3 ms·

If the decision to colocated or remote is made at the team/org level, then enough teams should choose to be remote that there will be many options for you, just

by ceras 5y ago

If the decision to colocated or remote is made at the team/org level, then enough teams should choose to be remote that there will be many options for you, just as there will be many options for people that want a colocated team. These days there's no shortage of remote roles so it's already happening. What's wrong with that model? Just like you don't want to be forced to socialize, others may not want to be forced to work on a remote team, and a team that has a free-for-all remote policy is effectively a remote team (as others have noted). If the decision is made at a group level, most everyone can get what they want.

Consultant32452 5y ago
If a free-for-all remote policy effectively means remote team, then maybe that tells you something about the value being provided by the "in office" people. If physical presence was providing good value to coworkers, more of them would want to be co-located.
- alecbz 5y ago
  > a team that has a free-for-all remote policy is effectively a remote team (as others have noted) I don't think this is true in the sense that you (or possibly the original commenter) mean. I think what happens is that if, e.g., 1/3 of a team is remote, the rest of the team has to choose between either excluding them by doing most interactions in-person, or leaning heavily on remote even though 2/3 of the team is in-office.
- ceras 5y ago
  No, that doesn't really follow. Just because something happened doesn't mean it's optimal. There are many examples in game theory, like the prisoner's dilemma, that showcase this effect. As others have explained in this thread, even a minority of the team choosing to be remote requires others to work in a remote fashion. You can address this with some level of coordination, hence why making this a team or org decision is win-win for everyone IMO. You will never have to take a job that doesn't align with what you want, nor will most anybody else. Seems like a great outcome to me. Ultimately, the market will come to a conclusion at some point, and perhaps that will show what the comparative value of in-office vs remote is :)

by ceras 5y ago

Consultant32452 5y ago

If a free-for-all remote policy effectively means remote team, then maybe that tells you something about the value being provided by the "in office" people. If physical presence was providing good value to coworkers, more of them would want to be co-located.

alecbz 5y ago
> a team that has a free-for-all remote policy is effectively a remote team (as others have noted) I don't think this is true in the sense that you (or possibly the original commenter) mean. I think what happens is that if, e.g., 1/3 of a team is remote, the rest of the team has to choose between either excluding them by doing most interactions in-person, or leaning heavily on remote even though 2/3 of the team is in-office.
ceras 5y ago
No, that doesn't really follow. Just because something happened doesn't mean it's optimal. There are many examples in game theory, like the prisoner's dilemma, that showcase this effect. As others have explained in this thread, even a minority of the team choosing to be remote requires others to work in a remote fashion. You can address this with some level of coordination, hence why making this a team or org decision is win-win for everyone IMO. You will never have to take a job that doesn't align with what you want, nor will most anybody else. Seems like a great outcome to me. Ultimately, the market will come to a conclusion at some point, and perhaps that will show what the comparative value of in-office vs remote is :)