4 ms·

Point (1) is a function of the team's culture around new hires and working relationships generally. Occupying the same building, the same floor, or even the sam

Point (1) is a function of the team's culture around new hires and working relationships generally. Occupying the same building, the same floor, or even the same room as a coworker is simply not equivalent to having a beneficial work culture. You can neglect new hires just as effectively in an office, and you can support new hires just as effectively over Teams.

drewcoo 3y ago
And to pick up the other point, the "contest" was not about #2, the general well-being of people everywhere. They're businesses.
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
I 100% agree that in office doesn't make up for a bad work culture. But I don't think that negates that being in-office with a good work culture can have significant benefits over being remote with a good work culture. Also, my issue isn't just with "new hires", it's with new inexperienced hires. I started my career in a company that had a "boot camp"-like training environment for new grads, and I found it hugely, hugely beneficial for both learning new things and for developing strong relationships that have lasted 25 years later. I disagree that kind of experience can be replicated over Teams, though I fully acknowledge that kind of experience is rare to begin with.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  There’s over $120B in enterprise value of remote first enterprises. Feelings are fine, the data shows the model is effective. You can hire the best talent anywhere, talent that has options. That is a material competitive edge vs hiring a cohort that is willing to tolerate a non remote operating model. My hot take: Don’t hire helpless people, and the people you do hire, make sure they are fully supported to know what they need to do their job (internal mentor/buddy, knowledge base, frequent check ins until they’re more autonomous, etc). In person onboarding can help, as can week long in person on sites every quarter or twice a year (team cohesion).
  - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
    > There’s over $120B in enterprise value of remote first enterprises. 1. Where is this number from? 2. In the grand scheme of things that is a teeny number. Not really surprised given as remote work is relatively new, but that number in and of itself is not really evidence for remote work's advantages over in person.
    - toomuchtodo 3y ago
      > 1. Where is this number from? My Excel model. As someone passionate about the concept of remote work, and having a material component of my net worth invested in remote orgs, it is top of mind (and important to bring evidence for people's feels about the topic of remote vs office). I should probably just publish it as an Airtable. > 2. In the grand scheme of things that is a teeny number. Not really surprised given as remote work is relatively new, but that number in and of itself is not really evidence for remote work's advantages over in person. What number would no longer be teeny?
  - spixy 3y ago
    I value more ability to socialize and have fun with coworkers physically, than maybe more money in high value enterprise where I would work from my room and be alone most of the day.
kaashif 3y ago
> You can neglect new hires just as effectively in an office, and you can support new hires just as effectively over Teams. My experience is that some people are just much less likely to ask questions over Slack or start a Zoom call, which hurts them. My productivity is higher if I don't have people asking me stuff, but if those questions just never get asked it's bad for new hires' growth. There might be ways to fix this but I don't know what they are. Just telling people "feel free to ask questions whenever" doesn't always work. Having regular meetings just results in people withholding questions until those meetings. I don't think it's possible to lower the bar for questions to the same level as just opening your mouth and speaking, maybe with a constant Zoom call but no-one wants to do that.
- odyssey7 3y ago
  If the organization has a widespread issue where employees hesitate to ask questions via impromptu Slack messages or phone calls, then managers need more training on establishing an effective organizational culture. Here is a guide from Forbes that could be considered. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbusinesscouncil/2021/07/14/how-to-build-a-strong-organizational-culture/?sh=2fcf15f96dd8 https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbusinesscouncil/2021/07/1...
- erik_seaberg 3y ago
  The bar for delaying an ongoing project needs to be higher than just opening your mouth. Batching questions works well; not all of your tasks should be completely blocked. I like using a team Slack channel and seeing who happens to become available to respond, because other people also see the answer when they have time.
HDThoreaun 3y ago
I dont think anyone is denying that remote can be great with the right culture. The claim is that building that culture is much more difficult when remote. Some companies just dont have the leadership needed to pull it off. Its not like the culture at those companies is great in office, but in my experience it is significantly better.

drewcoo 3y ago

And to pick up the other point, the "contest" was not about #2, the general well-being of people everywhere. They're businesses.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

I 100% agree that in office doesn't make up for a bad work culture. But I don't think that negates that being in-office with a good work culture can have significant benefits over being remote with a good work culture. Also, my issue isn't just with "new hires", it's with new inexperienced hires. I started my career in a company that had a "boot camp"-like training environment for new grads, and I found it hugely, hugely beneficial for both learning new things and for developing strong relationships that have lasted 25 years later. I disagree that kind of experience can be replicated over Teams, though I fully acknowledge that kind of experience is rare to begin with.

toomuchtodo 3y ago
There’s over $120B in enterprise value of remote first enterprises. Feelings are fine, the data shows the model is effective. You can hire the best talent anywhere, talent that has options. That is a material competitive edge vs hiring a cohort that is willing to tolerate a non remote operating model. My hot take: Don’t hire helpless people, and the people you do hire, make sure they are fully supported to know what they need to do their job (internal mentor/buddy, knowledge base, frequent check ins until they’re more autonomous, etc). In person onboarding can help, as can week long in person on sites every quarter or twice a year (team cohesion).
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  > There’s over $120B in enterprise value of remote first enterprises. 1. Where is this number from? 2. In the grand scheme of things that is a teeny number. Not really surprised given as remote work is relatively new, but that number in and of itself is not really evidence for remote work's advantages over in person.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    > 1. Where is this number from? My Excel model. As someone passionate about the concept of remote work, and having a material component of my net worth invested in remote orgs, it is top of mind (and important to bring evidence for people's feels about the topic of remote vs office). I should probably just publish it as an Airtable. > 2. In the grand scheme of things that is a teeny number. Not really surprised given as remote work is relatively new, but that number in and of itself is not really evidence for remote work's advantages over in person. What number would no longer be teeny?
- spixy 3y ago
  I value more ability to socialize and have fun with coworkers physically, than maybe more money in high value enterprise where I would work from my room and be alone most of the day.

kaashif 3y ago

> You can neglect new hires just as effectively in an office, and you can support new hires just as effectively over Teams. My experience is that some people are just much less likely to ask questions over Slack or start a Zoom call, which hurts them. My productivity is higher if I don't have people asking me stuff, but if those questions just never get asked it's bad for new hires' growth. There might be ways to fix this but I don't know what they are. Just telling people "feel free to ask questions whenever" doesn't always work. Having regular meetings just results in people withholding questions until those meetings. I don't think it's possible to lower the bar for questions to the same level as just opening your mouth and speaking, maybe with a constant Zoom call but no-one wants to do that.

odyssey7 3y ago
If the organization has a widespread issue where employees hesitate to ask questions via impromptu Slack messages or phone calls, then managers need more training on establishing an effective organizational culture. Here is a guide from Forbes that could be considered. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbusinesscouncil/2021/07/14/how-to-build-a-strong-organizational-culture/?sh=2fcf15f96dd8 https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbusinesscouncil/2021/07/1...
erik_seaberg 3y ago
The bar for delaying an ongoing project needs to be higher than just opening your mouth. Batching questions works well; not all of your tasks should be completely blocked. I like using a team Slack channel and seeing who happens to become available to respond, because other people also see the answer when they have time.

HDThoreaun 3y ago

I dont think anyone is denying that remote can be great with the right culture. The claim is that building that culture is much more difficult when remote. Some companies just dont have the leadership needed to pull it off. Its not like the culture at those companies is great in office, but in my experience it is significantly better.