3 ms·

> Ironically I think those are the same companies that aren't willing to put in the work required to build strong collaborative cultures _onsite_. Having worke

> Ironically I think those are the same companies that aren't willing to put in the work required to build strong collaborative cultures _onsite_. Having worked for a company with a strong in-office culture that's significantly eroded during remote work, no, this isn't remotely true and is an almost comical underestimation of how hard it is to convert from an office-first to remote-first company. The real issue is that if you're gonna be a remote-first company, you have to truly commit to it, and that requires significant effort and a complete change in mindset across many activities, including a profound retraining of management and staff behaviours.

diob 5y ago
I would argue the same things that make remote successful (good communication, documentation, processes) are things that would benefit an onsite company just as much. I am interested in what you strong in-office culture, like, what does that mean? What things didn't translate to remote?
- BaseballPhysics 5y ago
  Well, as just one example, communication patterns have to drastically change. Ours is a very open access office culture. If someone wants to come and ask me a question they are encouraged to do so because we strongly believe in open information sharing, quick decision making, and a high level of autonomy. The result is I cannot count the number of times colleagues have taken advantage of the fact that they could just pop by to ask a quick question, inform me of a decision they're taking, or raise a concern. The remote work equivalents of that are ad hoc text-based communications--which are extremely low bandwidth, disadvantage slow typists, and lack the emotional subtext provided by facial expressions or body language--or scheduling voice or video calls, which is relatively high friction and still is at best a lackluster substitute for a face-to-face conversation due to poor quality, laggy audio, crappy video, and so forth. As a result, a ton of that communication has simply shut down in our organization. The reality is we are not, and for a very long time will not be, in a world where virtual communications tools are as effective as face-to-face interactions. In this world of Zoom, who hasn't accidentally interrupted a colleague, struggled to get a word in edgewise, or found it difficult to hear someone due to a poor audio connection? Or wished for a whiteboard you could use to draw out a concept during an ad hoc problem solving activity? Or thought about pinging someone to have a quick conversation about some topic, only to give up and just write an email because setting up a video session just seemed like a little too much work? And if your organization relies on a lot of ad hoc communication to function, it will suffer without changes to culture and practices.
  - diob 5y ago
    I don't think they have to change though. As long as there is transparency and an "open door", those same folks can ask questions in open channels on slack or elsewhere. I really don't understand why the can't pop by virtually... The benefit of this is folks who would otherwise be left in the dark also get the benefits of seeing whatever answers are given (and recorded!), and reciprocate in realizing that there is a no culture of fear around questions or consulting others for advice / help. You dismiss communications tools, but it's more about who is using them than the tools themselves in my opinion. I work at an all remote org and we have definitely believe in open information sharing, quick decision making, and a high level of autonomy. And folks definitely take advantage of being able to pop by (huddle in slack, etc.), inform others of decisions, or raise concerns virtually. On the flip side, I've worked in an org that was "move fast, open door, etc." but onsite and folks were constantly accidentally out of the loop because decisions would be made face to face but not propagated to the rest of the company (oops, sorry Jim, we forgot you were in the other office or god forbid on vacation). That's what I mean when I say these remote practices (ask in the open, having processes, effective communication) actually help onsite companies as well, and I feel most onsite companies simply ignore them for adhoc face to face lossy communication.
    - BaseballPhysics 5y ago
      > You dismiss communications tools, but it's more about who is using them than the tools themselves in my opinion. And in my opinion those virtual tools are inferior in many ways to face to face communication (and superior in other ways, as you point out), and those pros and cons matter and are genuinely impactful regarding how people should communicate and collaborate in a remote setting vs an in-person setting. All that being said, getting back to the original claim: I think those are the same companies that aren't willing to put in the work required to build strong collaborative cultures _onsite_. Looking at my reply I realize it wasn't sufficiently responsive to the statement. I think I have a deeper claim, which is that in a face-to-face office setting, culture is more likely to evolve on its own accidentally because human beings are inherently social creatures, and incidental interactions in an in-person setting result in a culture developing. In a remote setting, those incidental interactions are far less likely to happen. That means the development of culture, and social connections within the organization in general, are less likely to occur organically. Instead, you have to rely on much more deliberate culture building. So I think I agree with the statement that "companies with a strong practice of building and developing a work culture in an in-office setting will have an easier time transitioning to remote work, because they have practices in place to be intentional about work culture development and reinforcement". I don't agree with the inverse statement (as posited by the person I responded to) that "companies that don't have a practice of building a strong culture in a remote setting will not have a strong culture in an in-person setting" because I think office culture is more likely to grow organically in a face-to-face setting where incidental interactions with people are more likely to occur.

diob 5y ago

I would argue the same things that make remote successful (good communication, documentation, processes) are things that would benefit an onsite company just as much. I am interested in what you strong in-office culture, like, what does that mean? What things didn't translate to remote?

BaseballPhysics 5y ago
Well, as just one example, communication patterns have to drastically change. Ours is a very open access office culture. If someone wants to come and ask me a question they are encouraged to do so because we strongly believe in open information sharing, quick decision making, and a high level of autonomy. The result is I cannot count the number of times colleagues have taken advantage of the fact that they could just pop by to ask a quick question, inform me of a decision they're taking, or raise a concern. The remote work equivalents of that are ad hoc text-based communications--which are extremely low bandwidth, disadvantage slow typists, and lack the emotional subtext provided by facial expressions or body language--or scheduling voice or video calls, which is relatively high friction and still is at best a lackluster substitute for a face-to-face conversation due to poor quality, laggy audio, crappy video, and so forth. As a result, a ton of that communication has simply shut down in our organization. The reality is we are not, and for a very long time will not be, in a world where virtual communications tools are as effective as face-to-face interactions. In this world of Zoom, who hasn't accidentally interrupted a colleague, struggled to get a word in edgewise, or found it difficult to hear someone due to a poor audio connection? Or wished for a whiteboard you could use to draw out a concept during an ad hoc problem solving activity? Or thought about pinging someone to have a quick conversation about some topic, only to give up and just write an email because setting up a video session just seemed like a little too much work? And if your organization relies on a lot of ad hoc communication to function, it will suffer without changes to culture and practices.
- diob 5y ago
  I don't think they have to change though. As long as there is transparency and an "open door", those same folks can ask questions in open channels on slack or elsewhere. I really don't understand why the can't pop by virtually... The benefit of this is folks who would otherwise be left in the dark also get the benefits of seeing whatever answers are given (and recorded!), and reciprocate in realizing that there is a no culture of fear around questions or consulting others for advice / help. You dismiss communications tools, but it's more about who is using them than the tools themselves in my opinion. I work at an all remote org and we have definitely believe in open information sharing, quick decision making, and a high level of autonomy. And folks definitely take advantage of being able to pop by (huddle in slack, etc.), inform others of decisions, or raise concerns virtually. On the flip side, I've worked in an org that was "move fast, open door, etc." but onsite and folks were constantly accidentally out of the loop because decisions would be made face to face but not propagated to the rest of the company (oops, sorry Jim, we forgot you were in the other office or god forbid on vacation). That's what I mean when I say these remote practices (ask in the open, having processes, effective communication) actually help onsite companies as well, and I feel most onsite companies simply ignore them for adhoc face to face lossy communication.
  - BaseballPhysics 5y ago
    > You dismiss communications tools, but it's more about who is using them than the tools themselves in my opinion. And in my opinion those virtual tools are inferior in many ways to face to face communication (and superior in other ways, as you point out), and those pros and cons matter and are genuinely impactful regarding how people should communicate and collaborate in a remote setting vs an in-person setting. All that being said, getting back to the original claim: I think those are the same companies that aren't willing to put in the work required to build strong collaborative cultures _onsite_. Looking at my reply I realize it wasn't sufficiently responsive to the statement. I think I have a deeper claim, which is that in a face-to-face office setting, culture is more likely to evolve on its own accidentally because human beings are inherently social creatures, and incidental interactions in an in-person setting result in a culture developing. In a remote setting, those incidental interactions are far less likely to happen. That means the development of culture, and social connections within the organization in general, are less likely to occur organically. Instead, you have to rely on much more deliberate culture building. So I think I agree with the statement that "companies with a strong practice of building and developing a work culture in an in-office setting will have an easier time transitioning to remote work, because they have practices in place to be intentional about work culture development and reinforcement". I don't agree with the inverse statement (as posited by the person I responded to) that "companies that don't have a practice of building a strong culture in a remote setting will not have a strong culture in an in-person setting" because I think office culture is more likely to grow organically in a face-to-face setting where incidental interactions with people are more likely to occur.