3 ms·
The problem of that thinking is that a single remote-only-possible person pushes the team to remote-only. I however, 100% agree with the statement that confere
by oaiey 4y ago
The problem of that thinking is that a single remote-only-possible person pushes the team to remote-only.
I however, 100% agree with the statement that conferences are problem (1) for coming back to the office AND (2) is the fact that commute times were given back to the life of people (and their kids, partners, hobbies, communities, ...) and now people ask to invest that time back to the company.
- marcus0x62 4y agoThat’s my point - some people want[0] to work in-person and some want to work remotely. There are plenty of jobs and places for each, but trying to mix them together on a single team is never going to work. So don’t try. Setup your team to be unapologetically in-person, with all the baggage that entails: loss of commute time, lack of ability to recruit geographically distant workers, possibly more streamlined real-time collaboration, etc. or setup your team to be remote with all the baggage that entails: lower overhead, hire the best talent anywhere in the world, better focus on deep work/asynchronous communication, probably weaker team bonds, inability to just get in a room and figure something out quickly, etc. 0 - alternately, “are more productive working”
- oaiey 4y agoGreefield / New Formed Teams: I agree 100%. Was not that the Stripe Engineering story before Pandemia. Two remote divisions and one in office? But brownfield with an existing organization: That does not work. What if you have a team with two key people. One who only wants to work remote and one who does not. Then you have a multi-month knowledge transformation ahead if you, if possible at all.