3 ms·

Excellent analysis of remote working. I worked for nine years remotely (full-time for the last three years) with an entirely remote team, and most of this artic

by zedpm 12y ago

Excellent analysis of remote working. I worked for nine years remotely (full-time for the last three years) with an entirely remote team, and most of this article rings true. Flying team members in every so often for in-person meetings is hugely valuable. This subject is near and dear to me, as I live in a rural area and I'd like to find another full-time remote position. I'm frustrated by the opposition to remote devs from so many tech companies, who ought to be the last ones to resist this obvious solution. Many of the reasons ring hollow when the same companies lament the lack of qualified candidates to fill their positions -- they're essentially saying that they'd rather do without than deal with the potential downsides of remote workers.

gii 12y ago
This is due to mediocre middle/upper management. For them it is a huge difference if you are the building next to theirs or in some rural area, although in both cases you will communicate through the wire. The business is already global, soon or later they'll have to accept this.
jmccree 12y ago
This subject is interesting to me. I've worked remote my entire career, and mostly positive experiences. One negative experience was at a place struggling to fill positions and opened up to remote team members, but they did not change the company culture to support the remote members, and as a result all of the remote members were gone within a year or two and the experiment deemed "a failure". So I understand why some companies are reluctant to bring on remote members. It requires your entire company culture to change if you want a remote team member and not just someone used as basically contract labor. For a team used to making decisions and having conversations in person, it's a big change to have to move everything online to include the remote person/s. It can breed resentment on both sides. In my negative experience I would find out decisions had been made days ago while the on-site team was out to lunch together, and no one had informed those of us working remotely. Change is not easy. Companies that started with a remote workflow or commit fully to embracing a remote workflow can make teams located anywhere work. Adding on remote team members without a culture change to support it is a recipe for disaster.

by zedpm 12y ago

gii 12y ago

This is due to mediocre middle/upper management. For them it is a huge difference if you are the building next to theirs or in some rural area, although in both cases you will communicate through the wire. The business is already global, soon or later they'll have to accept this.

jmccree 12y ago

This subject is interesting to me. I've worked remote my entire career, and mostly positive experiences. One negative experience was at a place struggling to fill positions and opened up to remote team members, but they did not change the company culture to support the remote members, and as a result all of the remote members were gone within a year or two and the experiment deemed "a failure". So I understand why some companies are reluctant to bring on remote members. It requires your entire company culture to change if you want a remote team member and not just someone used as basically contract labor. For a team used to making decisions and having conversations in person, it's a big change to have to move everything online to include the remote person/s. It can breed resentment on both sides. In my negative experience I would find out decisions had been made days ago while the on-site team was out to lunch together, and no one had informed those of us working remotely. Change is not easy. Companies that started with a remote workflow or commit fully to embracing a remote workflow can make teams located anywhere work. Adding on remote team members without a culture change to support it is a recipe for disaster.