3 ms·

Controversial opinion time: I was chomping at the bit for remote before COVID. Hell, I still chomp at the bit for remote work. It's genuinely better in almost

by dijit 3y ago

Controversial opinion time: I was chomping at the bit for remote before COVID. Hell, I still chomp at the bit for remote work. It's genuinely better in almost every way for me; I get that people have kids and it gets annoying to work from home for those people or that people want to be social: I am not those people, I am sorry. I have ADHD and I am not able to actually sit and focus in the office, especially these torrid open office environments that have been foisted on me for 15 years. However, I believe being close to an office where everyone can come together is of crucial importance. The company I work for is remote first, and we come together from all across europe once a quarter. It's hugely expensive to do this and that money would be better spent on more important things. Not only that, when we come together people are tired, uncomfortable and often overcompensate. A week trip will usually result in 9-10 days of low productivity for example. But during that week so much communication happens, so many things become unblocked and what's more important: people start to trust each other a bit more. I had a psychologist tell me once: "it takes 9 good interactions to offset 1 bad one", well, most interactions while working over the internet are stressful and anxiety inducing. Interactions in person can be pleasant, helpful, enjoyable. Going for lunch or playing a board game (or having a drink) can all help build a rapport and doing it casually is only possible if you can actually drop by. I sincerely think being physically located near your closest colleagues can seriously help with company culture and paper over obtuse over-communication which is required if you are doing remote-first correctly. All of this of course applies triple to managers; who's entire job is communication.

rcdemski 3y ago
I landed at wanting to work remote when I have clear direction on what my team wants to do, and meeting in person to hash out the big details. The in person bandwidth feels much greater (at least for me). Balancing both strategically lets us plan efficiently together and work efficiently at home.
cwales95 3y ago
This is my ideal scenario kinda. A company that is remote first but has offices near where you can go and work with your co-workers when it makes sense. It just seems like most places these day is one or the other in terms of remote or fully in office.
mathgeek 3y ago
> It's hugely expensive to do this and that money would be better spent on more important things. Unless the company is compensating folks for living closer to offices, they are likely just transferring those costs to the employees’ cost of living when forcing folks to live in higher cost of living areas.
- dijit 3y ago
  > Unless the company is compensating folks for living closer to offices, they are likely just transferring those costs to the employees’ cost of living when forcing folks to live in higher cost of living areas. Cost of living has historically been factored when determining salary, right? I don't live in a high cost of living environment (I live in Malmo, Sweden; pretty cheap by Swedish standards overall) and I won't earn as much here as I would if I was working in Zurich or Stockholm. What you say here comes across as hugely entitled since presumably you are already paid a really high salary and want to make even more relative to others in your area? By virtue of you being able to work remotely even if it comes at a cost to your productivity? As a counter: Large companies (such as IBM) typically have their campuses located outside of major metropolitan hubs where office space is cheap: is your predilection, then, that they should pay you now less? If they force a move to a lower cost of living area because they decide that? You are paid for a job in a place, and getting to that job is part of the salary for that job in some circumstances. You wouldn't expect Police officer to be paid the same in NYC vs Bryan, Ohio. If that police officer were to move to Bryan from NYC though: their travel costs and cost of living are on them, They would be paid to work in NYC.
  - mathgeek 3y ago
    My comment was not in relation to my own situation. That aside, the situation you describe emphasizes my point. If the company is paying more for folks to live near the office, then the costs of travel for remote workers can and should be less than the additional compensation would be.
earthling8118 3y ago
What is it about in person that makes people think more communication gets done? I swear it's the opposite in basically every experience I've had. When we work in ways that are better for remote things go more smoothly because we're actually communicating. Nearly every time I see people get together, less is accomplished. I attribute a lot of it to the slowdown of communication due to the inefficiency of in-person meetings. Things that could've been a few quick messages end up requiring everyone to stop what they're doing and wait.
- dijit 3y ago
  Body language, whiteboards, uncomfortable silences that get filled with information about what that person is working on or what problems they have. I would agree that communication in open office environments actually goes down. But genuinely there is a major difference in the sheer volume and quality of information when we come together.
- JohnBooty 3y ago
  I've been fully remote for years and overall, remote wins for me. But there are some things I think are good about periodic in-person meetups. What is it about in person that makes people think more communication gets done? - The real-time nature is helpful for some tasks, although you can accomplish that nearly as well with Zoom/Meet/etc. - I haven't found an online alternative that truly matches the ease of use and "flow" of a physical whiteboard. - When in-person meetings are "special" rather than an everyday norm, people seem more likely to bring their "A" game. - Lot of informal (yet important and job-related) conversation and collaboration happens in informal settings: hallways, at lunch, over drinks, at the water cooler, etc.
jemmyw 3y ago
> A week trip will usually result in 9-10 days of low productivity for example. My employer does the same. I have to travel a long way and for me it's even longer recovery. However, we go to a nice place each time and actually I think the week is very constructive for forming relationships and you get experiences that you don't get going to the office 9-5. And I don't actually care about productivity except tangentially: I want my employer to do well so they continue to pay me. If going to a fancy hotel every 6 months is part of what they see as efficient business then I'm not going to complain. And they are doing very well so it's either positive or neutral.

by dijit 3y ago

rcdemski 3y ago

I landed at wanting to work remote when I have clear direction on what my team wants to do, and meeting in person to hash out the big details. The in person bandwidth feels much greater (at least for me). Balancing both strategically lets us plan efficiently together and work efficiently at home.

cwales95 3y ago

This is my ideal scenario kinda. A company that is remote first but has offices near where you can go and work with your co-workers when it makes sense. It just seems like most places these day is one or the other in terms of remote or fully in office.

mathgeek 3y ago

> It's hugely expensive to do this and that money would be better spent on more important things. Unless the company is compensating folks for living closer to offices, they are likely just transferring those costs to the employees’ cost of living when forcing folks to live in higher cost of living areas.

dijit 3y ago
> Unless the company is compensating folks for living closer to offices, they are likely just transferring those costs to the employees’ cost of living when forcing folks to live in higher cost of living areas. Cost of living has historically been factored when determining salary, right? I don't live in a high cost of living environment (I live in Malmo, Sweden; pretty cheap by Swedish standards overall) and I won't earn as much here as I would if I was working in Zurich or Stockholm. What you say here comes across as hugely entitled since presumably you are already paid a really high salary and want to make even more relative to others in your area? By virtue of you being able to work remotely even if it comes at a cost to your productivity? As a counter: Large companies (such as IBM) typically have their campuses located outside of major metropolitan hubs where office space is cheap: is your predilection, then, that they should pay you now less? If they force a move to a lower cost of living area because they decide that? You are paid for a job in a place, and getting to that job is part of the salary for that job in some circumstances. You wouldn't expect Police officer to be paid the same in NYC vs Bryan, Ohio. If that police officer were to move to Bryan from NYC though: their travel costs and cost of living are on them, They would be paid to work in NYC.
- mathgeek 3y ago
  My comment was not in relation to my own situation. That aside, the situation you describe emphasizes my point. If the company is paying more for folks to live near the office, then the costs of travel for remote workers can and should be less than the additional compensation would be.

earthling8118 3y ago

What is it about in person that makes people think more communication gets done? I swear it's the opposite in basically every experience I've had. When we work in ways that are better for remote things go more smoothly because we're actually communicating. Nearly every time I see people get together, less is accomplished. I attribute a lot of it to the slowdown of communication due to the inefficiency of in-person meetings. Things that could've been a few quick messages end up requiring everyone to stop what they're doing and wait.

dijit 3y ago
Body language, whiteboards, uncomfortable silences that get filled with information about what that person is working on or what problems they have. I would agree that communication in open office environments actually goes down. But genuinely there is a major difference in the sheer volume and quality of information when we come together.
JohnBooty 3y ago
I've been fully remote for years and overall, remote wins for me. But there are some things I think are good about periodic in-person meetups. What is it about in person that makes people think more communication gets done? - The real-time nature is helpful for some tasks, although you can accomplish that nearly as well with Zoom/Meet/etc. - I haven't found an online alternative that truly matches the ease of use and "flow" of a physical whiteboard. - When in-person meetings are "special" rather than an everyday norm, people seem more likely to bring their "A" game. - Lot of informal (yet important and job-related) conversation and collaboration happens in informal settings: hallways, at lunch, over drinks, at the water cooler, etc.

jemmyw 3y ago

> A week trip will usually result in 9-10 days of low productivity for example. My employer does the same. I have to travel a long way and for me it's even longer recovery. However, we go to a nice place each time and actually I think the week is very constructive for forming relationships and you get experiences that you don't get going to the office 9-5. And I don't actually care about productivity except tangentially: I want my employer to do well so they continue to pay me. If going to a fancy hotel every 6 months is part of what they see as efficient business then I'm not going to complain. And they are doing very well so it's either positive or neutral.