3 ms·

chronofar's comment isn't incompatible with that. I don't think a remote-first approach inherently takes more time and effort, but it requires a culture change

chronofar's comment isn't incompatible with that. I don't think a remote-first approach inherently takes more time and effort, but it requires a culture change. If you alone are trying to adopt a remote-first strategy I definitely think it will take more of your time and effort, but if your company culture is remote-first I don't think it should.

haswell 3y ago
> I don't think a remote-first approach inherently takes more time and effort, but it requires a culture change. Culture change requires time and effort. And without structured guidance shaping the change, progress will not be evenly distributed. I think the harsh reality is that remote-first does inherently take more time and effort, even if some of that is a one time investment. The trouble is that this one time investment is difficult to quantify. I worked remotely for many years prior to the pandemic so I’m not against remote work. But I don’t think it’s fair to claim that it comes at no cost. I did find it incredibly important to still get to the office periodically for team bonding and to catch up on the 100 little hallway conversations that can’t happen remotely.
- ZephyrBlu 3y ago
  Cmon dude, you're twisting words. I agree culture change requires time and effort, but "upfront investment" is not the same as "inherently takes more time and effort". I even said it takes more time and effort if you are adopting it when other people aren't (I.e. unevenly distributed progress like you mention).
  - haswell 3y ago
    Not trying to twist your words, but to point out that remote-first really does require inherently more time investment. I think you’re underselling the impact of the prerequisite culture change, because very few companies are remote-first or even know what a good remote-first strategy looks like. If a company already has a solid and effective remote culture, great! But this is pretty rare, and can’t be considered a general case. Those companies are also made of people who fit the mold of that remote culture, and I question the merit of generalizing their success to a broader workforce made up of people who weren’t pre-selected for their compatibility. And to be clear, I’m not saying I don’t think the investment is worthwhile; just necessary and not trivial. > "upfront investment" is not the same as "inherently takes more time and effort". We can agree to disagree here, but I just find this to be a rather odd conclusion. I’m not trying to split hairs, but think that “just change the culture” hand waves away a massive undertaking for most orgs, and it’s better to address this head-on than pretend it doesn’t exist.

haswell 3y ago

> I don't think a remote-first approach inherently takes more time and effort, but it requires a culture change. Culture change requires time and effort. And without structured guidance shaping the change, progress will not be evenly distributed. I think the harsh reality is that remote-first does inherently take more time and effort, even if some of that is a one time investment. The trouble is that this one time investment is difficult to quantify. I worked remotely for many years prior to the pandemic so I’m not against remote work. But I don’t think it’s fair to claim that it comes at no cost. I did find it incredibly important to still get to the office periodically for team bonding and to catch up on the 100 little hallway conversations that can’t happen remotely.

ZephyrBlu 3y ago
Cmon dude, you're twisting words. I agree culture change requires time and effort, but "upfront investment" is not the same as "inherently takes more time and effort". I even said it takes more time and effort if you are adopting it when other people aren't (I.e. unevenly distributed progress like you mention).
- haswell 3y ago
  Not trying to twist your words, but to point out that remote-first really does require inherently more time investment. I think you’re underselling the impact of the prerequisite culture change, because very few companies are remote-first or even know what a good remote-first strategy looks like. If a company already has a solid and effective remote culture, great! But this is pretty rare, and can’t be considered a general case. Those companies are also made of people who fit the mold of that remote culture, and I question the merit of generalizing their success to a broader workforce made up of people who weren’t pre-selected for their compatibility. And to be clear, I’m not saying I don’t think the investment is worthwhile; just necessary and not trivial. > "upfront investment" is not the same as "inherently takes more time and effort". We can agree to disagree here, but I just find this to be a rather odd conclusion. I’m not trying to split hairs, but think that “just change the culture” hand waves away a massive undertaking for most orgs, and it’s better to address this head-on than pretend it doesn’t exist.