely fine by me if that's what helps them live happy lives.
- jxidjhdhdhdhfhf 5y ago
  Totally agree. I love having a team lead to worry about the arbitrary deadlines and difficult conversations so I don't have to. Not worth the extra money to me.
UncleMeat 5y ago
This is 100% my calculus. I do not care if remote work harms my career because it is so amazingly valuable to me in other ways. Being given the choice to decide what my priorities are is way better than being told "well it'll hurt your career so we won't let you do it".
- ryandrake 5y ago
  Exactly. I would trade career progress and comp for “ability to work from a low COL state and not have my 4.5+ hour commute” any day. Bring it on!
geodel 5y ago
This is very sensible point you have made. I said something similar in another thread that not everyone is looking for in-person watercooler conversation, office politics, promotions / raise and so on. Some people like me are fine with finishing up assigned work, attend phone/webex meetings and be done with it. It is usually run-of-the-mill n-tier business application for next requirement for last 10 years. By not going to office the only thing I am missing in 2 hr commute and crowded elevators and rest rooms.
Zvez 5y ago
>that remote workers will get fewer promotions, lower ratings, etc I don't believe it works like that. U get fewer promotion not because you are remote worker. The problem is that you can become less valuable resource, who can effectively make less overall impact on the product. Hence lower rating. So for employer is not trade-off between pay/remoteness, rather between better employee or remoteness. Basically nobody cares if you are remote or not if you can do your job efficiently. And be transparent and manageable.

by garet2 5y ago

foobarian 5y ago

> trade never getting a promotion again for remote work Trade you say? Sounds like win-win to me! Not being made to manage/lead a bunch of other engineers sounds pretty nice

garet2 5y ago
At these companies, "management is not a promotion"™, so it's not exactly that. But yeah, you usually have to deal with more people stuff, even as an IC.
rhodozelia 5y ago
Eventually you might master your domain of expertise and solving the same problem again and again for different customers may become boring. Helping more junior coworkers mostly do the projects themselves with your assistance for the cruxes could be rewarding and multiply your output far beyond what you could achieve just working on it yourself.
- CaptArmchair 5y ago
  You don't need to enter a formal team lead or management role to coach / teach younger co-workers. Leadership also implies that you are responsible / accountable for the performance of your team. Both your team as well as outside stakeholders will look to you for answers. Hence "management is not a promotion". Not everyone is cut out take on such a role, and not everyone is willing to take on such so role. > Eventually you might master your domain of expertise and solving the same problem again and again for different customers may become boring Can I pick this apart? In the short run? Perhaps. In the long run? That's highly dependent on the industry and your role. Sure, the foundational challenges might be the same - e.g. reconcile user experience, content management and data storage - but the surface level solutions and problems are always evolving, which can keep the job engaging as you grow into it. The "you're going to get bored in 5 years time" argument is value attribution. Would you make the same assertion towards a medical specialist having a long career in liver or eye surgery? Or an artisanal cabinet maker? Or a shoe designer? Likely not. Then there are specialists in other industries like oil, welding, car body work, paint jobs,... I mean, even hair dressers - arguably - do the same thing year in year out. Many make careers out of those, and many others move out after a few years feeling that the job has stopped giving them value. Now, the big risk with a job is that it becomes extremely repetitive and there's little potential for agency as a worker to change the job. For instance, nobody gets happy spending 20 years in front of a screen clicking the same five buttons doing micro-jobs or data entry, or banging in the same 20 commands on a prompt for that matter,... But this has far less to do with the particular role, and everything with the work itself. In that regard, it's arguable that "move towards a leadership role", or even "coach co-workers", are the only career options to move out of job which just doesn't give you pride and satisfaction after some time. Moving lateral towards another engineering role, inside or outside your current organization, are completely valid strategies as well. Heck, it doesn't even have to be an engineering role at all. It's completely valid to leave the industry and do something totally different, if you have the financial freedom, and/or freedom from other personal obligations, to do so. Of the young co-workers I've coached over a decade ago, about half went on in IT, and the other half moved towards entirely different industries doing entirely different things with their lives. And that's entirely fine by me if that's what helps them live happy lives.
jxidjhdhdhdhfhf 5y ago
Totally agree. I love having a team lead to worry about the arbitrary deadlines and difficult conversations so I don't have to. Not worth the extra money to me.

UncleMeat 5y ago

This is 100% my calculus. I do not care if remote work harms my career because it is so amazingly valuable to me in other ways. Being given the choice to decide what my priorities are is way better than being told "well it'll hurt your career so we won't let you do it".

ryandrake 5y ago
Exactly. I would trade career progress and comp for “ability to work from a low COL state and not have my 4.5+ hour commute” any day. Bring it on!

geodel 5y ago

This is very sensible point you have made. I said something similar in another thread that not everyone is looking for in-person watercooler conversation, office politics, promotions / raise and so on. Some people like me are fine with finishing up assigned work, attend phone/webex meetings and be done with it. It is usually run-of-the-mill n-tier business application for next requirement for last 10 years. By not going to office the only thing I am missing in 2 hr commute and crowded elevators and rest rooms.

Zvez 5y ago

>that remote workers will get fewer promotions, lower ratings, etc I don't believe it works like that. U get fewer promotion not because you are remote worker. The problem is that you can become less valuable resource, who can effectively make less overall impact on the product. Hence lower rating. So for employer is not trade-off between pay/remoteness, rather between better employee or remoteness. Basically nobody cares if you are remote or not if you can do your job efficiently. And be transparent and manageable.