3 ms·

I don’t think you’re an outlier. I think online comment sections in general attract people whose preferred communication and socialization style is digital. Tha

I don’t think you’re an outlier. I think online comment sections in general attract people whose preferred communication and socialization style is digital. That’s why at times HN comment sections feel like everyone unanimously agrees that in-person work universally bad. It’s great that we have more remote work opportunity post COVID, but it was never realistic to expect every company or even most company to abandon in-office work and all of the benefits that come with it. Maintaining a remote team is significantly more management and communication overhead than simply having people in one place.

luffapi 5y ago
> Maintaining a remote team is significantly more management and communication overhead than simply having people in one place. I’ve managed both types of teams and haven’t found this to be the case at all. In fact, quite the opposite. Asynchronous communication as the norm is a lot less demanding on ICs and managers. In person meetings are rarely an effective use of time or energy.
- simfree 5y ago
  In person meetings make some participants in said meeting feel good. Besides this factor, in person meetings can often be less effective than email or a group chat.
  - mars009 5y ago
    This. Nothing like going to a meeting just to make the person that schedule it feel good or hear them talk about nothing that matters work wise.
Supermancho 5y ago
> I don’t think you’re an outlier. Not sure what inspired you to make a claim from a position of ignorance. Definitely an outlier. The vast majority of people have commutes that are not within 8 minutes by any means. 1 Google search and see the US - https://blog.batchgeo.com/commute-times-and-transportation/ https://blog.batchgeo.com/commute-times-and-transportation/ or Europe - http://ftp.iza.org/dp12916.pdf http://ftp.iza.org/dp12916.pdf
matwood 5y ago
> Maintaining a remote team is significantly more management and communication overhead than simply having people in one place. You mean it actually requires management. Office work is easy to manage with butts in seats. I had someone ask me once, if we were remote, how would we know people are working. I asked, how do we know they are working now? Communication overhead with in person only appears lower. I've been a part of many meetings where people talk in circles, think they make a decision and then a week or 2 later wonder what was talked about. Of course, you might be unique and have a dedicated person who takes copious notes every meeting and sends them around afterwards. Remote pushes written communication as the first step, which I have found to be much better to build ideas from. One thing that does not work is a company trying to do both. If anyone is remote, then the company needs to be remote first.
- PragmaticPulp 5y ago
  > You mean it actually requires management. No, I mean it requires more management. It’s not about butts in seats, it’s about communicating and keeping people on the same page. Anecdotally, when shifting to remote work we often saw managers struggle with a tendency to micromanage and check in too frequently with remote employees. I know “butts in seats” is a common trope but in practice it was easier for people to get away with doing nothing at the office because managers assumed that in office meant they were working. Communication overhead is absolutely higher in remote companies. It sounds more like you were describing a broken company culture that you managed to distance yourself from by going remote, but the culture is still broken. A team that communicates properly in person will have more overhead to communicate remotely.

luffapi 5y ago

> Maintaining a remote team is significantly more management and communication overhead than simply having people in one place. I’ve managed both types of teams and haven’t found this to be the case at all. In fact, quite the opposite. Asynchronous communication as the norm is a lot less demanding on ICs and managers. In person meetings are rarely an effective use of time or energy.

simfree 5y ago
In person meetings make some participants in said meeting feel good. Besides this factor, in person meetings can often be less effective than email or a group chat.
- mars009 5y ago
  This. Nothing like going to a meeting just to make the person that schedule it feel good or hear them talk about nothing that matters work wise.

Supermancho 5y ago

> I don’t think you’re an outlier. Not sure what inspired you to make a claim from a position of ignorance. Definitely an outlier. The vast majority of people have commutes that are not within 8 minutes by any means. 1 Google search and see the US - https://blog.batchgeo.com/commute-times-and-transportation/ https://blog.batchgeo.com/commute-times-and-transportation/ or Europe - http://ftp.iza.org/dp12916.pdf http://ftp.iza.org/dp12916.pdf

matwood 5y ago

> Maintaining a remote team is significantly more management and communication overhead than simply having people in one place. You mean it actually requires management. Office work is easy to manage with butts in seats. I had someone ask me once, if we were remote, how would we know people are working. I asked, how do we know they are working now? Communication overhead with in person only appears lower. I've been a part of many meetings where people talk in circles, think they make a decision and then a week or 2 later wonder what was talked about. Of course, you might be unique and have a dedicated person who takes copious notes every meeting and sends them around afterwards. Remote pushes written communication as the first step, which I have found to be much better to build ideas from. One thing that does not work is a company trying to do both. If anyone is remote, then the company needs to be remote first.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> You mean it actually requires management. No, I mean it requires more management. It’s not about butts in seats, it’s about communicating and keeping people on the same page. Anecdotally, when shifting to remote work we often saw managers struggle with a tendency to micromanage and check in too frequently with remote employees. I know “butts in seats” is a common trope but in practice it was easier for people to get away with doing nothing at the office because managers assumed that in office meant they were working. Communication overhead is absolutely higher in remote companies. It sounds more like you were describing a broken company culture that you managed to distance yourself from by going remote, but the culture is still broken. A team that communicates properly in person will have more overhead to communicate remotely.