2 ms·

Can you clarify your premise here? When I worked in a building, I would go to meetings, and there I would see co-workers and people would talk to each other in

Can you clarify your premise here? When I worked in a building, I would go to meetings, and there I would see co-workers and people would talk to each other in meetings. When I work remotely, I join virtual meetings, and I see co-workers and people talk to each other. In both cases, people can use chat to say things without me seeing. If I am physically in a building, but people are not in the same room as me, they can talk to each other without me hearing. The only premise that could be true is that within one organization, people that cannot be remote may resent people that can.

supriyo-biswas 3y ago
There is a certain activation energy required for discussions to take place, which is quite high in a remote setting. This isn't a problem by itself, however remote companies need to have a lot more processes around information transfer and team building, which is something companies don't need to actively think about for the most part if they build on-site teams.
mathgeek 3y ago
I interpreted the meaning to be something along the lines of “remote workers can feel like they have less control of big decisions if an organization also has office workers”. In my experience, it’s an illusion (or delusion).
eddieroger 3y ago
They're talking about the hallway chats that happen after the meeting, when people move from the conference room back to their cubes. Gotta talk about something as you walk, and if that happens to be in the form of a misrepresentation of your work, you not only can't do anything about it, but you'll never know. In my experience, that's more a reflection on a poor org than the situation. Before the pandemic when I wanted to have a hallway debrief with my coworkers in the office, I pinged them as such and we talked via Skype (then, it was years ago) about the meeting. Sure they'd started without me, but caught me up. It was fine.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  This, but it doesn't even have to be as nefarious as misrepresenting your work. Someone senior who didn't quite understand some point but didn't want to ask about it in the meeting* will ask a version of it in the hallway just outside the door. They'll appreciate and increase trust in the person who gave them the answer. There's not even anything nefarious about that; it's just normal human behavior. * Positively: because they didn't want to derail the meeting and slow everyone down, or negatively: because they didn't want to admit to not being omniscient. Either way, it happens.
- luminouslow 3y ago
  >not only can't do anything about it, but you'll never know. And what would you do if you are there in person? Challenge them to a duel? This whole scenario sounds very paranoid to me. In my experience if you treat people decently and perform OK most co-workers won't talk negatively about you behind your back. Or maybe I just never noticed... it did have 0 impact on me though if it happened.

supriyo-biswas 3y ago

There is a certain activation energy required for discussions to take place, which is quite high in a remote setting. This isn't a problem by itself, however remote companies need to have a lot more processes around information transfer and team building, which is something companies don't need to actively think about for the most part if they build on-site teams.

mathgeek 3y ago

I interpreted the meaning to be something along the lines of “remote workers can feel like they have less control of big decisions if an organization also has office workers”. In my experience, it’s an illusion (or delusion).

eddieroger 3y ago

They're talking about the hallway chats that happen after the meeting, when people move from the conference room back to their cubes. Gotta talk about something as you walk, and if that happens to be in the form of a misrepresentation of your work, you not only can't do anything about it, but you'll never know. In my experience, that's more a reflection on a poor org than the situation. Before the pandemic when I wanted to have a hallway debrief with my coworkers in the office, I pinged them as such and we talked via Skype (then, it was years ago) about the meeting. Sure they'd started without me, but caught me up. It was fine.

sokoloff 3y ago
This, but it doesn't even have to be as nefarious as misrepresenting your work. Someone senior who didn't quite understand some point but didn't want to ask about it in the meeting* will ask a version of it in the hallway just outside the door. They'll appreciate and increase trust in the person who gave them the answer. There's not even anything nefarious about that; it's just normal human behavior. * Positively: because they didn't want to derail the meeting and slow everyone down, or negatively: because they didn't want to admit to not being omniscient. Either way, it happens.
luminouslow 3y ago
>not only can't do anything about it, but you'll never know. And what would you do if you are there in person? Challenge them to a duel? This whole scenario sounds very paranoid to me. In my experience if you treat people decently and perform OK most co-workers won't talk negatively about you behind your back. Or maybe I just never noticed... it did have 0 impact on me though if it happened.