In my opinion is that the decision to be on-site or remote should be made at the team level. A team, that can't perform well onsite won't do any better remotely

In my opinion is that the decision to be on-site or remote should be made at the team level. A team, that can't perform well onsite won't do any better remotely and vice versa. # How I know if a team member will perform well remotely: - They take initiative. They take ownership. They learn how to effectively use different communication tools, and then they use them. They ask questions with the goal of solving problems. They get things done. # How I know if a team member will perform poorly remotely: - They wait for others to tell them what to do. They tend to disappear. They don't communicate. - Turns out that these are shitty traits to have for onsite team members as well. # How I know if a manager will perform well remotely: - They would perform well as a remote team member (see above), and have a team capable of working remotely. - They lead by example, know how to build trust, understand how to set achievable short-term goals that lead up to big longterm successes. - When questioned during meetings, they build trust, confidence and alignment. # Some signs that a manager will perform poorly with a remote team: - They prefer a command and control approach to management. - They lack respect for their team members' time, experience, capabilities and / or intelligence. - They are unable to explain problems such the team can help solve them. - This leads them to micromanage. - They perceive questions during meetings as a challenge to their authority, which makes look insecure. A micromanager will see more success from poor performing team members if they're all onsite or, as is often the case, frequently on all day conference calls. A micromanager will also quickly lose their best team members.