2 ms·
Why not? What was so great about the old way of doing things? I can't really see the advantages. Hybrid + fully remote sounds much more sensible to me but maybe
by weatherlite 5y ago
Why not? What was so great about the old way of doing things? I can't really see the advantages. Hybrid + fully remote sounds much more sensible to me but maybe I'm looking at it wrong.
Consider that each year that passes we get more used to the new way; even middle management who have incentive for things to go back to the way there were - even they are probably starting to appreciate no commute and not having to work in crowded open space every day.
Now a fully remote company is something else, that's probably hard to do. But hybrid together with a certain percentage of fully remote workers makes a lot of sense to me.
- rootusrootus 5y agoI've worked at a company for a while who has had hybrid onsite/remote teams for many years. If you're remote, you accept the career limitation. The people who want more money, more promotions, more everything -- they show up at the office. It's pretty easy to forget about the remote folks when in-office discussions and decisions are made. It's not great, but it's just a simple reality that plays out no matter how hard people try to work around it. This is why I won't work remotely for a company that does hybrid teams. I will only work on a team that is fully remote, or one that is local enough to me that I'm part of the in-office crowd.
- weatherlite 5y agoCould be, everyone makes their own calculations.