3 ms·
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
by 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 agoNo, 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 :)