4 ms·

> I do agree, but I guess I'm not sure what the solution is here? The solution is obvious: Stop clinging to this backward butts-in-seats culture that has peopl

> I do agree, but I guess I'm not sure what the solution is here? The solution is obvious: Stop clinging to this backward butts-in-seats culture that has people move to a new location even if the job they're going to do can easily be done from anywhere in the world.

robin_reala 4y ago
I mean, that’s simply not true. At a most basic level, if you’re going to collaborate effectively as part of a team for a long period of time then you need to realistically be ± 3 time zones at most.
- BjoernKW 4y ago
  That's only true if you're working entirely or mostly synchronously, which might be an indicator of inherent anti-patterns in your work culture and processes, e.g., lots of meetings instead of written documentation.
  - b800h 4y ago
    Like pair programming?
    - BjoernKW 4y ago
      While in most organizations pair programming probably is far less common than pointless meetings, even then it's preferable to document the outcomes of pair programming sessions, so others can benefit from those results without having to have been there synchronously or in person.
    - pas 4y ago
      works flawlessly remotely nowadays
  - oblio 4y ago
    The problem with this approach is that reality is the opposite. Good/best practices are rarely followed, maybe 20% of practitioners actually follow them in any field. So that means that on a daily basis, about 80% of people need to work in those "broken" environments.
    - BjoernKW 4y ago
      Still, it's the environment that is broken. Hence, it's the environment that needs to be fixed. Having people relocate to another country, because your organization isn't able to fix its own internal problems, means you're simply outsourcing your own costs to your employees.
      - oblio 4y ago
        That's not how reality works, though. And except for a select few, most people can't bend reality.
        BjoernKW 4y ago
        George Bernard Shaw comes to mind here: “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” Reality being as it is, is no argument for not trying to be better or improve a situation: Contrary to the Shaw quote above I’d say that simply resigning oneself to reality as it is and therefore precluding better approaches is the unreasonable choice.
  - unethical_ban 4y ago
    Some people don't want to be alone, interacting with a JIRA queue their whole life. I miss coffee with coworkers. I miss being human at work.
    - BjoernKW 4y ago
      You can be human in a distributed setting, too. There are all sorts of tools that allow for an asynchronous human connection, e.g., asynchronous video recordings. Working mostly asynchronously also doesn’t mean you can’t have the occasional synchronous online meeting (including coffee) as well.
  - robin_reala 4y ago
    I guess you don’t have any junior engineers?
    - BjoernKW 4y ago
      This question seems to imply that junior engineers require lots of synchronous, in-person meetings and handholding. Is there any proof that's truly the case? Or isn't that yet another one of those commonly accepted, yet rarely questioned truisms when it comes to - an often dysfunctional - work culture?
      - RestlessMind 4y ago
        > Is there any proof that's truly the case? Not the OP but the proof is my own experience in both in-office and remote settings. And everyone is going to go by their own life experiences. If enough people think that remote setting sucks and that junior engineers, along with many other roles, are more effective in person, then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that that's not the case.
        BjoernKW 4y ago
        Well, there are entirely distributed, remote-first companies like Automattic, Zapier, GitLab, or Basecamp. I'm certain each of those also employs junior engineers. Therefore, someone claiming it doesn't work, is effectively saying it doesn't work for their company, which in turn gives rise to questions as to why that's the case: Is their company and its work truly that unique and special that it can only effectively be done synchronously and in person? Or is it rather that the company in question itself has an underlying organizational problem?
        RestlessMind 4y ago
        > Well, there are entirely distributed, remote-first companies like Automattic, Zapier, GitLab, or Basecamp. I'm certain each of those also employs junior engineers. Yes. My company is also in that category. We employ a lot of junior engineers too. >90% of them say they want some in-person interaction because it is hard to ramp up effectively on a complex codebase and a different culture. > Therefore, someone claiming it doesn't work, is effectively saying it doesn't work for their company, which in turn gives rise to questions as to why that's the case Because we are all humans and in absence of an in-person presence, we are not able to form trusting deep relationships. > Is their company and its work truly that unique and special that it can only effectively be done synchronously and in person?
  - RestlessMind 4y ago
    It seems you are working in a very niche area where most of the work is entirely asynchronous. In my area of work (non-trivial software development), there is a wide consensus that some in-person collaboration is needed on a regular basis. My company has fully embraced remote work, is going through an economic down turn like many other "growth startups" and yet finds it necessary to mandate meeting hours where everyone has to be present or to organize offsites where people can meet and get to know each other in a better way.
    - BjoernKW 4y ago
      > some in-person collaboration is needed on a regular basis I keep hearing such arguments but those typically aren't backed up by any data or reason as to why that's the case. That said, poster child remote-first companies such as Basecamp, GitLab, or Zapier have their people gather a few times throughout the year, too, to allow them to get to know each other better. That's not a contradiction at all and something entirely different than mandating people move to specific location to work there the entire time.
      - RestlessMind 4y ago
        > I keep hearing such arguments but those typically aren't backed up by any data or reason as to why that's the case. I'd say burden of proof is on you to provide any data that remote work is equally good. I have given remote-working a shot for three years - first ~1.5 were mandatory during COVID and last ~1.5 were during normal times. My company has gone all in on remote work and has tried to make it work. It just doesn't work and everyone is openly admitting its flaws. To name a few: a lack of trust, very shallow relationships, struggles for junior and new team members to ramp up, a lack of engagement etc. Based on my personal experience and that of my social and professional circles, >80% people seem to prefer a hybrid model where they work 2-3 days in office and 2-3 days at home. Of course, in-office days have to be mandated for the entire team to be effective.
- pas 4y ago
  that's much easier to change than physical location.

robin_reala 4y ago

I mean, that’s simply not true. At a most basic level, if you’re going to collaborate effectively as part of a team for a long period of time then you need to realistically be ± 3 time zones at most.

BjoernKW 4y ago
That's only true if you're working entirely or mostly synchronously, which might be an indicator of inherent anti-patterns in your work culture and processes, e.g., lots of meetings instead of written documentation.
- b800h 4y ago
  Like pair programming?
  - BjoernKW 4y ago
    While in most organizations pair programming probably is far less common than pointless meetings, even then it's preferable to document the outcomes of pair programming sessions, so others can benefit from those results without having to have been there synchronously or in person.
  - pas 4y ago
    works flawlessly remotely nowadays
- oblio 4y ago
  The problem with this approach is that reality is the opposite. Good/best practices are rarely followed, maybe 20% of practitioners actually follow them in any field. So that means that on a daily basis, about 80% of people need to work in those "broken" environments.
  - BjoernKW 4y ago
    Still, it's the environment that is broken. Hence, it's the environment that needs to be fixed. Having people relocate to another country, because your organization isn't able to fix its own internal problems, means you're simply outsourcing your own costs to your employees.
    - oblio 4y ago
      That's not how reality works, though. And except for a select few, most people can't bend reality.
      - BjoernKW 4y ago
        George Bernard Shaw comes to mind here: “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” Reality being as it is, is no argument for not trying to be better or improve a situation: Contrary to the Shaw quote above I’d say that simply resigning oneself to reality as it is and therefore precluding better approaches is the unreasonable choice.
- unethical_ban 4y ago
  Some people don't want to be alone, interacting with a JIRA queue their whole life. I miss coffee with coworkers. I miss being human at work.
  - BjoernKW 4y ago
    You can be human in a distributed setting, too. There are all sorts of tools that allow for an asynchronous human connection, e.g., asynchronous video recordings. Working mostly asynchronously also doesn’t mean you can’t have the occasional synchronous online meeting (including coffee) as well.
- robin_reala 4y ago
  I guess you don’t have any junior engineers?
  - BjoernKW 4y ago
    This question seems to imply that junior engineers require lots of synchronous, in-person meetings and handholding. Is there any proof that's truly the case? Or isn't that yet another one of those commonly accepted, yet rarely questioned truisms when it comes to - an often dysfunctional - work culture?
    - RestlessMind 4y ago
      > Is there any proof that's truly the case? Not the OP but the proof is my own experience in both in-office and remote settings. And everyone is going to go by their own life experiences. If enough people think that remote setting sucks and that junior engineers, along with many other roles, are more effective in person, then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that that's not the case.
      - BjoernKW 4y ago
        Well, there are entirely distributed, remote-first companies like Automattic, Zapier, GitLab, or Basecamp. I'm certain each of those also employs junior engineers. Therefore, someone claiming it doesn't work, is effectively saying it doesn't work for their company, which in turn gives rise to questions as to why that's the case: Is their company and its work truly that unique and special that it can only effectively be done synchronously and in person? Or is it rather that the company in question itself has an underlying organizational problem?
        RestlessMind 4y ago
        > Well, there are entirely distributed, remote-first companies like Automattic, Zapier, GitLab, or Basecamp. I'm certain each of those also employs junior engineers. Yes. My company is also in that category. We employ a lot of junior engineers too. >90% of them say they want some in-person interaction because it is hard to ramp up effectively on a complex codebase and a different culture. > Therefore, someone claiming it doesn't work, is effectively saying it doesn't work for their company, which in turn gives rise to questions as to why that's the case Because we are all humans and in absence of an in-person presence, we are not able to form trusting deep relationships. > Is their company and its work truly that unique and special that it can only effectively be done synchronously and in person?
- RestlessMind 4y ago
  It seems you are working in a very niche area where most of the work is entirely asynchronous. In my area of work (non-trivial software development), there is a wide consensus that some in-person collaboration is needed on a regular basis. My company has fully embraced remote work, is going through an economic down turn like many other "growth startups" and yet finds it necessary to mandate meeting hours where everyone has to be present or to organize offsites where people can meet and get to know each other in a better way.
  - BjoernKW 4y ago
    > some in-person collaboration is needed on a regular basis I keep hearing such arguments but those typically aren't backed up by any data or reason as to why that's the case. That said, poster child remote-first companies such as Basecamp, GitLab, or Zapier have their people gather a few times throughout the year, too, to allow them to get to know each other better. That's not a contradiction at all and something entirely different than mandating people move to specific location to work there the entire time.
    - RestlessMind 4y ago
      > I keep hearing such arguments but those typically aren't backed up by any data or reason as to why that's the case. I'd say burden of proof is on you to provide any data that remote work is equally good. I have given remote-working a shot for three years - first ~1.5 were mandatory during COVID and last ~1.5 were during normal times. My company has gone all in on remote work and has tried to make it work. It just doesn't work and everyone is openly admitting its flaws. To name a few: a lack of trust, very shallow relationships, struggles for junior and new team members to ramp up, a lack of engagement etc. Based on my personal experience and that of my social and professional circles, >80% people seem to prefer a hybrid model where they work 2-3 days in office and 2-3 days at home. Of course, in-office days have to be mandated for the entire team to be effective.
pas 4y ago
that's much easier to change than physical location.