3 ms·
Idk, I'm firmly in the "hybrid works best" camp. Face-to-face collaboration has no alternative, sorry. In jobs where you have to actually engineer instead of bu
by packetlost 3y ago
Idk, I'm firmly in the "hybrid works best" camp. Face-to-face collaboration has no alternative, sorry. In jobs where you have to actually engineer instead of build CRUD web-app #2,000,001, it's very hard to be effective without in-person communication. Most people are not great at the async types of comms that are necessary for that to scale to remote work.
- red-iron-pine 3y agohybrid works for some, but often means abandoning patterns that are required to make 100% remote work. It's also a huge PITA since it requires people to live near their office -- can't move to rural Kentucky, still stuck in the burbs -- while simultaneously requiring them to maintain a at-home office AND work office. Honestly if it's not 100% in person then make it 100% remote and learn to structure it that way. Otherwise it's the worst of both worlds.
- sanderjd 3y agoI disagree, hybrid is flexible. If you're doing work that benefits from in-person interaction, coordinate a time to be together in the office. If you're doing work that you'd rather be remote for, do that. I do think the geographical agnosticism of 100% remote is an enormous advantage, but there is no correspondingly enormous advantage of 100% in-office. If you've already taken the hit to give up the advantages of 100% remote, you can at least keep the advantages of flexibility by going hybrid.
- mostlysimilar 3y ago> In jobs where you have to actually engineer instead of build CRUD web-app #2,000,001, it's very hard to be effective without in-person communication. Trivializing the work of others isn't making your point any stronger. There's plenty of complexity in delivering software via the web that benefits from in person collaboration.