5 ms·

I'm now struggling to find the study I was thinking of when I said "demonstrably", but I can say anecdotally that our new hires ask fewer questions online than

by bloppe 3y ago

I'm now struggling to find the study I was thinking of when I said "demonstrably", but I can say anecdotally that our new hires ask fewer questions online than in person, despite my reminders that the worst thing you can do while onboarding is ask too few questions. Coworker relationships are more formal and compartmentalized online than in person and they can be more reluctant to ping people with questions out of fear of being considered annoying. This doesn't apply to everyone but it has a noticeable effect on the average new hire. I'm sure you can come up with the perfect counterpoint to my anecdote. We'll just have to wait a few more years for more robust, large scale comparisons before we really understand how much an office is worth.

shard 3y ago
Absolutely. I personally found myself less likely to ping someone over Teams to ask them a small question versus leaning over to the next seat to ask. I was assigned a work-buddy when I was on-boarded, but I think I asked him a total of 3 questions. I believe that if I was on-boarded in-person, and had a few lunches with him, it would have been quite different. Also, the fact that the only time I talk to my co-workers is over Zoom makes it necessary from a human relations point of view to start many meetings with a bit of chit-chat, which otherwise in face-to-face meetings can be skipped since we can chit-chat outside of meetings.
- Lacerda69 3y ago
  FWIW i am FAR less likely to interrupt the person sitting next to me and yank them out of their current flow into a different topic. I'd rather send them a chat message that they can answer out of bounds when it does not interrupt their flow. >which otherwise in face-to-face meetings can be skipped since we can chit-chat outside of meetings. So in terms of time there is little difference? I find myself to spend much more time chitchatting in person - which is nice but also not the job.
TheSpiceIsLife 3y ago
> I'm sure you can come up with the perfect counterpoint to my anecdote. Even if your interlocutor can, and even if the large scale studies run counter to your argument, that doesn't mean your experience is invalid. Life isn't a double-blind randomised placebo-controlled study. There is no control group consisting of you and your cohort to measure against. The scientific method is, I argue, on the whole, the wrong instrument to bear in these scenarios, at least because measuring the metrics affects the study group and publishing the resulted affects the society in which the study occurred.
- jaggederest 3y ago
  Absolutely agree. I just wanted to provide a counterpoint to the idea that it was just accepted and obvious that remote onboarding is worse - that doesn't mean it isn't, but I don't think we have to assume that it is. I'm interested in hearing other people's experiences especially because I've been remote since 2011 so I have a clearly biased perspective.
- bloppe 3y ago
  Life feels a lot like a double-blind randomised placebo-controlled study sometimes.
jaggederest 3y ago
I don't have a counterpoint, I'm interested in other people's perspectives, honestly. I just thought it was a little absurd to gently move past the assumption that remote onboarding is obviously worse! I can see ways it might be worse, obviously, and I've experienced good in-office onboarding. But I've also experienced absolutely crap in-office onboarding (a month of no working development environment!) - so I question whether that experience was because of the office/remote dynamic, or because companies that do a good job onboarding because they value it, regardless. So it's interesting to hear stories and experiences from other people's perspective, both onboard-ee and onboard-er, since I'm just one dude with my own Unique Perspective™ and limited total experience based on that viewpoint.
baq 3y ago
Upvotes are not enough to express agreement here, don’t have much more to add other than it reflects my experience, too. Most people don’t know if they’re supposed to ask the most trivial questions so they implicitly default (wrongly) to not asking. This doesn’t happen in person because the most trivial issues are noticed without newbies asking. To replicate this fully remotely you need a purposefully designed process.

by bloppe 3y ago

shard 3y ago

Absolutely. I personally found myself less likely to ping someone over Teams to ask them a small question versus leaning over to the next seat to ask. I was assigned a work-buddy when I was on-boarded, but I think I asked him a total of 3 questions. I believe that if I was on-boarded in-person, and had a few lunches with him, it would have been quite different. Also, the fact that the only time I talk to my co-workers is over Zoom makes it necessary from a human relations point of view to start many meetings with a bit of chit-chat, which otherwise in face-to-face meetings can be skipped since we can chit-chat outside of meetings.

Lacerda69 3y ago
FWIW i am FAR less likely to interrupt the person sitting next to me and yank them out of their current flow into a different topic. I'd rather send them a chat message that they can answer out of bounds when it does not interrupt their flow. >which otherwise in face-to-face meetings can be skipped since we can chit-chat outside of meetings. So in terms of time there is little difference? I find myself to spend much more time chitchatting in person - which is nice but also not the job.

TheSpiceIsLife 3y ago

> I'm sure you can come up with the perfect counterpoint to my anecdote. Even if your interlocutor can, and even if the large scale studies run counter to your argument, that doesn't mean your experience is invalid. Life isn't a double-blind randomised placebo-controlled study. There is no control group consisting of you and your cohort to measure against. The scientific method is, I argue, on the whole, the wrong instrument to bear in these scenarios, at least because measuring the metrics affects the study group and publishing the resulted affects the society in which the study occurred.

jaggederest 3y ago
Absolutely agree. I just wanted to provide a counterpoint to the idea that it was just accepted and obvious that remote onboarding is worse - that doesn't mean it isn't, but I don't think we have to assume that it is. I'm interested in hearing other people's experiences especially because I've been remote since 2011 so I have a clearly biased perspective.
bloppe 3y ago
Life feels a lot like a double-blind randomised placebo-controlled study sometimes.

jaggederest 3y ago

I don't have a counterpoint, I'm interested in other people's perspectives, honestly. I just thought it was a little absurd to gently move past the assumption that remote onboarding is obviously worse! I can see ways it might be worse, obviously, and I've experienced good in-office onboarding. But I've also experienced absolutely crap in-office onboarding (a month of no working development environment!) - so I question whether that experience was because of the office/remote dynamic, or because companies that do a good job onboarding because they value it, regardless. So it's interesting to hear stories and experiences from other people's perspective, both onboard-ee and onboard-er, since I'm just one dude with my own Unique Perspective™ and limited total experience based on that viewpoint.

baq 3y ago

Upvotes are not enough to express agreement here, don’t have much more to add other than it reflects my experience, too. Most people don’t know if they’re supposed to ask the most trivial questions so they implicitly default (wrongly) to not asking. This doesn’t happen in person because the most trivial issues are noticed without newbies asking. To replicate this fully remotely you need a purposefully designed process.