4 ms·

My teams works in what I think of as a technically hard space. Once you have sufficiently disambiguated and broken down a problem, everyone can be remote and f

My teams works in what I think of as a technically hard space. Once you have sufficiently disambiguated and broken down a problem, everyone can be remote and focus on execution on their own time. For us, however, technical design discussions and how that all relates to our business needs has not gone that well while working remote. Pretty much everyone on the team acknowledges this. We’ve tried to use Omnigraffle and some other tools while screen sharing remotely, but people admit that it’s easy to zone out or get disengaged during the discussion. Quite frankly, at least for some domains, I just don’t see a 100% remote work force. In my technical space, it might actually be doable if everyone on your team is already experienced and has some domain mastery. I’m writing all this because sometimes I see a certain attitude that companies who don’t 100% embrace remote work for every role are misguided or arrogant. I’m not convinced that’s true.

justin_oaks 5y ago
> easy to zone out or get disengaged during the discussion To be fair, this true of almost all work meetings. Extra points if nobody asks for your input the whole meeting, and extra points for meetings over an hour.
- globular-toast 5y ago
  You shouldn't go to meetings unless you know what it is you are expected to contribute. Actively ask for clarification if it's not clear and decline meetings if necessary.
pcmoney 5y ago
I hear ya, but a $50 wacom tablet and a jam board window on chrome with 2 27” monitors goes a long way.
- jodrellblank 5y ago
  but be aware that Wacom drivers sent logs of every program you open to Google and Wacom with an opt-out policy that resets on every update: https://grahamcluley.com/wacom-drawing-tablet-spying/ https://grahamcluley.com/wacom-drawing-tablet-spying/
cogman10 5y ago
I've had the opposite experience, funnily. Our discussions have been much more focused and to the point. Primarily because interrupting thoughts and comments are often done on the chat rather than being vocalized. Things like "where can I find X", or "What does Y refer to?" can be answered async with the meeting.
ironman1478 5y ago
So, I'll preface this that maybe this only applies to my workplace and IMO what I'm going to write might be rude. I also work in a technically hard space and remote work isn't perfect, specifically because there is a hardware component to my job. However, I really think its not a huge deal because I think people are overestimating how good communication was pre covid. I have generally observed that people who I didn't really understand or who were simply bad communicators in person, are bad in a WFH environment. If people are bad at giving clear & concise answers, the problem isn't WFH, its that their writing and communication skills aren't actually that good. I feel though that in person, people get to lean on being funny, nice, etc. but in a remote environment clear & concise communication is required or else people get ignored or they waste a bunch of time. Their lack of communication skills and potentially technical skills are more obvious in a remote environment due to this. The people who could get things done didn't stop once WFH started, it was the people who were already pretty "meh" who's issues got amplified during covid.
globular-toast 5y ago
I have the same experience. I estimate around 80-90% of my work can be done fully remotely, but the remainder requires careful communication and planning and it's often best done face to face. Real whiteboards are simply better. Gesticulation is more important than people seem to think. We have scientists in labs and there's simply no way we'd get the info we need without stepping into the labs and watching them work. I fully believe that some software can be developed 100% remotely (you only need to look at all the free/open source software as evidence for this). But for the kind I do, I can't imagine the developers being fully remote. We need to be local enough to be physically present at least every now and then. Some people are calling this a "hybrid" approach. We predominantly work remotely, but we live nearby. What seems absurd is expecting people to be in the office 100% of the time for the maybe 10% that would benefit from it. I don't ever want to go back to a 100% office job. I'm so glad COVID happened.
lowbloodsugar 5y ago
I have the opposite experience (our team is doing better remote), but the problem appears to be with corporations making blanket decisions for everyone. They shouldn't. I was going to write "corporations trust us to make the right decisions to run our service, they should trust us to make the right decisions about where to work", but these two things are one and the same. So your team believes they work better in an office: your team works in an office. The team next door believes they do better at home: that team works from home. Managers want to do the day-long promotion meetings in an office, all the managers head to the office that day.

justin_oaks 5y ago

> easy to zone out or get disengaged during the discussion To be fair, this true of almost all work meetings. Extra points if nobody asks for your input the whole meeting, and extra points for meetings over an hour.

globular-toast 5y ago
You shouldn't go to meetings unless you know what it is you are expected to contribute. Actively ask for clarification if it's not clear and decline meetings if necessary.

pcmoney 5y ago

I hear ya, but a $50 wacom tablet and a jam board window on chrome with 2 27” monitors goes a long way.

jodrellblank 5y ago
but be aware that Wacom drivers sent logs of every program you open to Google and Wacom with an opt-out policy that resets on every update: https://grahamcluley.com/wacom-drawing-tablet-spying/ https://grahamcluley.com/wacom-drawing-tablet-spying/

cogman10 5y ago

I've had the opposite experience, funnily. Our discussions have been much more focused and to the point. Primarily because interrupting thoughts and comments are often done on the chat rather than being vocalized. Things like "where can I find X", or "What does Y refer to?" can be answered async with the meeting.

ironman1478 5y ago

So, I'll preface this that maybe this only applies to my workplace and IMO what I'm going to write might be rude. I also work in a technically hard space and remote work isn't perfect, specifically because there is a hardware component to my job. However, I really think its not a huge deal because I think people are overestimating how good communication was pre covid. I have generally observed that people who I didn't really understand or who were simply bad communicators in person, are bad in a WFH environment. If people are bad at giving clear & concise answers, the problem isn't WFH, its that their writing and communication skills aren't actually that good. I feel though that in person, people get to lean on being funny, nice, etc. but in a remote environment clear & concise communication is required or else people get ignored or they waste a bunch of time. Their lack of communication skills and potentially technical skills are more obvious in a remote environment due to this. The people who could get things done didn't stop once WFH started, it was the people who were already pretty "meh" who's issues got amplified during covid.

globular-toast 5y ago

I have the same experience. I estimate around 80-90% of my work can be done fully remotely, but the remainder requires careful communication and planning and it's often best done face to face. Real whiteboards are simply better. Gesticulation is more important than people seem to think. We have scientists in labs and there's simply no way we'd get the info we need without stepping into the labs and watching them work. I fully believe that some software can be developed 100% remotely (you only need to look at all the free/open source software as evidence for this). But for the kind I do, I can't imagine the developers being fully remote. We need to be local enough to be physically present at least every now and then. Some people are calling this a "hybrid" approach. We predominantly work remotely, but we live nearby. What seems absurd is expecting people to be in the office 100% of the time for the maybe 10% that would benefit from it. I don't ever want to go back to a 100% office job. I'm so glad COVID happened.

lowbloodsugar 5y ago

I have the opposite experience (our team is doing better remote), but the problem appears to be with corporations making blanket decisions for everyone. They shouldn't. I was going to write "corporations trust us to make the right decisions to run our service, they should trust us to make the right decisions about where to work", but these two things are one and the same. So your team believes they work better in an office: your team works in an office. The team next door believes they do better at home: that team works from home. Managers want to do the day-long promotion meetings in an office, all the managers head to the office that day.