3 ms·

This cuts both ways though. Working from home my "circle of communication" has gotten much smaller than it ever was before, because I don't run in to people.

ghaff 4y ago
I'm sympathetic to that. Certainly much earlier in my career, I had a lot of day-to-day personal contact with most of the people I worked with. Of course it was a different time with much different communication methods available--basically desk phone and early internal company email--and expectations for in-person meetings and hallway conversations. But today even if I were in my local office, almost no one I work with would be in that office even if they weren't WFH anyway.
ryandrake 4y ago
I'd argue if a company depends too much on "spontaneous hallway conversations" for information flow/exchange, that should be treated as a problem to correct. Most places I've worked that relied heavily on word-of-mouth had similar problems: - Terrible written documentation - Major and minor decisions not reaching everyone affected, resulting in a lot of people not knowing what's going on - Perception of decisions getting made in secret or without transparency - Other non-verbal communication channels get neglected, e.g. the only way to get in touch with Director ABC is to physically accost him in the hall - Remote workers are frequently forgotten or treated as second class citizens - Favorable treatment for in-groups and cliques, based on extroversion rather than job performance These all seem like objectively bad problems for a business, and I'd argue many of them stem directly from overreliance on face-to-face.
- Karrot_Kream 4y ago
  > I'd argue if a company depends too much on "spontaneous hallway conversations" for information flow/exchange, that should be treated as a problem to correct I don't think this is a black-and-white issue. Sometimes a "spontaneous hallway conversation" clarifies in 5 min what a 30 min Zoom call would otherwise do. 3 of my coworkers and I coordinated a few months back to go in on a single day together. I was reading over a doc a coworker wrote and had a question about a portion and found him grabbing coffee and coming back to his desk. I just went over and asked him the question, he clarified, then we both sat back at our desks and got back to work; I was unblocked. If we were remote, I'd DM him and then stop reviewing the doc until I got an answer. I often context switch out of work I need clarification on since I have no guarantee that the coworker is even ready to help. Having state (in a meeting, not at your desk, at your desk, chatting with a coworker, etc) on coworker availability is very useful for efficiently working. > Perception of decisions getting made in secret or without transparency I'd argue that this is worse remote. When remote, a lead and a manager get into a VC call and hash out the team roadmap without any input from the team. They can reason it's a lot easier on availability and less disruptive on the rest of the team to make the decision. While the lead and manager offer the plan to the team for comment, the team feels demotivated because they have to read and push back rather than sit at the table for comment. In office, the lead and manager can discuss things at desks and interested employees can overhear and interject. It's not perfect of course (favors those around for the conversation), but it's better than the Zoom world. I think hybrid remote-first work is the best of both options but I think most companies going fully remote will not go hybrid because the cost savings of doing everything online is just so much higher. As you noted, offline-first companies will treat remote workers and second-class citizens.

ghaff 4y ago

I'm sympathetic to that. Certainly much earlier in my career, I had a lot of day-to-day personal contact with most of the people I worked with. Of course it was a different time with much different communication methods available--basically desk phone and early internal company email--and expectations for in-person meetings and hallway conversations. But today even if I were in my local office, almost no one I work with would be in that office even if they weren't WFH anyway.

ryandrake 4y ago

I'd argue if a company depends too much on "spontaneous hallway conversations" for information flow/exchange, that should be treated as a problem to correct. Most places I've worked that relied heavily on word-of-mouth had similar problems: - Terrible written documentation - Major and minor decisions not reaching everyone affected, resulting in a lot of people not knowing what's going on - Perception of decisions getting made in secret or without transparency - Other non-verbal communication channels get neglected, e.g. the only way to get in touch with Director ABC is to physically accost him in the hall - Remote workers are frequently forgotten or treated as second class citizens - Favorable treatment for in-groups and cliques, based on extroversion rather than job performance These all seem like objectively bad problems for a business, and I'd argue many of them stem directly from overreliance on face-to-face.

Karrot_Kream 4y ago
> I'd argue if a company depends too much on "spontaneous hallway conversations" for information flow/exchange, that should be treated as a problem to correct I don't think this is a black-and-white issue. Sometimes a "spontaneous hallway conversation" clarifies in 5 min what a 30 min Zoom call would otherwise do. 3 of my coworkers and I coordinated a few months back to go in on a single day together. I was reading over a doc a coworker wrote and had a question about a portion and found him grabbing coffee and coming back to his desk. I just went over and asked him the question, he clarified, then we both sat back at our desks and got back to work; I was unblocked. If we were remote, I'd DM him and then stop reviewing the doc until I got an answer. I often context switch out of work I need clarification on since I have no guarantee that the coworker is even ready to help. Having state (in a meeting, not at your desk, at your desk, chatting with a coworker, etc) on coworker availability is very useful for efficiently working. > Perception of decisions getting made in secret or without transparency I'd argue that this is worse remote. When remote, a lead and a manager get into a VC call and hash out the team roadmap without any input from the team. They can reason it's a lot easier on availability and less disruptive on the rest of the team to make the decision. While the lead and manager offer the plan to the team for comment, the team feels demotivated because they have to read and push back rather than sit at the table for comment. In office, the lead and manager can discuss things at desks and interested employees can overhear and interject. It's not perfect of course (favors those around for the conversation), but it's better than the Zoom world. I think hybrid remote-first work is the best of both options but I think most companies going fully remote will not go hybrid because the cost savings of doing everything online is just so much higher. As you noted, offline-first companies will treat remote workers and second-class citizens.