4 ms·

How do you know they're flaming out/struggling/etc because of remote work issues rather than other issues like company culture etc?

mercanlIl 1mo ago
I’ve talked with colleagues that have confirmed exactly what the parent comment is saying. They benefit from the external structure, routine, and separation of work/home life. Some people just don’t want to work next to their gaming PC, completely unsupervised. Others live alone and don’t live near their friends and family. Both these groups (can) suffer from a fully remote environment.
- toomuchtodo 1mo ago
  I fully support coworking spaces for folks who need the in person socialization (especially in the context of entry level and juniors), but I will leave the labor force entirely before I ever go back into an office (~12 years remote, ~25 years in tech). I have a partner and kids, coworkers are not my friends (we simply share a paycheck provider and a body of shared work), but I understand other lives and the needs of others differs. Your social needs are not my needs. I get to eat lunch with my partner every day, see my kids more, no commute, etc.
  - jambalaya8 1mo ago
    Either at the company or at home (though I mean working at a coffee shop sometimes isn't so bad). Coworking spaces might help with socialization and some people need it but I am not sure how that benefits who you work for.
    - deleted 1mo ago
      [deleted]
    - dijksterhuis 1mo ago
      > Coworking spaces might help with socialization and some people need it but I am not sure how that benefits who you work for. because, as someone else i replied to in the thread points out, miserable employees perform worse.
      - jambalaya8 1mo ago
        I get that. I said as much. Though suggesting employers should have no say in where their employees work on generally work protected by intellectual property law is tricky. If they have an office, usually that is where they want you to work if the goal is an office setting. Some companies do not and rent out coworking space. Different.
        ghaff 1mo ago
        Very anecdotally, it seems to go both ways. If there is a relatively local office, people are generally expected to go in. If there isn't, the employee often pays (but not always).
        jambalaya8 1mo ago
        I believe some tax accountants say it can be used as a write-off (just like a certain number of square feet of where you live, if it is only and demonstrably for that). But as far as preference, I would be surprised if a company with an office somewhere near would be pleased with you working in a coworking space. Maybe some but big companies, probably legal issues (VPN or not).
        ghaff 1mo ago
        My accountant always told me maybe but there are conditions and it's a red flag.
      - jambalaya8 1mo ago
        I am curious, do believe that a company or an employee is responsible for paying for a ersatz "coworking space" (ersatz, in that the employer did not choose that as a place for their employees to work)?
  - guelo 1mo ago
    You also share a professional social network which is something you own separately from any company and I have found to be very valuable and strengthened by in-person work.
  - phil21 1mo ago
    I've worked remote most of my career. Starting in the late 90's if you squint hard enough. I built my first little company as remote-first before we knew what to call it. I had to be very careful who I would hire, since only a relatively small percentage of folks (around a third, by my estimate) were ready and able to be self-motivated and disciplined enough to work remotely. And my company was built with remote work in mind from the ground up. Asynchronous comms, everything written down, very well established information systems and work process, etc. I then worked for a company that became remote by accident. They were obviously an in-person company that never once sat down to figure out a remote-first work culture. It was the most exhausting and unproductive work of my life. Constant meetings, almost no concept of async comms, etc. That company would have worked 1,000% better as an in-person traditional company and the lack of mature process or strict guidelines could have been papered over. My rule of thumb now is that any company that expects you to be on more than a very small handful of Zoom calls a week is not worth working for. If you need meetings to sync up work like that, you likely have horrible remote work infrastructure, tools, processes, and culture. It seems a number of companies somehow combine the absolutely worst aspects of in-person work with the worst aspects of remote work and expect to see good results. Now - my absolute favorite way to work - was when my little company got acquired by a larger company and I effectively ran a small division where we worked remotely, but came into the office if/when we felt like it. That worked because everyone else had to be in the office though, so it wasn't exactly fair. But man, being able to take a 15 minute train ride downtown to spend a day or two in the office each week if I felt like it after I woke up each morning was by far the best of both worlds for me. I could do different types of work in each location to sort of break up my week, and get the benefits of the in-person socialization and relationship building with the lack of scheduling stress and deep focus time remote working gives you. Still though. I cannot stress enough how shitty Zoom calls are. Anything to do with video calls will be completely banned from any org I run should I ever get the startup itch again. At least on the engineering side of things. Either in person meetings if you must, or phone calls so people don't need to be uselessly staring at a screen for hours each day. I've found that following an Open Source model of collaboration works well for remote companies. And it gave me a hiring pool of talent with demonstrable abilities to get shit done without needing to be in an office. No open source project is running daily standup video calls.
deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]
Aurornis 1mo ago
The most undeniable examples were when we worked at a company that had offices, but allowed people to work remote at their discretion. The people who were burning out at home would become revived and re-energized when they came into the office for something and would stay that way for a week or two. Then they would slide back into burnout and social problems (assuming benign interactions were hostile in Slack or that people were backstabbing the. was common) the longer they were away from the office. Some people had the self-awareness to start bringing themselves back to the office for a few days each week and would directly admit they struggled to work from home. It’s really not uncommon and readily acknowledged in every offline remote work environment I’ve been in. It’s only on social media where you run into claims that remote works well for everyone.
- jambalaya8 1mo ago
  Thank you. This. The backstabbing and passive aggression are so much more trenchant.
  - shigawire 1mo ago
    It strikes me how broad the range in work experiences are. I have never had coworkers who cared about anything besides getting the work done. The idea of politics in the workplace is foreign to me, but I know it is common.
    - jambalaya8 1mo ago
      I had a lot more of that experience before the first dotcom bubble burst. Harder and harder to not know your coworkers political beliefs even if they do not talk about them at work now.
- vector_spaces 1mo ago
  Likewise online you run into claims that full remote or hybrid can't and doesn't work for anyone, and we all interpret observed dynamics at work to construct theories supportive of whichever configuration is our favorite (WFH/Hybrid/In Office) or as evidence the one we dislike is worse. In reality the situation is messy and complicated and heavily circumstantial, depending on team/company culture and dynamics and working styles. For instance, I've observed dynamics like what you describe at various orgs, and what they had in common was a lack of psychological safety. If people are responding defensively to benign messages then it tends to mean they have a reason to expect hostile messages. Hostile messages are not a given. One common way this arises: a company ostensibly offers flexible remote work, but in practice strongly prefers in-office work, and enforces this via social pressure. Remote work has a small social cost that accumulates each full day that one works remotely. These remote-oriented workers then have to periodically show up at the office primarily to ingratiate themselves to management and their peers. This is incredibly common, and might even be the default configuration for an org that permits flexible WFH. I don't think this is intentionally malicious, BTW. It's simply what happens when you make a policy shift without considering your team culture as well so that both working styles are supported as first-class citizens.

mercanlIl 1mo ago

I’ve talked with colleagues that have confirmed exactly what the parent comment is saying. They benefit from the external structure, routine, and separation of work/home life. Some people just don’t want to work next to their gaming PC, completely unsupervised. Others live alone and don’t live near their friends and family. Both these groups (can) suffer from a fully remote environment.

toomuchtodo 1mo ago
I fully support coworking spaces for folks who need the in person socialization (especially in the context of entry level and juniors), but I will leave the labor force entirely before I ever go back into an office (~12 years remote, ~25 years in tech). I have a partner and kids, coworkers are not my friends (we simply share a paycheck provider and a body of shared work), but I understand other lives and the needs of others differs. Your social needs are not my needs. I get to eat lunch with my partner every day, see my kids more, no commute, etc.
- jambalaya8 1mo ago
  Either at the company or at home (though I mean working at a coffee shop sometimes isn't so bad). Coworking spaces might help with socialization and some people need it but I am not sure how that benefits who you work for.
  - deleted 1mo ago
    [deleted]
  - dijksterhuis 1mo ago
    > Coworking spaces might help with socialization and some people need it but I am not sure how that benefits who you work for. because, as someone else i replied to in the thread points out, miserable employees perform worse.
    - jambalaya8 1mo ago
      I get that. I said as much. Though suggesting employers should have no say in where their employees work on generally work protected by intellectual property law is tricky. If they have an office, usually that is where they want you to work if the goal is an office setting. Some companies do not and rent out coworking space. Different.
      - ghaff 1mo ago
        Very anecdotally, it seems to go both ways. If there is a relatively local office, people are generally expected to go in. If there isn't, the employee often pays (but not always).
        jambalaya8 1mo ago
        I believe some tax accountants say it can be used as a write-off (just like a certain number of square feet of where you live, if it is only and demonstrably for that). But as far as preference, I would be surprised if a company with an office somewhere near would be pleased with you working in a coworking space. Maybe some but big companies, probably legal issues (VPN or not).
        ghaff 1mo ago
        My accountant always told me maybe but there are conditions and it's a red flag.
    - jambalaya8 1mo ago
      I am curious, do believe that a company or an employee is responsible for paying for a ersatz "coworking space" (ersatz, in that the employer did not choose that as a place for their employees to work)?
- guelo 1mo ago
  You also share a professional social network which is something you own separately from any company and I have found to be very valuable and strengthened by in-person work.
- phil21 1mo ago
  I've worked remote most of my career. Starting in the late 90's if you squint hard enough. I built my first little company as remote-first before we knew what to call it. I had to be very careful who I would hire, since only a relatively small percentage of folks (around a third, by my estimate) were ready and able to be self-motivated and disciplined enough to work remotely. And my company was built with remote work in mind from the ground up. Asynchronous comms, everything written down, very well established information systems and work process, etc. I then worked for a company that became remote by accident. They were obviously an in-person company that never once sat down to figure out a remote-first work culture. It was the most exhausting and unproductive work of my life. Constant meetings, almost no concept of async comms, etc. That company would have worked 1,000% better as an in-person traditional company and the lack of mature process or strict guidelines could have been papered over. My rule of thumb now is that any company that expects you to be on more than a very small handful of Zoom calls a week is not worth working for. If you need meetings to sync up work like that, you likely have horrible remote work infrastructure, tools, processes, and culture. It seems a number of companies somehow combine the absolutely worst aspects of in-person work with the worst aspects of remote work and expect to see good results. Now - my absolute favorite way to work - was when my little company got acquired by a larger company and I effectively ran a small division where we worked remotely, but came into the office if/when we felt like it. That worked because everyone else had to be in the office though, so it wasn't exactly fair. But man, being able to take a 15 minute train ride downtown to spend a day or two in the office each week if I felt like it after I woke up each morning was by far the best of both worlds for me. I could do different types of work in each location to sort of break up my week, and get the benefits of the in-person socialization and relationship building with the lack of scheduling stress and deep focus time remote working gives you. Still though. I cannot stress enough how shitty Zoom calls are. Anything to do with video calls will be completely banned from any org I run should I ever get the startup itch again. At least on the engineering side of things. Either in person meetings if you must, or phone calls so people don't need to be uselessly staring at a screen for hours each day. I've found that following an Open Source model of collaboration works well for remote companies. And it gave me a hiring pool of talent with demonstrable abilities to get shit done without needing to be in an office. No open source project is running daily standup video calls.

deleted 1mo ago

[deleted]

Aurornis 1mo ago

The most undeniable examples were when we worked at a company that had offices, but allowed people to work remote at their discretion. The people who were burning out at home would become revived and re-energized when they came into the office for something and would stay that way for a week or two. Then they would slide back into burnout and social problems (assuming benign interactions were hostile in Slack or that people were backstabbing the. was common) the longer they were away from the office. Some people had the self-awareness to start bringing themselves back to the office for a few days each week and would directly admit they struggled to work from home. It’s really not uncommon and readily acknowledged in every offline remote work environment I’ve been in. It’s only on social media where you run into claims that remote works well for everyone.

jambalaya8 1mo ago
Thank you. This. The backstabbing and passive aggression are so much more trenchant.
- shigawire 1mo ago
  It strikes me how broad the range in work experiences are. I have never had coworkers who cared about anything besides getting the work done. The idea of politics in the workplace is foreign to me, but I know it is common.
  - jambalaya8 1mo ago
    I had a lot more of that experience before the first dotcom bubble burst. Harder and harder to not know your coworkers political beliefs even if they do not talk about them at work now.
vector_spaces 1mo ago
Likewise online you run into claims that full remote or hybrid can't and doesn't work for anyone, and we all interpret observed dynamics at work to construct theories supportive of whichever configuration is our favorite (WFH/Hybrid/In Office) or as evidence the one we dislike is worse. In reality the situation is messy and complicated and heavily circumstantial, depending on team/company culture and dynamics and working styles. For instance, I've observed dynamics like what you describe at various orgs, and what they had in common was a lack of psychological safety. If people are responding defensively to benign messages then it tends to mean they have a reason to expect hostile messages. Hostile messages are not a given. One common way this arises: a company ostensibly offers flexible remote work, but in practice strongly prefers in-office work, and enforces this via social pressure. Remote work has a small social cost that accumulates each full day that one works remotely. These remote-oriented workers then have to periodically show up at the office primarily to ingratiate themselves to management and their peers. This is incredibly common, and might even be the default configuration for an org that permits flexible WFH. I don't think this is intentionally malicious, BTW. It's simply what happens when you make a policy shift without considering your team culture as well so that both working styles are supported as first-class citizens.