4 ms·

I agree in general except on this > workload splitting where syncing isn't very important I'm not convinced that remote means syncing is harder. There is a c

I agree in general except on this > workload splitting where syncing isn't very important I'm not convinced that remote means syncing is harder. There is a case to be made that: it's easier because it compels teams to have a structure for syncing, and structured syncing may be more efficient than ad hoc. Put another way, you potentially lose the crutch and end up stronger as a result. This isn't a whimsical theory either- structured business processes are often missing and causing hidden costs and inefficiencies.

flkiwi 3y ago
It doesn't make syncing harder. I've worked for high-performing global teams for DECADES, so this debate is amusing to me. It shows me which companies absolutely cannot scale past a certain point, and which perpetuate terrible communication and management practices papered over with in person smokescreens. Work requires effective communication. Global teams place a premium on that and nurture it if they're successful. The remote work dilemma is non-global teams discovering this well-trodden ground and attempting to reinvent the wheel, with a sprinkling of terrible commercial real estate decisions on top. (Nothing in this response addresses specific team types that benefit from in person work or the entirely valid in-office preferences of individual workers.)
- chaosmonger7 3y ago
  [dead]