3 ms·

So much carrying of water for our corporate masters here. The pandemic showed that we could be effective remote. So what's the point of this?

bayindirh 3y ago
I know this is a heated debate, but from my experience, the situation is way more nuanced. During the pandemic, we have worked remotely for a year or so, and we were bloody effective. However, when I pondered about why is it so, I found out that because we have deep personal, one to one connections already. In other words, we can work effectively because we know each other very well, not only in work setting but in personal setting too. When a remote team is assembled, the window for knowing each other is way narrower. You can work and put good results out, yes. We also do this all the time, because we work with many remote teams as a part of the said team, and we don't see them face to face for years sometimes, however when we meet with these people, even for a couple of days, our relationship and work performance changes. Since we spend time together, we understand each other better and note our underlying characters, inside and outside work. This allows better relationships and faster, way more efficient work. Mails get shorter, things get more fruitful, and work accelerates. WFH and remote work works, up to a point, but there's a glass ceiling. Some people may not feel or want to understand that, but it's there. Face to face communication carries way more information than a webcam + microphone.
- swader999 3y ago
  Valid point. If a manager wants to motivate an employee they have to get to know them, truly care about them. Can't be faked. A mandatory first month work from the main office, bi annual everyone retreat in one location or twists on these ideas might work for remote only setups. Total surveillance only works for drones and monkeys hitting typewriters. Totally fine for a cash cow monopoly.
- kyleee 3y ago
  I think you make a great point. I think full remote with maybe quarterly meetups is the best. That way new hires can meet people and relationships can form for the foundation of remote work
  - MichaelMug 3y ago
    > I think full remote with maybe quarterly meetups is the best. I started working full remote in 2018, and I found quarterly meetups work well. 3 days to 1 week on-site per quarter. I pack the week with in-person meetings/lunches/dinners with my customers, coworkers and management to get facetime.
- greesil 3y ago
  How do you get from there to compulsory attendance?
  - bayindirh 3y ago
    Because I work in a place with compulsory attendance. Our arrival and departure times are recorded.
    - greesil 3y ago
      That... is a very literal interpretation of my question
      - bayindirh 3y ago
        The thing is, when you start to spend 8 hours a day with the same team, you start to see the other sides of the people. You start to share your life, what happens outside work, and maybe a couple of interests. This makes the person you're working with more than a drone, because you have the chance to touch to other person's life. The same is also valid for your colleague. To be able to foster these kinds of relations, you need to share the space for quite some time. Humans are not machines, this is not a file transfer operation This is way working face to face, esp. in a harmonious team is always better than WFH. Companies are not always in the wrong for wanting their teams in the office. Of course some people may prefer WFH more, for any number of reasons, and I'm no judge. However, claiming that F2F working conditions have no advantages over WFH is just not true, to put it very mildly.
        greesil 3y ago
        I don't need any of this stuff in person to ship a product.
        bayindirh 3y ago
        If work life is "shipping a product" for you, then okay.
DiggyJohnson 3y ago
It showed that it was viable. It did not show that remote was clearly better. I think you're overstating things.
therealdrag0 3y ago
“Effective” is hand waiving. Consider this scenario. Maybe you have 2 A students (metaphors for workers) and 4 C students remote. The A students are effective regardless of attendance. But the C students actually become B students when attendance is forced. You might argue C students should be replaced but you might still end up with C students a year later because hiring is hard. Given this dynamic it’s obvious why one would be motivated to require attendance. This is just a thought experiment but I think it shows how blame could be pointed at many different places. For example why couldn’t attendance be required only for lower performers? Etc.
- CamperBob2 3y ago
  You're neglecting the A students being turned into B students, and the B students being turned into C students, and the C students who might've had a chance at improvement but now don't, because the school insisted on packing everyone into the lunchroom and forcing them to do their work elbow-to-elbow with each other.

bayindirh 3y ago

I know this is a heated debate, but from my experience, the situation is way more nuanced. During the pandemic, we have worked remotely for a year or so, and we were bloody effective. However, when I pondered about why is it so, I found out that because we have deep personal, one to one connections already. In other words, we can work effectively because we know each other very well, not only in work setting but in personal setting too. When a remote team is assembled, the window for knowing each other is way narrower. You can work and put good results out, yes. We also do this all the time, because we work with many remote teams as a part of the said team, and we don't see them face to face for years sometimes, however when we meet with these people, even for a couple of days, our relationship and work performance changes. Since we spend time together, we understand each other better and note our underlying characters, inside and outside work. This allows better relationships and faster, way more efficient work. Mails get shorter, things get more fruitful, and work accelerates. WFH and remote work works, up to a point, but there's a glass ceiling. Some people may not feel or want to understand that, but it's there. Face to face communication carries way more information than a webcam + microphone.

swader999 3y ago
Valid point. If a manager wants to motivate an employee they have to get to know them, truly care about them. Can't be faked. A mandatory first month work from the main office, bi annual everyone retreat in one location or twists on these ideas might work for remote only setups. Total surveillance only works for drones and monkeys hitting typewriters. Totally fine for a cash cow monopoly.
kyleee 3y ago
I think you make a great point. I think full remote with maybe quarterly meetups is the best. That way new hires can meet people and relationships can form for the foundation of remote work
- MichaelMug 3y ago
  > I think full remote with maybe quarterly meetups is the best. I started working full remote in 2018, and I found quarterly meetups work well. 3 days to 1 week on-site per quarter. I pack the week with in-person meetings/lunches/dinners with my customers, coworkers and management to get facetime.
greesil 3y ago
How do you get from there to compulsory attendance?
- bayindirh 3y ago
  Because I work in a place with compulsory attendance. Our arrival and departure times are recorded.
  - greesil 3y ago
    That... is a very literal interpretation of my question
    - bayindirh 3y ago
      The thing is, when you start to spend 8 hours a day with the same team, you start to see the other sides of the people. You start to share your life, what happens outside work, and maybe a couple of interests. This makes the person you're working with more than a drone, because you have the chance to touch to other person's life. The same is also valid for your colleague. To be able to foster these kinds of relations, you need to share the space for quite some time. Humans are not machines, this is not a file transfer operation This is way working face to face, esp. in a harmonious team is always better than WFH. Companies are not always in the wrong for wanting their teams in the office. Of course some people may prefer WFH more, for any number of reasons, and I'm no judge. However, claiming that F2F working conditions have no advantages over WFH is just not true, to put it very mildly.
      - greesil 3y ago
        I don't need any of this stuff in person to ship a product.
        bayindirh 3y ago
        If work life is "shipping a product" for you, then okay.

DiggyJohnson 3y ago

It showed that it was viable. It did not show that remote was clearly better. I think you're overstating things.

therealdrag0 3y ago

“Effective” is hand waiving. Consider this scenario. Maybe you have 2 A students (metaphors for workers) and 4 C students remote. The A students are effective regardless of attendance. But the C students actually become B students when attendance is forced. You might argue C students should be replaced but you might still end up with C students a year later because hiring is hard. Given this dynamic it’s obvious why one would be motivated to require attendance. This is just a thought experiment but I think it shows how blame could be pointed at many different places. For example why couldn’t attendance be required only for lower performers? Etc.

CamperBob2 3y ago
You're neglecting the A students being turned into B students, and the B students being turned into C students, and the C students who might've had a chance at improvement but now don't, because the school insisted on packing everyone into the lunchroom and forcing them to do their work elbow-to-elbow with each other.