5 ms·

If more employers understood the value of distributed teams, this wouldn't even need to be an issue. You could live exactly where you wanted to live. Want a 70

by nilkn 12y ago

If more employers understood the value of distributed teams, this wouldn't even need to be an issue. You could live exactly where you wanted to live. Want a 700 sq ft studio in Manhattan for $3k/month? Great. Want a 2000 sq ft ranch home next to a river out in the country with your own garden? Done. Want to just save as much as you can, with a cheap apartment in a cheap town outside a cheap city? You got it. Maybe you even want that $600k suburban McMansion to raise your family in. That's not a problem either. Most readers are probably going to prefer urban environments, but that's because the demographic of software developers is somewhat self-selecting. When it's nearly impossible to get a job as a developer not in an urban environment, people who don't like urban cities are going to self-select out of the profession. The high achievers among them will instead choose to become doctors, dentists, lawyers, etc. -- careers that aren't so location restricted, despite ironically being far less amenable to remote work. I had some really smart and hard-working friends growing up, and all chose to go into careers of that nature simply because they didn't want to be forced to move to a big city.

wahsd 12y ago
Very good points. It has really been baffling me why, especially in an industry like tech, where products for distributed networking and communications are developed, companies are so hell-bent on co-location. I have my suspicions that it actually has to do with tax code and incentives to have corporate offices in expensive locations, but that's just an untested theory I have at the moment.
- slantedview 12y ago
  I can understand it to an extent - tech is a pretty creative field and creative stuff definitely benefits from co-location. But most of what the average tech worker does day to day is execution, and there's no reason one can't execute from a chair in Anywhereville just as good as a chair in Palo Alto. The irony about tech being so adverse to remote work is pretty thick, at least that's what my friends in other sectors who work remote with no problem tell me. Even companies who build tools to enable remote work often don't embrace it themselves.
- logicallee 12y ago
  The most likely explanation is that it doesn't work. Bootstrapped companies are very strapped for cash. They often use a distributed team early on. if a distributed team worked, at least some startups would continue on the model - after all it's in the company culture and muscle memory. And we would hear about them. (especially when they succeed really big.) We do, sometimes hear from them: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7134592 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7134592 I currently work at bootstrapped, distributed and profitable startup. This year we did appx $15mm in rev. http://www.inc.com/profile/buysellads (member of the Inc. 500) So the question is: does this distributed model work for others? Others don't often report in. (And does it work for succeeding really big?) Maybe it's the term I'm looking, but look through this: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=distributed%20bootstrapped&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?query=distributed%20bootstrapped&sor... As you scroll down try to piece together the story you're seeing. Click through to the companies. As I read it, hiring seems to be one of their biggest challenges. They're just not growing as much as they would like. 18 people in an office can build a $1 billion company with 10 million+ users in 18 months. (instagram.) What's the closest a distributed team has come to that?
  - slantedview 12y ago
    > What's the closest a distributed team has come to that? Tough comparison since so few companies embrace remote work, but see Automattic. > does it work for succeeding really big For really big companies there's always only so many people in any given city that you can hire. What's interesting is that most office based teams are effectively distributed in the collaborative work that they do with offices in other cities, yet they don't embrace individual distributed workers.
    - logicallee 12y ago
      But my experience is that very many startups embrace remote work when they are small. (as in, thousands of them do.) They have to - they don't have a choice. It doesn't seem to scale that well. (As in, they try but fail to scale it.) This is just my experience or impression.
  - 12y ago
- Domenic_S 12y ago
  > where products for distributed networking and communications are developed, companies are so hell-bent on co-location. IME, not everyone has equal experience using those tools. It's WAY easier to do a cubicle fly-by than to train your non-technical workforce how Skype works (if that sounds crazy, trust me - it's not). I work mostly remotely, but I care deeply about communication. I've invested in a great headset so calls aren't plagued by WFH artifacts. I have a cough button. I have a dedicated office in my house. I get up, showered, and dressed every day so I'm online and ready for an ad-hoc video call at all business hours. My internet is fast and stable, and I have two backups in the very rare case it goes down (iPhone tether, Verizon hotspot). In sum, I don't want my convenience (wfh) to inconvenience anyone else, so I do everything I can to make that the case. It's worked out really well so far. But I can tell you, most developers don't go through the hassle.
e40 12y ago
Two things: not every place has access to excellent broadband and the legal and accounting issues for a distributed workforce can be significant, depending on where your home office is located. It could, for example, for you to pay taxes in that state and account for any sales the remote employee had a hand in. It's not too complex, but it requires a lot of attention to detail. It drives my HR and accounting department up the wall sometimes, too. We had to pay for the healthcare for an ex-wife of an employee in one state, because that state mandates it. (Yes, MA.) Lots of little things that are hard to run down, and can be surprising once you find out.
- jamiesonbecker 12y ago
  Incorporate: https://twitter.com/JamiesonBecker/status/570325065419481088 https://twitter.com/JamiesonBecker/status/570325065419481088
a2kadet 12y ago
>If more employers understood the value of distributed teams, this wouldn't even need to be an issue. I would say I'm pretty against distributed teams at the moment. Would you mind elaborating on the value of them?
- slantedview 12y ago
  Assuming this is a serious question, you can hire whoever you want without worrying about their location. The world is your talent pool. Or to put it another way, almost every recruiter e-mail I respond to states that I am not interested in relocating (usually to the bay area). Requiring all of your employees to sit in the same building is not just old fashioned, it misses out on talent that chooses to live elsewhere.
  - nilkn 12y ago
    The other big one is that the company can save a lot of money on office space. If necessary, a small HQ can still be located in San Francisco or Silicon Valley for physical proximity to investors, but you don't need to worry about getting a big, fancy and expensive space to house all your workers. For a funded startup, this means the burn rate is a lot lower. For a bootstrapped company, it just means the company has a lot more money to spend elsewhere or save; they could even roll the savings into higher salaries to attract better talent (which fits with your point as well). You're never going to have to worry about whether you need an open floorplan or not, because by default everybody gets a custom-designed private office.
Domenic_S 12y ago
> You could live exactly where you wanted to live. Until that awesome employer has layoffs and your options get really limited out in Nowhere, UT.
- nilkn 12y ago
  I agree with you. There are so few companies that support remote work that this is the biggest issues with working remotely.
- jamiesonbecker 12y ago
  Recent CB Insights (crunchbase) analysis found that Utah is the best (least competitive vs amount raised) place to raise a funding round. And the powder ain't so bad. :) (not too bad taxes, either, if you prefer cold over Texas's heat & zero taxes..)
gfodor 12y ago
> If more employers understood the value of distributed teams, this wouldn't even need to be an issue. If something like this seems obvious to you, and obviously a lot of smart people are acting in the opposite way, maybe you should re-consider your assumptions. In reality, online communication tools currently are a poor proxy for in-person communication in many situations. Online tools do not pick up the array of non-verbal cues humans make when talking to one another, are not stereoscopic, do not allow freedom of motion, do not permit the collaborative use of 3d space, etc. They are a piss poor real time communication medium compared to an in-person conversation in a room with whiteboards. If you can never actually have a face to face conversation with someone on your team, there's an entire dimension to communication you are completely prevented from ever experiencing with that person.
- ryguytilidie 12y ago
  Whenever someone gives the response you just gave, I wish they would also consider how inefficient the current system of jamming hundreds of developers into small rooms is. Communication with distributed teams is certainly imperfect, but I think that there are bigger drawbacks to hiring an entire team in one place and forcing them all to move there and work in less than ideal conditions.
- wpietri 12y ago
  Amen. For 15 years I've been hoping that the dream of fully distributed teams would come to pass, but I don't think we're there yet for many use cases. In particular, I think distributed teams work best when a) people already have strong relationships built via plenty of in-person interaction, b) they meet regularly in person, and c) the nature of the work is relatively predictable. There's definitely some work like that, but early-stage startups benefit a great deal from in person communication, which is high bandwidth, low latency, and very high quality.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- Homunculiheaded 12y ago
  I've worked remote for quite awhile now at a pretty broad range of companies. For the jobs that have had remote teams and local offices I do agree that I'm able to get a lot of communication done quickly when I visit the office. However I find that the amount of "heads down" work I get done is greatly diminished when I'm in an office. And, much worse, there's a lot of noise in that added communication of being in the office. Remote teams, in my experience, have dramatically less "office politics". Office space is great for communicating "big ideas" but these aren't anywhere near the bulk of communications being had. For most of the communications needs of software remote works fine (in my experience better). I work on a quite a few "big idea" projects and I've found the best solution is to visit the office quarterly, get all the big idea brainstorming done, then scurry off to my remote office where I'm not distracted by office politics and can just get things done. A little face time goes a long way, and annual, or semi-annual all hands meetups can do wonders at filling in the gaps created on remote teams.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

by nilkn 12y ago

wahsd 12y ago

Very good points. It has really been baffling me why, especially in an industry like tech, where products for distributed networking and communications are developed, companies are so hell-bent on co-location. I have my suspicions that it actually has to do with tax code and incentives to have corporate offices in expensive locations, but that's just an untested theory I have at the moment.

slantedview 12y ago
I can understand it to an extent - tech is a pretty creative field and creative stuff definitely benefits from co-location. But most of what the average tech worker does day to day is execution, and there's no reason one can't execute from a chair in Anywhereville just as good as a chair in Palo Alto. The irony about tech being so adverse to remote work is pretty thick, at least that's what my friends in other sectors who work remote with no problem tell me. Even companies who build tools to enable remote work often don't embrace it themselves.
logicallee 12y ago
The most likely explanation is that it doesn't work. Bootstrapped companies are very strapped for cash. They often use a distributed team early on. if a distributed team worked, at least some startups would continue on the model - after all it's in the company culture and muscle memory. And we would hear about them. (especially when they succeed really big.) We do, sometimes hear from them: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7134592 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7134592 I currently work at bootstrapped, distributed and profitable startup. This year we did appx $15mm in rev. http://www.inc.com/profile/buysellads (member of the Inc. 500) So the question is: does this distributed model work for others? Others don't often report in. (And does it work for succeeding really big?) Maybe it's the term I'm looking, but look through this: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=distributed%20bootstrapped&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?query=distributed%20bootstrapped&sor... As you scroll down try to piece together the story you're seeing. Click through to the companies. As I read it, hiring seems to be one of their biggest challenges. They're just not growing as much as they would like. 18 people in an office can build a $1 billion company with 10 million+ users in 18 months. (instagram.) What's the closest a distributed team has come to that?
- slantedview 12y ago
  > What's the closest a distributed team has come to that? Tough comparison since so few companies embrace remote work, but see Automattic. > does it work for succeeding really big For really big companies there's always only so many people in any given city that you can hire. What's interesting is that most office based teams are effectively distributed in the collaborative work that they do with offices in other cities, yet they don't embrace individual distributed workers.
  - logicallee 12y ago
    But my experience is that very many startups embrace remote work when they are small. (as in, thousands of them do.) They have to - they don't have a choice. It doesn't seem to scale that well. (As in, they try but fail to scale it.) This is just my experience or impression.
- 12y ago
Domenic_S 12y ago
> where products for distributed networking and communications are developed, companies are so hell-bent on co-location. IME, not everyone has equal experience using those tools. It's WAY easier to do a cubicle fly-by than to train your non-technical workforce how Skype works (if that sounds crazy, trust me - it's not). I work mostly remotely, but I care deeply about communication. I've invested in a great headset so calls aren't plagued by WFH artifacts. I have a cough button. I have a dedicated office in my house. I get up, showered, and dressed every day so I'm online and ready for an ad-hoc video call at all business hours. My internet is fast and stable, and I have two backups in the very rare case it goes down (iPhone tether, Verizon hotspot). In sum, I don't want my convenience (wfh) to inconvenience anyone else, so I do everything I can to make that the case. It's worked out really well so far. But I can tell you, most developers don't go through the hassle.

e40 12y ago

Two things: not every place has access to excellent broadband and the legal and accounting issues for a distributed workforce can be significant, depending on where your home office is located. It could, for example, for you to pay taxes in that state and account for any sales the remote employee had a hand in. It's not too complex, but it requires a lot of attention to detail. It drives my HR and accounting department up the wall sometimes, too. We had to pay for the healthcare for an ex-wife of an employee in one state, because that state mandates it. (Yes, MA.) Lots of little things that are hard to run down, and can be surprising once you find out.

jamiesonbecker 12y ago
Incorporate: https://twitter.com/JamiesonBecker/status/570325065419481088 https://twitter.com/JamiesonBecker/status/570325065419481088

a2kadet 12y ago

>If more employers understood the value of distributed teams, this wouldn't even need to be an issue. I would say I'm pretty against distributed teams at the moment. Would you mind elaborating on the value of them?

slantedview 12y ago
Assuming this is a serious question, you can hire whoever you want without worrying about their location. The world is your talent pool. Or to put it another way, almost every recruiter e-mail I respond to states that I am not interested in relocating (usually to the bay area). Requiring all of your employees to sit in the same building is not just old fashioned, it misses out on talent that chooses to live elsewhere.
- nilkn 12y ago
  The other big one is that the company can save a lot of money on office space. If necessary, a small HQ can still be located in San Francisco or Silicon Valley for physical proximity to investors, but you don't need to worry about getting a big, fancy and expensive space to house all your workers. For a funded startup, this means the burn rate is a lot lower. For a bootstrapped company, it just means the company has a lot more money to spend elsewhere or save; they could even roll the savings into higher salaries to attract better talent (which fits with your point as well). You're never going to have to worry about whether you need an open floorplan or not, because by default everybody gets a custom-designed private office.

Domenic_S 12y ago

> You could live exactly where you wanted to live. Until that awesome employer has layoffs and your options get really limited out in Nowhere, UT.

nilkn 12y ago
I agree with you. There are so few companies that support remote work that this is the biggest issues with working remotely.
jamiesonbecker 12y ago
Recent CB Insights (crunchbase) analysis found that Utah is the best (least competitive vs amount raised) place to raise a funding round. And the powder ain't so bad. :) (not too bad taxes, either, if you prefer cold over Texas's heat & zero taxes..)

gfodor 12y ago

> If more employers understood the value of distributed teams, this wouldn't even need to be an issue. If something like this seems obvious to you, and obviously a lot of smart people are acting in the opposite way, maybe you should re-consider your assumptions. In reality, online communication tools currently are a poor proxy for in-person communication in many situations. Online tools do not pick up the array of non-verbal cues humans make when talking to one another, are not stereoscopic, do not allow freedom of motion, do not permit the collaborative use of 3d space, etc. They are a piss poor real time communication medium compared to an in-person conversation in a room with whiteboards. If you can never actually have a face to face conversation with someone on your team, there's an entire dimension to communication you are completely prevented from ever experiencing with that person.

ryguytilidie 12y ago
Whenever someone gives the response you just gave, I wish they would also consider how inefficient the current system of jamming hundreds of developers into small rooms is. Communication with distributed teams is certainly imperfect, but I think that there are bigger drawbacks to hiring an entire team in one place and forcing them all to move there and work in less than ideal conditions.
wpietri 12y ago
Amen. For 15 years I've been hoping that the dream of fully distributed teams would come to pass, but I don't think we're there yet for many use cases. In particular, I think distributed teams work best when a) people already have strong relationships built via plenty of in-person interaction, b) they meet regularly in person, and c) the nature of the work is relatively predictable. There's definitely some work like that, but early-stage startups benefit a great deal from in person communication, which is high bandwidth, low latency, and very high quality.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Homunculiheaded 12y ago
I've worked remote for quite awhile now at a pretty broad range of companies. For the jobs that have had remote teams and local offices I do agree that I'm able to get a lot of communication done quickly when I visit the office. However I find that the amount of "heads down" work I get done is greatly diminished when I'm in an office. And, much worse, there's a lot of noise in that added communication of being in the office. Remote teams, in my experience, have dramatically less "office politics". Office space is great for communicating "big ideas" but these aren't anywhere near the bulk of communications being had. For most of the communications needs of software remote works fine (in my experience better). I work on a quite a few "big idea" projects and I've found the best solution is to visit the office quarterly, get all the big idea brainstorming done, then scurry off to my remote office where I'm not distracted by office politics and can just get things done. A little face time goes a long way, and annual, or semi-annual all hands meetups can do wonders at filling in the gaps created on remote teams.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]