> It sounds to me like you expected managing remotely to be exactly the same as managing locally. You expected to be able to gauge the morale of the team, to kn

> It sounds to me like you expected managing remotely to be exactly the same as managing locally. You expected to be able to gauge the morale of the team, to know what people though of the groups future, etc without having to actually DO anything. No, I think this is pretty far off. I knew it'd be different being remote, and I knew I'd have to work harder to be in touch and involved. Being remote ended up working OK, it just wasn't as optimal as being on-site. I missed being there on-site, and felt like I could have been more effective had I been. It wasn't for any lack of desire or effort, it's just a sub-optimal arrangement for us in particular. The rest of your reply seemed to assume that I thought there'd be no difference in remote vs on-site (which is incorrect), so I won't respond to the rest.