Remote startups will win the war for top talent(future.com)
future.com
Remote startups will win the war for top talent
https://future.com/remote-startups-hire-top-talent/
491 comments
This is a big one that it took me a while to fully appreciate
I've found that even just turning my camera on in Zoom meetings makes a difference. Joining the standup call a little early, having "face to face" chitchat, builds up a small buffer of rapport that significantly improves empathy and perceived intent
Especially if you need to have a conversation where there might be some existing friction/tension/frustration, doing it over video instead of text or just audio will hugely increase the good-faith nature of the conversation
And of course, the occasional in-person hangout helps too, if you happen to be in the same city as your coworkers. What's important is that you each form an impression of the other as a human being, and not just as a faceless mechanism in the org that may be helping you or getting in your way at a given moment
I've found that even just turning my camera on in Zoom meetings makes a difference. Joining the standup call a little early, having "face to face" chitchat, builds up a small buffer of rapport that significantly improves empathy and perceived intent
Especially if you need to have a conversation where there might be some existing friction/tension/frustration, doing it over video instead of text or just audio will hugely increase the good-faith nature of the conversation
And of course, the occasional in-person hangout helps too, if you happen to be in the same city as your coworkers. What's important is that you each form an impression of the other as a human being, and not just as a faceless mechanism in the org that may be helping you or getting in your way at a given moment
I agree with joining the meeting a little early. It is nice to catch up with people.
I am in a hybrid situation now, so I try to take different team members out for coffee and give them some one on one face time when they are in the office on the same day me.
I am in a hybrid situation now, so I try to take different team members out for coffee and give them some one on one face time when they are in the office on the same day me.
> having "face to face" chitchat, builds up a small buffer of rapport that significantly improves empathy and perceived intent
On my team we have a weekly 30-minute meeting for non-work-related updates. A chance to talk about whatever you did in the past week outside of work, or about anything else that currently interests you. It typically prompts a lot of follow-on conversations in Slack afterwards.
It might be nicer if this happened organically, and didn't require an explicitly scheduled meeting. But we consider it important enough that we carve out the time to make it clear that it's a team norm.
On my team we have a weekly 30-minute meeting for non-work-related updates. A chance to talk about whatever you did in the past week outside of work, or about anything else that currently interests you. It typically prompts a lot of follow-on conversations in Slack afterwards.
It might be nicer if this happened organically, and didn't require an explicitly scheduled meeting. But we consider it important enough that we carve out the time to make it clear that it's a team norm.
I've spent a lot of effort trying to be present in Zoom now that we've gone all remote. I've invested in a decent setup. I connect using ethernet on my work laptop so there aren't any latency concerns. I have a high quality headset so there's no feedback and good quality audio. I have a nice camera and some lights to make sure my face is illuminated. I rely a lot on whiteboarding at work, so I try (and find this to be a huge pain point, I'd love alternatives) to use an old Wacom tablet to draw in GIMP (well Seashore, but I dislike both) to whiteboard over Zoom. Whiteboarding still gives me the most heartburn in my setup.
I still find it hard to build new connections over Zoom but I find that by putting effort into being present over Zoom that I connect much better and others are encouraged to have smalltalk with me before/after meetings.
I still find it hard to build new connections over Zoom but I find that by putting effort into being present over Zoom that I connect much better and others are encouraged to have smalltalk with me before/after meetings.
Excalidraw[0] is the best tool I've found for whiteboarding over Zoom. Just enough structure to let you quickly sketch out what you're talking about, but without the rigidity of a Visio or Lucidchart.
0: https://excalidraw.com/
0: https://excalidraw.com/
It is a little bit more effort, but you can mirror an ipad/ipad pro to your desktop. It is a much nicer whiteboard than wacom especially if you have the apple pen.
Although I've had the same observation, I've been observing it long before I started working remotely: I'd drive 30-45 minutes into an office and then spend the day emailing or IM-ing people in different cities, countries and continents. It's been over 20 years since even most of the people I interacted with on a daily basis were anywhere near the same physical location as I was.
Yeah, it's not limited to remote specifically, for sure.
I had the same experience in an office setting when working as an internal consultant at a big corporation. I'd often be helping teams on the other side of the globe on short-lived projects.
When you don't ever meet the people you're working with face to face, it's just easier to misinterpret what people say.
I had the same experience in an office setting when working as an internal consultant at a big corporation. I'd often be helping teams on the other side of the globe on short-lived projects.
When you don't ever meet the people you're working with face to face, it's just easier to misinterpret what people say.
Do you think your situation is common / average? I would say "no" from my experience.
If those people could sit next to you, do you think your collaboration would be higher?
If those people could sit next to you, do you think your collaboration would be higher?
I’ve been remote a little over 9 years now. When I read a message that sounds a bit hostile, or the tone sounds a bit off, I reread it in an intentionally happy voice. Sometimes this helps me reframe it. Failing this I simply reach out on a video call.
I remember the epics fights I would get into with my online irc buddies when I was a youngun
Remote work is not a panacea, there are tradeoffs. Investing more effort into building remote relationships is definitely worth working at home and not having to commute.
Excellent insight.
Remote work is not a panacea, there are tradeoffs. Investing more effort into building remote relationships is definitely worth working at home and not having to commute.
Excellent insight.
agreed, really good point and I use “be nice twice” as a way to try to avoid it. The other aspect is I try to avoid participating in the “social media of work,” which I guess is like the resulting meta-community created by having work built in a Slack with text-based communication.
People get themselves into the dardnest trouble over a work Slack thread they just couldn’t drop.
People get themselves into the dardnest trouble over a work Slack thread they just couldn’t drop.
Regarding too easily getting frustrated over messaging, I have only one rule to avoid that and it's been working well for me -- Whenever any message threads that requires more than back and forth once over, hop on a Zoom call.
> Written text is the majority of remote communication.
It's the majority of office comms too...
It's the majority of office comms too...
I've been working remote for about a year now and haven't had this issue. Maybe that's because 90% of our communication is done during meetings where we have tone to convey intent
Follow the Hacker News guidelines at work.
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
This only works in a small team or a small company -- "high trust scenario". As soon as your team grows to medium/large (or company same) -- "low(er) trust scenario", then politics really matters. This rule can be thrown out the window. People will show one face to you and another to their manager.
A noble goal but in practice you can't force people to do this.
> I don't have an easy solution.
Isn't RTO pretty easy?
Isn't RTO pretty easy?
"Your remote team is my company's opportunity."
Purely anecdotal based on my own experience, but at my company we have some people who work in an office and lots more that work remotely. The in office staff contribute more ideas, work, fixes, and functional software than the remote teams by a factor of 4 or 5, or sometimes, depending on the in office worker, 10 times. Those are hard numbers right out of our project management system. It's simply easier to hash out hard problems in person that it is on a remote team, and the context is key. You have all the little asides, ah ha's! and comments collected up that provide a better picture than any remote team can get unless they have their headsets on the whole time.
Not that you couldn't have a good remote team - I just think the methods of communication available are not best suited to our monkey brains. We're social animal, and we work best socially.
What this has allowed us to do is beat out other development teams, both inside and outside the company. Hasn't gone unnoticed - we also get the most important projects and are paid the most. When it matters, the in-house people get the work.
YMMV, of course, this is just one place, but I think a lot of people who want to work at home aren't interested in their success as making their work life easier.
Purely anecdotal based on my own experience, but at my company we have some people who work in an office and lots more that work remotely. The in office staff contribute more ideas, work, fixes, and functional software than the remote teams by a factor of 4 or 5, or sometimes, depending on the in office worker, 10 times. Those are hard numbers right out of our project management system. It's simply easier to hash out hard problems in person that it is on a remote team, and the context is key. You have all the little asides, ah ha's! and comments collected up that provide a better picture than any remote team can get unless they have their headsets on the whole time.
Not that you couldn't have a good remote team - I just think the methods of communication available are not best suited to our monkey brains. We're social animal, and we work best socially.
What this has allowed us to do is beat out other development teams, both inside and outside the company. Hasn't gone unnoticed - we also get the most important projects and are paid the most. When it matters, the in-house people get the work.
YMMV, of course, this is just one place, but I think a lot of people who want to work at home aren't interested in their success as making their work life easier.
Pretty strong chance the “noticers” are on-prem, not remote, and may be (literally) prejudiced.*
Also, bit of indication in “hard numbers out of project mgmt system” and “all the little asides, ahas…” coupled with “unless they have their headsets on the whole time” that your company may have optimized for local ideas and local capture.
Consider (a) ensuring project and idea capture tools are “remote first” oriented (tools that work remotely work just fine in office, inverse is not true), such as dropping whiteboards and using digital collaborative tools for whiteboarding even locally, e.g. …
This was the single most important contributor to the culture change at firms I’ve helped go fully remote since the 90s. The nanosecond something elevates from chit chat into an action, everyone in the company needs to gate-keep: “Could you please share/ask/direct that in [the digital place]?”
The second most important was ensuring [the digital place] is frictionless, using social media habit apps as benchmarks, not, say, Jira.
In my experience, after initial chaos, then learning, then crossing a tipping point, productivity went through the roof, and following that, these firms absolutely spanked on-prem only firms at caliber of talent and pace of delivery of outcomes into client hands.
> I think a lot of people who want to work at home aren’t interested in their success
* There it is.
Also, bit of indication in “hard numbers out of project mgmt system” and “all the little asides, ahas…” coupled with “unless they have their headsets on the whole time” that your company may have optimized for local ideas and local capture.
Consider (a) ensuring project and idea capture tools are “remote first” oriented (tools that work remotely work just fine in office, inverse is not true), such as dropping whiteboards and using digital collaborative tools for whiteboarding even locally, e.g. …
- Excalidraw+
- Microsoft Whiteboard
- Samsung Flip2
- Microsoft Surface Hub
- https://www.remotion.com/
This was the single most important contributor to the culture change at firms I’ve helped go fully remote since the 90s. The nanosecond something elevates from chit chat into an action, everyone in the company needs to gate-keep: “Could you please share/ask/direct that in [the digital place]?”
The second most important was ensuring [the digital place] is frictionless, using social media habit apps as benchmarks, not, say, Jira.
In my experience, after initial chaos, then learning, then crossing a tipping point, productivity went through the roof, and following that, these firms absolutely spanked on-prem only firms at caliber of talent and pace of delivery of outcomes into client hands.
> I think a lot of people who want to work at home aren’t interested in their success
* There it is.
I'm on an all-remote team right now and I totally miss the level of ambient information I used to have when working with a collocated team in a good environment.
On the other hand, a lot of collocated teams, especially at larger companies, have bad enough environments that they're essentially remote workers as far as communication goes. I've visited plenty of teams in open-office environments where all the coders are packed in, hunched over wearing headphones all day, while random people blather loudly nearby about things unrelated to the coding, and key people for their project are scattered across the building. Or farther.
If I could have a properly collocated team with dedicated space and the correct layout for collaboration, I'd love that. But I'd still prefer all-remote over the average BigCo setup, where space is set up for the convenience of managers and office planners, not the actual work.
On the other hand, a lot of collocated teams, especially at larger companies, have bad enough environments that they're essentially remote workers as far as communication goes. I've visited plenty of teams in open-office environments where all the coders are packed in, hunched over wearing headphones all day, while random people blather loudly nearby about things unrelated to the coding, and key people for their project are scattered across the building. Or farther.
If I could have a properly collocated team with dedicated space and the correct layout for collaboration, I'd love that. But I'd still prefer all-remote over the average BigCo setup, where space is set up for the convenience of managers and office planners, not the actual work.
You wrote: "ambient information"
This is a brilliant term. I never heard it before this post. (Thank you!) My whole career is working next to traders and sales at global investment banks.
Everytime I hear someone say: "Sales & traders can all work from home / [low cost] country X,Y,Z", I cringe. They fundamentally do not understand "ambient information".
This is a brilliant term. I never heard it before this post. (Thank you!) My whole career is working next to traders and sales at global investment banks.
Everytime I hear someone say: "Sales & traders can all work from home / [low cost] country X,Y,Z", I cringe. They fundamentally do not understand "ambient information".
Here I must credit Ambient Devices, maker of the Ambient Orb: http://www.ambientdevices.com/about/consumer-devices
It was a tricolor LED connected to the pager network that came out circa 20 years ago. By default you could hook it up to the weather, stock prices, and the like. What I hooked it up to was early Continuous Integration servers, so that everybody could see if the build was broken. It made a huge difference for some teams, where the build went from usually broken to usually green. Sometimes because people changed on their own, sometimes because executives suddenly had a thing they could understand about the room full of people typing furiously.
And yes, totally agreed. The best work I've ever done was in close contact with the people I'm serving. It can make a huge difference.
It was a tricolor LED connected to the pager network that came out circa 20 years ago. By default you could hook it up to the weather, stock prices, and the like. What I hooked it up to was early Continuous Integration servers, so that everybody could see if the build was broken. It made a huge difference for some teams, where the build went from usually broken to usually green. Sometimes because people changed on their own, sometimes because executives suddenly had a thing they could understand about the room full of people typing furiously.
And yes, totally agreed. The best work I've ever done was in close contact with the people I'm serving. It can make a huge difference.
Hi. Great post. Thank you to raise the important topic of relevant ambient information. If you are pure tech writing new features for sales, you might want to sit right next to them. (Listen to how they use my software / interesting business problems.)
However, if you are working on credit card payment settlement, you do not give a sh-t about sales team golf scores / "amazing" drinking stories. It is a bother / nuisance. But maybe sitting next to the account team makes good sense!
However, if you are working on credit card payment settlement, you do not give a sh-t about sales team golf scores / "amazing" drinking stories. It is a bother / nuisance. But maybe sitting next to the account team makes good sense!
Yes, absolutely! Relevance makes the difference between information and noise. Relevant information is hugely powerful. But noisy environments just make for bad output.
I work a sort of hybrid model.
We've seen issues and topics that we decide "Let's work this one out when we're in the office." We schedule it, and what might take several video conferences and endless chats ... suddenly takes one meeting and the solution solves a bunch of other things.
I agree everyone should find their best way, but for us sometimes there's more of a free flow of information, everyone is engaged on that one issue more in person than when remote. When it comes to some topics it's just much faster and the result is more complete in person.
We've seen issues and topics that we decide "Let's work this one out when we're in the office." We schedule it, and what might take several video conferences and endless chats ... suddenly takes one meeting and the solution solves a bunch of other things.
I agree everyone should find their best way, but for us sometimes there's more of a free flow of information, everyone is engaged on that one issue more in person than when remote. When it comes to some topics it's just much faster and the result is more complete in person.
I think this is a great model, only downside is that you still have to live close to the office which in my opinion is less of a problem in Europe than it is in the US.
Yeah it's really a catch there that requires folks be there.
It does make it sorta an event when everyone is all in, exciting, and such.
It does make it sorta an event when everyone is all in, exciting, and such.
I wouldn't assume the in office workers get more done because they go to the office, correlation != causation.
It seems just as likely to me that the most dedicated, hard working employees are the ones willing to commute in to the office in the first place, and they would get more work done than others regardless of where they work.
It seems just as likely to me that the most dedicated, hard working employees are the ones willing to commute in to the office in the first place, and they would get more work done than others regardless of where they work.
Good point. I'm curious if there's a relationship between those who work-to-live/live-to-work and work remote/work in office, respectively.
That's a good question to an angle I hadn't considered. The in-office people are strict 8 to 5ers and none of us work from home that often - just the random voluntary thing when something is interesting. The remote workers work more hours to be certain. Most voluntarily with some of the tech people being roped in on weekends. The core in-office engineers have spent years insisting on strong work-life balance that sadly has not propagated to other teams as much.
Maybe in that case but not necessarily.
It might just be their home isn't so nice. Ages before covid I worked at a company that had an office but was mostly remote.
There was a guy who was going to the office because his wife was unemployed and they lived next to his mother in law, so he wanted some calm.
I'd go because the heating at home sucked so on cold days it was better to be in the office :D
It might just be their home isn't so nice. Ages before covid I worked at a company that had an office but was mostly remote.
There was a guy who was going to the office because his wife was unemployed and they lived next to his mother in law, so he wanted some calm.
I'd go because the heating at home sucked so on cold days it was better to be in the office :D
Whenever I see this sort of comment I feel bad for the remote workers because it's always an indicator that the company doesn't properly involve or support their remote workforce. If the in-person members are vastly more productive, it's because the team has processes and culture that makes it harder for the remote employees to be productive.
Bingo, but it’s much more that hybrid is REALLY hard to get right. The remote employees are always at a disadvantage.. dealing with this now at my new job, I’m not remote, but my local office is not where most of my specific teammates are.
“Top talent” getting diluted by remote-ness may be not worth it. Hiring local to work in-person may be better if the less talented team can really communicate and get shit done.
“Top talent” getting diluted by remote-ness may be not worth it. Hiring local to work in-person may be better if the less talented team can really communicate and get shit done.
Yeah I agree. Hybrid is the hardest version of remote work to do right and unfortunately the one more frequently chosen by orgs that don't want to properly invest in remote but don't want to demand in person, so it's a double whammy.
I do think it's a false dichotomy though to compare "top talent diluted by remote-ness" with "less talented in-person team that can communicate well". I agree with that direct comparison, but it's not the only option. Remote can be done well. With proper investment in remote, a team can have "top talent that can communicate well" instead of picking one of two bad options.
I do think it's a false dichotomy though to compare "top talent diluted by remote-ness" with "less talented in-person team that can communicate well". I agree with that direct comparison, but it's not the only option. Remote can be done well. With proper investment in remote, a team can have "top talent that can communicate well" instead of picking one of two bad options.
My mileage does vary - in my experience, I often wonder what non-remote people are even doing. Remote is blowing them out of the water. I think on-prem workers tend to chit chat more, go to lunch, come in a bit late, leave a bit early, do happy hours, and generally socialize a lot more (not to mention commutes!). I see largely the opposite as you, with remote workers doing the bulk of the work.
On prem might get the bulk of the credit though - politics are ... evolving with remote workers.
But your experience doesn't match mine at all.
On prem might get the bulk of the credit though - politics are ... evolving with remote workers.
But your experience doesn't match mine at all.
I've seen this too in an organization that that didn't put much thought into the remote side of things. How to enable the remote folks to _be_ productive and how to facilitate communication. I felt it was obvious for onsite folks to look more productive when meetings were mainly in person and decisions were made synchronously.
My team is about 40% remote. About 25% nonlocal remote. If I had to pick my top 5 performers, two would be remote non local, one would be remote local. And two would be onprem. Seniority, past experience, action-orientation, and conscientiousness are the determoning factors it seems.
there are now numerous unicorn startups and public companies that have been fully remote from day 1. All the most important open source projects have been developed by remote contributors.
95% of cases where I see people complaining about remote work is because the company basically changed nothing about how they operate day to day when Covid started, they are a normal company trying to work remotely. Obviously that is going to fail miserably. Hybrid model is the worst of both worlds
95% of cases where I see people complaining about remote work is because the company basically changed nothing about how they operate day to day when Covid started, they are a normal company trying to work remotely. Obviously that is going to fail miserably. Hybrid model is the worst of both worlds
I can see the difference between remote and in office being passion.
I like remote because I don’t want to be all in on work. I don’t care enough about my company to even write up an expensive bug I noticed. I just let it waste my org’s money.
I can see those who actually give a shit being more likely to go into the office.
I don’t think your remote workers would be more productive in office. I wouldn’t be. I just stare dead between the eyes in the same meetings I just nap during when I am remote. Rather, highly productive and engaged people are just less likely to want remote.
I like remote because I don’t want to be all in on work. I don’t care enough about my company to even write up an expensive bug I noticed. I just let it waste my org’s money.
I can see those who actually give a shit being more likely to go into the office.
I don’t think your remote workers would be more productive in office. I wouldn’t be. I just stare dead between the eyes in the same meetings I just nap during when I am remote. Rather, highly productive and engaged people are just less likely to want remote.
> Not that you couldn't have a good remote team - I just think the methods of communication available are not best suited to our monkey brains. We're social animal, and we work best socially.
Working remote requires a number of changes, and it may even require training that your company isn't providing, because as you clearly have guessed, in-person interaction is more natural.
But how this looks to me, is that your company is doing a great disservice to the remote workers by not provided them with the tools and comms to be fully productive. You are letting them sort it out for themselves when they may not know how to, which is... bad.
Claiming you're doing better because "monkey brains" is just silly. Many things take practice, including clear communication over video and text.
Working remote requires a number of changes, and it may even require training that your company isn't providing, because as you clearly have guessed, in-person interaction is more natural.
But how this looks to me, is that your company is doing a great disservice to the remote workers by not provided them with the tools and comms to be fully productive. You are letting them sort it out for themselves when they may not know how to, which is... bad.
Claiming you're doing better because "monkey brains" is just silly. Many things take practice, including clear communication over video and text.
I am convinced that in office software teams produce more and better code overall than remote ones do. I am remote now and go to my office about a week every two months, and those weeks tend to be ones I can rally the team to get big initiatives done. I put in the same effort when I'm remote but it just doesn't work out the same. You can blame tooling, you can blame the company not being remote-first or remote-forward or whatever, but I honestly believe the reason there are so many champions for remote work is simply because people want to do it and it's easier or more comfortable for them.
For in-office work to come back, employers need to stop tracking time.
Most office workers work 2-3 hours a day max. The 8 hour workday is is a relic from factory work.
If I was to go back to the office, this is what my day would look like:
* Show up at the office at 10:30, just in time for the meeting
* Put in a couple hours of solid work, finishing whatever story I planned to complete today
* Go home at 1:30 to smoke weed and play videogames
That's what I do now, except I don't have to commute. What's going to change to make office work more appealing?
Most office workers work 2-3 hours a day max. The 8 hour workday is is a relic from factory work.
If I was to go back to the office, this is what my day would look like:
* Show up at the office at 10:30, just in time for the meeting
* Put in a couple hours of solid work, finishing whatever story I planned to complete today
* Go home at 1:30 to smoke weed and play videogames
That's what I do now, except I don't have to commute. What's going to change to make office work more appealing?
I don't disagree with that. My current office people keep about 6 hour workdays, including their lunch break. We're also multi-national so overlap is usually where shit gets done. I have many days where the bulk of my productivity comes in 1 hour of a call with a Portuguese or American engineer. (I'm in Iceland).
That might sound like a case for being remote, but for me, it's usually been much more effective in the office because that single hour of overlap was most of the day. Yes, some of it is wasted time, but I did and still do build great working and personal relationships with my peers in that "wasted" time that I still cherish.
That might sound like a case for being remote, but for me, it's usually been much more effective in the office because that single hour of overlap was most of the day. Yes, some of it is wasted time, but I did and still do build great working and personal relationships with my peers in that "wasted" time that I still cherish.
Counterpoint: pre-Covid I had an in-office job, and I would specifically request a WFH day if I had an especially meaty problem to write. The office was full of distractions, whereas at home I could focus in on writing code without background noise. Several of my coworkers followed the same pattern.
That's more of a respect for your coworkers thing than a remote vs. office thing though?
Headphones on meant leave me alone in every shop I've been to. I also, personally, rarely have extended periods of just coding. The value I add is almost exclusively helping other people work through problems at this stage in my career. "Distractions" are "the job" for many of us.
Headphones on meant leave me alone in every shop I've been to. I also, personally, rarely have extended periods of just coding. The value I add is almost exclusively helping other people work through problems at this stage in my career. "Distractions" are "the job" for many of us.
> we also get the most important projects and are paid the most
Seems like this would drastically affect motivation and therefore output. Sounds your company may have a self fulfilling prophecy about remote work being less productive.
Seems like this would drastically affect motivation and therefore output. Sounds your company may have a self fulfilling prophecy about remote work being less productive.
I'm replying to myself here - might be a bit gauche, but I read all the replies carefully and most were quite reasoned and thought provoking. Thank you! Hacker News for the win.
> Those are hard numbers right out of our project management system
the kind of work those systems track is assembly line tasks. They can’t measure alone the strategic impact employees have on a company.
the kind of work those systems track is assembly line tasks. They can’t measure alone the strategic impact employees have on a company.
> by a factor of 4 or 5, or sometimes, depending on the in office worker, 10 times.
These are very specific numbers - how do you measure this?
These are very specific numbers - how do you measure this?
Their post says this already. It's metrics from their project management system i.e. tickets.
So really a nothing statement - we have no idea how this system works or what "tickets" actually means.
Yeah, I was thinking that. Once people know how the system works, people will game the system. In my experience, there are some people who want to manipulate everything in their favor and against the rest and you cannot really do that (‘networking’ with your manager etc) from home, so they invariably go to the office. So metrics from pm systems are suspect: they are skewed often to people who figured out how to make the stats look good for them. I have seen it too many times. The last big client I had, had a system which gave a combined score analysis based on hours worked, tasks done, github commits, LoC (yep) and some other stuff. It was trivial to make yourself look 10x better than someone who didn't know how it worked or who didn't care or who was just honest.
[deleted]
Holy sh-t. This is exactly my experience during COVID-19 crisis. Will it pay in 5 years when WFH is the normal? I don't know.
If they wanted to have success they'd be trying their best to play rock in a stadium, not settle for working in your company :D
"A study conducted on the main campus of a Fortune 500 company found that just 10 percent of all communications occurred between employees whose desks were more than 500 meters apart. This suggests that once companies span multiple floors, buildings, or campuses, they’ve already lost much of the collaborative value of being “in the office” together."
This point often seems to get missed. If you're at a large company, you're often working with people on different floors, buildings, offices, countries. I want to be co-located with the people I work with often just isn't an option at larger companies even if many people come into an office.
This point often seems to get missed. If you're at a large company, you're often working with people on different floors, buildings, offices, countries. I want to be co-located with the people I work with often just isn't an option at larger companies even if many people come into an office.
This cuts both ways though. Working from home my "circle of communication" has gotten much smaller than it ever was before, because I don't run in to people.
I'd argue if a company depends too much on "spontaneous hallway conversations" for information flow/exchange, that should be treated as a problem to correct. Most places I've worked that relied heavily on word-of-mouth had similar problems:
- Terrible written documentation
- Major and minor decisions not reaching everyone affected, resulting in a lot of people not knowing what's going on
- Perception of decisions getting made in secret or without transparency
- Other non-verbal communication channels get neglected, e.g. the only way to get in touch with Director ABC is to physically accost him in the hall
- Remote workers are frequently forgotten or treated as second class citizens
- Favorable treatment for in-groups and cliques, based on extroversion rather than job performance
These all seem like objectively bad problems for a business, and I'd argue many of them stem directly from overreliance on face-to-face.
- Terrible written documentation
- Major and minor decisions not reaching everyone affected, resulting in a lot of people not knowing what's going on
- Perception of decisions getting made in secret or without transparency
- Other non-verbal communication channels get neglected, e.g. the only way to get in touch with Director ABC is to physically accost him in the hall
- Remote workers are frequently forgotten or treated as second class citizens
- Favorable treatment for in-groups and cliques, based on extroversion rather than job performance
These all seem like objectively bad problems for a business, and I'd argue many of them stem directly from overreliance on face-to-face.
> I'd argue if a company depends too much on "spontaneous hallway conversations" for information flow/exchange, that should be treated as a problem to correct
I don't think this is a black-and-white issue. Sometimes a "spontaneous hallway conversation" clarifies in 5 min what a 30 min Zoom call would otherwise do.
3 of my coworkers and I coordinated a few months back to go in on a single day together. I was reading over a doc a coworker wrote and had a question about a portion and found him grabbing coffee and coming back to his desk. I just went over and asked him the question, he clarified, then we both sat back at our desks and got back to work; I was unblocked. If we were remote, I'd DM him and then stop reviewing the doc until I got an answer. I often context switch out of work I need clarification on since I have no guarantee that the coworker is even ready to help. Having state (in a meeting, not at your desk, at your desk, chatting with a coworker, etc) on coworker availability is very useful for efficiently working.
> Perception of decisions getting made in secret or without transparency
I'd argue that this is worse remote. When remote, a lead and a manager get into a VC call and hash out the team roadmap without any input from the team. They can reason it's a lot easier on availability and less disruptive on the rest of the team to make the decision. While the lead and manager offer the plan to the team for comment, the team feels demotivated because they have to read and push back rather than sit at the table for comment. In office, the lead and manager can discuss things at desks and interested employees can overhear and interject. It's not perfect of course (favors those around for the conversation), but it's better than the Zoom world.
I think hybrid remote-first work is the best of both options but I think most companies going fully remote will not go hybrid because the cost savings of doing everything online is just so much higher. As you noted, offline-first companies will treat remote workers and second-class citizens.
I don't think this is a black-and-white issue. Sometimes a "spontaneous hallway conversation" clarifies in 5 min what a 30 min Zoom call would otherwise do.
3 of my coworkers and I coordinated a few months back to go in on a single day together. I was reading over a doc a coworker wrote and had a question about a portion and found him grabbing coffee and coming back to his desk. I just went over and asked him the question, he clarified, then we both sat back at our desks and got back to work; I was unblocked. If we were remote, I'd DM him and then stop reviewing the doc until I got an answer. I often context switch out of work I need clarification on since I have no guarantee that the coworker is even ready to help. Having state (in a meeting, not at your desk, at your desk, chatting with a coworker, etc) on coworker availability is very useful for efficiently working.
> Perception of decisions getting made in secret or without transparency
I'd argue that this is worse remote. When remote, a lead and a manager get into a VC call and hash out the team roadmap without any input from the team. They can reason it's a lot easier on availability and less disruptive on the rest of the team to make the decision. While the lead and manager offer the plan to the team for comment, the team feels demotivated because they have to read and push back rather than sit at the table for comment. In office, the lead and manager can discuss things at desks and interested employees can overhear and interject. It's not perfect of course (favors those around for the conversation), but it's better than the Zoom world.
I think hybrid remote-first work is the best of both options but I think most companies going fully remote will not go hybrid because the cost savings of doing everything online is just so much higher. As you noted, offline-first companies will treat remote workers and second-class citizens.
I'm sympathetic to that. Certainly much earlier in my career, I had a lot of day-to-day personal contact with most of the people I worked with. Of course it was a different time with much different communication methods available--basically desk phone and early internal company email--and expectations for in-person meetings and hallway conversations.
But today even if I were in my local office, almost no one I work with would be in that office even if they weren't WFH anyway.
But today even if I were in my local office, almost no one I work with would be in that office even if they weren't WFH anyway.
Isn’t an alternative explanation that companies locate people that need to communicate near each other? Why would we assume you are equally likely to want to communicate with every other employee.
No. Many companies group by discipline. A self sufficient actor rarely needs to talk with someone else just for sharing the same discipline. On the other hand, having no one to relate to can also be a problem, and enough people are not consistently self sufficient to make grouping trivial.
Then you couple that with the fact companies love one-size-fits-all solutions.
Then you couple that with the fact companies love one-size-fits-all solutions.
That assumption was not made by GP. A sufficiently large company will encounter this problem no matter how well they try to solve the NP-hard problem of efficiently allocating workspaces.
This 100%. We reliably shuffled people to keep them with their teams on a constant basis.
This hits home for me for a completely different reason. I'm currently hybrid and notice some issues do get fixed faster in the office following that same 90% rule
In the office people don't mind tapping their neighbor on the shoulder 10 times a day to ask how to find/do something. On Slack they feel self conscious about zooming/slacking with someone 10 times in 1 day with questions. It's more about being in your head and feeling like a nuisance online vs. in office, than office being better than remote
This also makes our office days pretty dead in terms of actual progress on projects. Our stronger engineers work much more efficiently at home
In the office people don't mind tapping their neighbor on the shoulder 10 times a day to ask how to find/do something. On Slack they feel self conscious about zooming/slacking with someone 10 times in 1 day with questions. It's more about being in your head and feeling like a nuisance online vs. in office, than office being better than remote
This also makes our office days pretty dead in terms of actual progress on projects. Our stronger engineers work much more efficiently at home
> Our stronger engineers work much more efficiently at home
That depends on how you measure efficiency. On many teams, the strongest engineers maximize their impact by helping other people.
That depends on how you measure efficiency. On many teams, the strongest engineers maximize their impact by helping other people.
My (somewhat limited) experience working at semi-large tech companies (several thousand employees) was that my team and closely related teams were mostly located close together (same floor, often same area of the floor). I imagine certain roles need to collaborate across a broader number of teams and so maybe they derived less value from being in the office together, but it seemed like for most of engineering we were mostly well situated for in-office collaboration.
Do really large companies tend to forgo locating related teams closely together?
Do really large companies tend to forgo locating related teams closely together?
In my anecdotal experience, anything above 1000 employees and it just isn't possible to colocate anymore. You might be able to colocate certain specific teams, but if you work on a team that works across domains... good luck. You'll spend all of your time in video calls anyway!
The video conference room environment is so unpleasant (always craning my neck; crappy video quality; speakers with poor balance that frequently hurt my ears; awful reflections on TVs; the perennial "hoverer" outside the meeting doors for the last 5-10 minutes of the meeting) that I'd just rather work at home if even one or two hours a week are online via video.
The video conference room environment is so unpleasant (always craning my neck; crappy video quality; speakers with poor balance that frequently hurt my ears; awful reflections on TVs; the perennial "hoverer" outside the meeting doors for the last 5-10 minutes of the meeting) that I'd just rather work at home if even one or two hours a week are online via video.
I generally agree. In my experience, pre-pandemic companies did sometimes try to co-locate small engineering teams especially if, for historical reasons, they were mostly already clustered in one specific location. But companies also don't necessarily want to restrict their hiring to an hour radius of a given office, people want to move for various reasons, and some degree of collaboration with other groups is needed in any case. And, once you're distributed at all, you pretty much have to act like everyone is remote anyway.
Do you think that point is often missed? I would have said the opposite: that it's pretty obvious that most of the advantages of working in person would apply only to fairly small teams that can collaborate synchronously.
>Do you think that point is often missed?
Yes I do. A lot of people seem to think that if everyone went into an office, they'd all be working with a co-located team sitting a stone's throw from each other. This may be true with startups. It's often not the case (with local small team exceptions) for larger companies--especially those which already had practices of being fairly flexible about location for a lot of hires.
Yes I do. A lot of people seem to think that if everyone went into an office, they'd all be working with a co-located team sitting a stone's throw from each other. This may be true with startups. It's often not the case (with local small team exceptions) for larger companies--especially those which already had practices of being fairly flexible about location for a lot of hires.
Remote work is not perfect, but it's better than going to my office without windows (yeah, you heard right).
I don't do creative work or programming, as I work in HelpDesk, so I don't see the reason for going back to my bunker. It seems most of my coworkers have the same beliefs because as my company started threatening with going back to the office previous to thos summer, people left, and many became pretty hostile.
In my case it takes a <10 minute walk to get to my office, I don't have to spend too much time nor money, but at home I have a cushy place, two large monitors, and over everything else, I hear birds and see nature while at work.
I have to take some mandated breaks (collective agreement). In my office it was dead time, I couldn't do anything interesting. At home I wake up and do some house chores.
When my journey ends, I just get up, pack some stuff and go to the beach or go meet friends. I have way more energy than when I worked at the office.
I'm clearly not "top talent" but having tried this, I can't just forget it.
Companies say there's a lot of intangible benefits while working at the office, and I say there is a lot of intangible benefits while working at home, at least for me. I didn't even know I was to have that much energy and do so much stuff instead of laying in the sofa because I was tired.
I don't do creative work or programming, as I work in HelpDesk, so I don't see the reason for going back to my bunker. It seems most of my coworkers have the same beliefs because as my company started threatening with going back to the office previous to thos summer, people left, and many became pretty hostile.
In my case it takes a <10 minute walk to get to my office, I don't have to spend too much time nor money, but at home I have a cushy place, two large monitors, and over everything else, I hear birds and see nature while at work.
I have to take some mandated breaks (collective agreement). In my office it was dead time, I couldn't do anything interesting. At home I wake up and do some house chores.
When my journey ends, I just get up, pack some stuff and go to the beach or go meet friends. I have way more energy than when I worked at the office.
I'm clearly not "top talent" but having tried this, I can't just forget it.
Companies say there's a lot of intangible benefits while working at the office, and I say there is a lot of intangible benefits while working at home, at least for me. I didn't even know I was to have that much energy and do so much stuff instead of laying in the sofa because I was tired.
Agree that WFH is ideal for cases such as yours where you're not working on the actual construction aspect (where more interaction is helpful for solving problems and/or better ideas).
I never really understood why people say productivity and socializing is difficult remote. It's difficult because people aren't putting thought into it. At my last big-co job the leadership just kept waiting for 'covid to be over' and not improving our remote work culture.
Hybrid models will always struggle and 1/3/1 is going to be probably the best you can do.
My company is fully remote, we embraced the GitLab model and are EXTREMELY collaborative. Every meeting has a note taker, we use Figma and Figjam for white boarding with incredible efficacy. We essentially have near the same level of documentation as a major enterprise with only 30 staff.
Socializing is encouraged via huddles in Slack and I can communicate with anyone in the company if I need to. Collaboration and new ideas disseminate differently online, but as a leader I have made it a goal to make sure we are not putting barriers up online, and actively encourage 'water cooler' talk.
Meanwhile we have had no problem sourcing candidates since we can pull from anywhere in the world, we have some incredible people all over the world that we would not have gotten otherwise.
Hybrid models will always struggle and 1/3/1 is going to be probably the best you can do.
My company is fully remote, we embraced the GitLab model and are EXTREMELY collaborative. Every meeting has a note taker, we use Figma and Figjam for white boarding with incredible efficacy. We essentially have near the same level of documentation as a major enterprise with only 30 staff.
Socializing is encouraged via huddles in Slack and I can communicate with anyone in the company if I need to. Collaboration and new ideas disseminate differently online, but as a leader I have made it a goal to make sure we are not putting barriers up online, and actively encourage 'water cooler' talk.
Meanwhile we have had no problem sourcing candidates since we can pull from anywhere in the world, we have some incredible people all over the world that we would not have gotten otherwise.
Have you considered that those of your view and those espousing that remote is more difficult might have different personalities, levels of need of social interaction, or lifestyles?
Have you considered that your company is self-selecting for those who flourish in remote, but that those whose personalities differ are self-selecting for working in an office environment?
It's OK for there to not be a one size fits all solution.
Have you considered that your company is self-selecting for those who flourish in remote, but that those whose personalities differ are self-selecting for working in an office environment?
It's OK for there to not be a one size fits all solution.
I wonder if those personality differences get considered when they throw everyone into a single room with a few low cubicle walls.
I wonder if the market gives a shit about being fair to those who have personalities that thrive in said cubicles.
Thirdly, I wonder if those who thrive in remote give a shit about being fair after having dealt with cubicle farms for so many years.
> after having dealt with cubicle farms for so many years.
Or worse, open floor plans.
Or worse, open floor plans.
Yeah, until I started working from home I hadn't had walls for a decade.
I had an office for a short time. We were moving to a new building and got to pick our seating arrangements by seniority. I was toward the end of the list but nobody had picked the lone office in our area so I did. My manager immediately had the walls torn down.
Then how do they know you are working? (more importantly, how will they know they can interrupt you?)
Open floor plans can be a double edge sword buddy
Yes, exactly. When you sit right next to your business users and listen to their day-to-day activities or phone calls, it is priceless "ambient information". However, if you sit next to completely unrelated, but noisy team, it is hell! The trick is floor layout. The best companies in my experience obsess about floor layout to get relevant teams close!
In my experience as a software dev the "ambient information" that has tended to be most valuable was information about how the product was doing financially. I worked in an environment where we all had offices with doors and it was great but the "ambient information" I missed was that the sales of the product weren't going all that great and there were layoffs on the way. In a cube environment I think I would've heard a lot of chatter about layoffs coming weeks to months earlier. In this case I was pretty much blindsided.
That's entirely unfair. The ability to do most of these jobs remote wasn't even really possible until a decade ago, and interia of in office work kept it that way for most existing enterprises. Yet still, plenty of startups in 2019 chose to be remote, and plenty chose to be in person.
Also I would bet that the amount of people who prefer remote has gone up drastically since 2019, both due to exposure to it, and due to covid isolation shifting people's personalities.
Also I would bet that the amount of people who prefer remote has gone up drastically since 2019, both due to exposure to it, and due to covid isolation shifting people's personalities.
It's not unfair when knowledge on the effects of these practices were public several decades ago and companies still insisted on optimizing for employee per square foot while giving their executives private offices.
All remote work did was showcase people can in fact rebel against the status quo when the inertia associated is entirely self-inflicted.
All remote work did was showcase people can in fact rebel against the status quo when the inertia associated is entirely self-inflicted.
Nice post! At my company, one of their locations has insufficient space for all employees. As a result, they introduced "hot desking". It is widely hated by all non-executive-level employees. Literally, you cannot keep anything at your desk. (Put it in a locker everyday that feels like high school!) The message received by non-execs: "You are not human; this is the matix; you are interchangable." Of course, none of the execs are forced to hot-desk their nice corner offices. (FYI: I have a terribly combative personality.) When I saw one of the execs after the plan what annouced, I casually asked: "Oh, what days are you WFH? I'll take your office." They almost fainted with fear.
>wasn't even really possible until a decade ago
I think that's an overstatement. I've been more remote than not for close to 20 years and 90%+ remote for close to 10.
That said, there is some point in time before which companies would have had to largely shrug and tell people that they had to stay in the office pandemic or not. (Which of course many jobs and professions basically had to anyway.)
I think that's an overstatement. I've been more remote than not for close to 20 years and 90%+ remote for close to 10.
That said, there is some point in time before which companies would have had to largely shrug and tell people that they had to stay in the office pandemic or not. (Which of course many jobs and professions basically had to anyway.)
AS my grand father would tell you, who retired from AT&T in the early 90s. The "telephone company" had the ability for pretty much every employee to be remote except for field techs and sales people in the 80s. And he in fact had people he worked with who were 100% remote in the 80s. Field tech, because that is obvious. Sales because when he sold a large contract, he was expected to supervise the install, and he wanted to. Before he entered sales he was a field tech, or "telephone pole climber" in his words.
I think you make a reasonable point, but I'll also echo some replies that remote work has absolutely been a possibility for many industries for much longer than a decade. I've been working 100% remotely for 21 years, and some of the people I was learning from in the beginning had already been working remotely for years before me.
That said, I've been a professional programmer for all that time, which in my mind is practically made for working remotely. It's definitely taken longer for some other industries to be as amenable, which I believe has been due to the people in charge, not the profession.
I agree that general inertia has something to do with it, but that's a terrible reason to accept the way things are.
That said, I've been a professional programmer for all that time, which in my mind is practically made for working remotely. It's definitely taken longer for some other industries to be as amenable, which I believe has been due to the people in charge, not the profession.
I agree that general inertia has something to do with it, but that's a terrible reason to accept the way things are.
Perhaps only "anywhere in the world" remote has only become possible in the last decade but I have coworker programmers that have been fully remote or what we would now call "hybrid" since the 90s.
The GP to your comment is suggesting that it's intolerant to push for remote work, but you're suggesting that it's simply "inertia" to push for in-office work. This clear double standard frequently shows up in these discussions.
The ability to work remote has been around longer than that. I was working remotely in 2003/2004, 2007..
Most people didn't know remote was possible until 2019
Most people didn't know remote was possible until 2019
It was 100% possible to do this at technology companies in 1995 (in retrospect).
> levels of need of social interaction
That's what your personal life is for.
Related: https://archive.ph/Ji4nM (WSJ - Americans Are Breaking Up With Their Work Friends)
That's what your personal life is for.
Related: https://archive.ph/Ji4nM (WSJ - Americans Are Breaking Up With Their Work Friends)
There are real benefits to having personal relationships with your colleagues at work.
I started a job a few years ago and spent the first 4 weeks in the office in SF, then moved back to Australia. The relationships I established in that first month were invaluable for the first 6 months or so of my work there - lots of things were easier for me as a result because I knew who to message or connect on slack to get things done.
After about 6 months those relationships faded to the point that I couldn't rely on those social connections any more. It was difficult knowing who to message when I needed something done outside my team; and they had no idea who I was any more.
I don't think you need to be in the office every day, but I miss going to an office at all. Those casual social connections are crazy valuable. Zoom and slack don't give you the experience of sitting at a table with people over lunch and chatting. We dismiss those relationships at our peril.
I started a job a few years ago and spent the first 4 weeks in the office in SF, then moved back to Australia. The relationships I established in that first month were invaluable for the first 6 months or so of my work there - lots of things were easier for me as a result because I knew who to message or connect on slack to get things done.
After about 6 months those relationships faded to the point that I couldn't rely on those social connections any more. It was difficult knowing who to message when I needed something done outside my team; and they had no idea who I was any more.
I don't think you need to be in the office every day, but I miss going to an office at all. Those casual social connections are crazy valuable. Zoom and slack don't give you the experience of sitting at a table with people over lunch and chatting. We dismiss those relationships at our peril.
Maybe in 1950 when only half of the population was working out of home. Now everybody goes to work and evenings and weekends are spent doing house chores.
[And no, I don't want to go back to 1950 at all, don't get me wrong.]
[And no, I don't want to go back to 1950 at all, don't get me wrong.]
Well said this is a refreshing take. All these please for going back to the office or being present in person seems aimed entirely to placate the people who for decades have exploited such environment to their favour. Chatting, small talk, being seen, all of which on top of the horrendeous open desk trend, only adds to the overhead for the rest of us who thrive in remote environments.
Market has already listened and are going to favor the latter group and the remote environment is going to be here with us indefinitely. If for whatever reason you feel like going against this new market trend/correction, you stand to lose out.
Companies who are demanding hybrid or return to office are unironically putting themselves in walls that will limit their competitiveness in the long run. Again this is what the market tells us, many companies are realizing they can save on expensive commercial rent/logistic overhead and hire more remote workers.
Market has already listened and are going to favor the latter group and the remote environment is going to be here with us indefinitely. If for whatever reason you feel like going against this new market trend/correction, you stand to lose out.
Companies who are demanding hybrid or return to office are unironically putting themselves in walls that will limit their competitiveness in the long run. Again this is what the market tells us, many companies are realizing they can save on expensive commercial rent/logistic overhead and hire more remote workers.
I wonder if those personalities include things like 'middle managerness' and 'desperate need for people to see me working'.
let the extroverts have their beloved office and introverts their home. anyone undecided can be "hybrid".
[deleted]
Right.
During my somewhat passive job search, I've only been considering companies that have an office local to me (i.e. Central London). I've been working remotely since the start of the pandemic, and I simply don't like it. Sure, I don't miss having to commute or offices with bad noise pollution controls, but I miss everything else.
Most of all, I miss being in town at the end of the day and being able to pop to the pub with colleagues if one of us needs to vent, or go to a salsa party nearby. I basically don't go out anymore; yes, this is a me thing, but it's also always been a me thing. I've always found it easier to have a social life on weeknights rather than weekends because I struggle to overcome the inertia of being at home.
This preference means some very exciting companies are effectively off-limits to me, and that's hugely frustrating; but I also know what I need.
During my somewhat passive job search, I've only been considering companies that have an office local to me (i.e. Central London). I've been working remotely since the start of the pandemic, and I simply don't like it. Sure, I don't miss having to commute or offices with bad noise pollution controls, but I miss everything else.
Most of all, I miss being in town at the end of the day and being able to pop to the pub with colleagues if one of us needs to vent, or go to a salsa party nearby. I basically don't go out anymore; yes, this is a me thing, but it's also always been a me thing. I've always found it easier to have a social life on weeknights rather than weekends because I struggle to overcome the inertia of being at home.
This preference means some very exciting companies are effectively off-limits to me, and that's hugely frustrating; but I also know what I need.
> yes, this is a me thing, but it's also always been a me thing
I feel like picking jobs off of a desire to live a social life and feel like part of a community is extremely normal and valid. Remote work is essentially accepting that the primary way you'll engage with your colleagues and labor is through a screen, and that is an uncomfortable feeling (to some people at least)
I feel like picking jobs off of a desire to live a social life and feel like part of a community is extremely normal and valid. Remote work is essentially accepting that the primary way you'll engage with your colleagues and labor is through a screen, and that is an uncomfortable feeling (to some people at least)
Funny, I have always seen “work as community” to offer an illusory connection at best. At its worst it is exploited by employers.
My coworkers are my colleagues. I don’t mind sharing a beer with them once in a while, but apart from “work” we have different interests, values, and experiences. That doesn’t lead to community, it leads to having acquaintances. And if you doubt that, ask yourself how many of your “work friends” from a job you’ve had more than a year ago do you still interact with?
The pandemic has been a joy for me because it’s let me separate my parasocial interactions from my true friends.
My coworkers are my colleagues. I don’t mind sharing a beer with them once in a while, but apart from “work” we have different interests, values, and experiences. That doesn’t lead to community, it leads to having acquaintances. And if you doubt that, ask yourself how many of your “work friends” from a job you’ve had more than a year ago do you still interact with?
The pandemic has been a joy for me because it’s let me separate my parasocial interactions from my true friends.
> ask yourself how many of your “work friends” from a job you’ve had more than a year ago do you still interact with?
I still interact a lot with people I was on a team with >1 yr ago – the ones I met before we went remote. Can't say the same about the ones I was never in the office with, even though they seem like equally good people.
> but apart from “work” we have different interests, values, and experiences. That doesn’t lead to community, it leads to having acquaintances.
It has not been my experience that "community" arises particularly from this kind of homogeneity.
I'm also kind of curious what you mean by "parasocial" outside of the context of media.
I still interact a lot with people I was on a team with >1 yr ago – the ones I met before we went remote. Can't say the same about the ones I was never in the office with, even though they seem like equally good people.
> but apart from “work” we have different interests, values, and experiences. That doesn’t lead to community, it leads to having acquaintances.
It has not been my experience that "community" arises particularly from this kind of homogeneity.
I'm also kind of curious what you mean by "parasocial" outside of the context of media.
> I'm also kind of curious what you mean by "parasocial" outside of the context of media.
I actually went back and forth on using it - even considering a hedge with a "quasi-" prefix. But it felt apt: plenty of my past "work friends" exist as little beyond a persona that I interact with via LinkedIn. I give a thumbs-up for their job change, we exchange polite offers to get a coffee that we both know neither will accept, and we go on.
I actually went back and forth on using it - even considering a hedge with a "quasi-" prefix. But it felt apt: plenty of my past "work friends" exist as little beyond a persona that I interact with via LinkedIn. I give a thumbs-up for their job change, we exchange polite offers to get a coffee that we both know neither will accept, and we go on.
Different Strokes for different folks.
I would say that the majority of my friends and close Social Circle are people who I met and worked with an office at one point. Sure it started with cooler chat and beers after work, but it evolve to going to weddings, backpacking trips, and our partners becoming close with friendships of their own.
I do like workplace community, even if I'm only close with a subset of my colleagues. I find it vastly more fulfilling to work with friends that I enjoy. I don't like turning off my personality and become a faceless COG working with other cogs for 8 hours a day and find it depressing
I would say that the majority of my friends and close Social Circle are people who I met and worked with an office at one point. Sure it started with cooler chat and beers after work, but it evolve to going to weddings, backpacking trips, and our partners becoming close with friendships of their own.
I do like workplace community, even if I'm only close with a subset of my colleagues. I find it vastly more fulfilling to work with friends that I enjoy. I don't like turning off my personality and become a faceless COG working with other cogs for 8 hours a day and find it depressing
>"I feel like picking jobs off of a desire to live a social life and feel like part of a community is extremely normal "
Been on my own and remote since 2000. I am remote with my clients save for occasional face to face meeting when possible and I am remote with my subcontractors. It feels "extremely normal" to me and the last thing I've ever want is my friends and people I hang out with being supplied by my workplace. Does not mean that I've never made friends when I did "normal work" long time ago but it was just extra.
Been on my own and remote since 2000. I am remote with my clients save for occasional face to face meeting when possible and I am remote with my subcontractors. It feels "extremely normal" to me and the last thing I've ever want is my friends and people I hang out with being supplied by my workplace. Does not mean that I've never made friends when I did "normal work" long time ago but it was just extra.
Why can't they both be normal?
I think it is normal to make friends / acquaintances anywhere as we are all different. I just expressed what I feel about it. Does not mean that "there has to be the only one".
Fair enough. The way you quoted certain terms in the previous comment made it seem to me as a refutation rather than a separate point. Just a poor assumption on my part since I can read the other voice.
I do think that this discussion is often people who disagree not bothering to disagree, which probably explains why I read your comment wrong.
I do think that this discussion is often people who disagree not bothering to disagree, which probably explains why I read your comment wrong.
The way most of us make friends and find community is school when we’re younger, then work when we’re adults.
It makes sense—wherever you spend the most time around others is where you’re most likely to make friends and feel a sense of belonging.
Remote work upends that. It’s great if you already have an established social circle, but bad for people who want to develop one.
There’s no reason why work has to be the main thing that satisfies these needs, but it’s fulfilled that role for so long that it has sucked up most of the oxygen from alternatives.
I hope that as remote work continues to take off, we’ll see a new wave of third places that can take over this function. There’s a huge opportunity here for anyone who can help socially struggling remote workers feel more connected.
It makes sense—wherever you spend the most time around others is where you’re most likely to make friends and feel a sense of belonging.
Remote work upends that. It’s great if you already have an established social circle, but bad for people who want to develop one.
There’s no reason why work has to be the main thing that satisfies these needs, but it’s fulfilled that role for so long that it has sucked up most of the oxygen from alternatives.
I hope that as remote work continues to take off, we’ll see a new wave of third places that can take over this function. There’s a huge opportunity here for anyone who can help socially struggling remote workers feel more connected.
There will be a reckoning when we collectively realize that putting more and more, and eventually all, of our lives on the internet is not good for us.
I mean, I'm expected to put in 8 hours a day, most of which staring at a screen, either way. Only difference being now I get to use the hours spent commuting to do other things.
The argument would be a lot stronger if most office work wasn't perpetually online to begin with.
The argument would be a lot stronger if most office work wasn't perpetually online to begin with.
[deleted]
People spend 95% of the time in the office in front of a screen anyways. Perhaps there is a problem with too much of our lives being spent online, but switching from in office to remote work isn't even enough of a difference in that respect to register.
I think the problem is that there's a lot of people where that 5% non-screen time at work is the difference between a job they like and one that they don't
1. Find an interesting remote job.
2. Sign-up to a local coworking space in Central London and make a habit to go there every day. Try to make friends with people there and go out with them every now and then. Many coworking spaces even try to facilitate community building by organising events, etc.
3. Profit.
Socializing doesn't need to happen at work.
2. Sign-up to a local coworking space in Central London and make a habit to go there every day. Try to make friends with people there and go out with them every now and then. Many coworking spaces even try to facilitate community building by organising events, etc.
3. Profit.
Socializing doesn't need to happen at work.
This is an avenue i've been considering. In my case it does require enough budget to allow for a somewhat permanent co-working space setup (big monitor, mouse, keyboard etc), but it's an option.
good luck! treat this budget as an investment into your well-being and social life.
Also, keep in mind not all coworkings are made equal. It might take trying a few before you find one that suits you well.
In my experience small, local coworkings are best for building relationships. Big, chain coworkings like WeWork are the worst. Everyone just minds their own business there.
Also, keep in mind not all coworkings are made equal. It might take trying a few before you find one that suits you well.
In my experience small, local coworkings are best for building relationships. Big, chain coworkings like WeWork are the worst. Everyone just minds their own business there.
But the fact that you don't go out is because you don't put any effort into it. I work remotely from Kent, we also have an office in Central London but I made the effort to make local friends with whom I go out all the time, even week nights.
I prefer this to spending £40 for the train to then drink £8 pints in overfilled London pubs while standing outside and shouting over each other. I actually don't want to spend more time with my colleagues after spending all day with them, I prefer to have a second friend circle which is more diverse than <group of people who happen to work in the same company as me>.
I prefer this to spending £40 for the train to then drink £8 pints in overfilled London pubs while standing outside and shouting over each other. I actually don't want to spend more time with my colleagues after spending all day with them, I prefer to have a second friend circle which is more diverse than <group of people who happen to work in the same company as me>.
Pre-pandemic, I used to go the gym 4 nights a week, salsa parties the same or more. With remote work I am struggling, please try not to reduce my challenges to simply not putting the effort in, this is a difficulty I've battled with my entire life.
Also, note that neither of these activities involve colleagues, who I'd usually only socialise with post-work once a week (typically Fridays).
Also, note that neither of these activities involve colleagues, who I'd usually only socialise with post-work once a week (typically Fridays).
I go out several times a week now and have a friend group outside of work too. That's a different experience than what the GP is talking about.
My friends don't share my work context, nor do I want to have them hear about it endlessly. Getting a drink with friendly coworkers is a good way to have a conversation with that shared context.
My friends don't share my work context, nor do I want to have them hear about it endlessly. Getting a drink with friendly coworkers is a good way to have a conversation with that shared context.
I think there's tremendous loss to working remote-only, specially for young people. I've found me and all my young colleagues would much rather be in an office everyday than having the "freedom" to WFH. When you're young you're meant to live in shitty apartments in big, noisy cities. To be with other people all day, to go out and have dinner, and drinks after-work. Idk, it just feels like I'm wasting my life waking up and opening my computer at home every day. I've tried coworking, and while it helps a bit, it's akin to going to a bar alone to try to meet people.
"I" "I" "I"
This works great for you but for many it doesn't. Both are valid perspectives.
This works great for you but for many it doesn't. Both are valid perspectives.
But one “I” is asking for others to center their life around work for the sake of socialization, the other “I” is happy for the extroverted employee to find that extroversion however suits them, just leave me out of it. Those don’t seem equal asks
No where did I see OP ask for others to center their life around work for socialization. They admitted that many companies are cut off from their job search as a result, BUT ALSO THAT THEY ARE OKAY WITH THAT. You're twisting it completely.
No, see what I mean in another thread. Return-to-office is in large part steered by public opinion and commercial real estate issues.
For every bold company that leans into remote, the majority rest check the public temperature and do what seems in line pending open revolt form their employees or competitors offering remote.
So much of the public temperature around remote work is oriented around heavy support from public figures for return to office. By some employees supporting it as well, everyone risks getting swept back into office whether they like it or not and don’t have a job with enough power (like a talented dev) to go against the grain and protest.
If you’re not in those jobs with leverage and at a company considering RTO or not, Employees supporting remote work are espousing very safe career views, and the employees who disagree risk going against the grain with mgmt who want the office back so stay silent.
So this is what I mean by OP’s opinions mean everyone else gets swept in it as well.
For every bold company that leans into remote, the majority rest check the public temperature and do what seems in line pending open revolt form their employees or competitors offering remote.
So much of the public temperature around remote work is oriented around heavy support from public figures for return to office. By some employees supporting it as well, everyone risks getting swept back into office whether they like it or not and don’t have a job with enough power (like a talented dev) to go against the grain and protest.
If you’re not in those jobs with leverage and at a company considering RTO or not, Employees supporting remote work are espousing very safe career views, and the employees who disagree risk going against the grain with mgmt who want the office back so stay silent.
So this is what I mean by OP’s opinions mean everyone else gets swept in it as well.
So you are advocating for the censorship of someone who supports return to office based on the fact that it would create a sweeping effect across the industry that would force you back into a cubicle? Yeah, no thanks.
The sweeping effect is already happening.
The Mayor of NYC and state governor are directly petitioning companies to “fill our downtown!” For Pete’s sake.
So, with that in mind, I’m advocating for employees who want to go back to consider how their vocal opinions affect other employees who don’t want it, which based on the ghost-town hybrid office attempts and midtown NYC being at like 40% capacity are a critical mass of workers, to understand how their vocal-ness gets co-opted by entities that care a lot less about that worker’s having a friend group and more about commercial real estate, getting commuters back and generally abstract “well this is how it’s always done” logic, and to understand that they as employees add the final piece to making RTO happen in a way that harms all employees who aren’t in nimble jobs like SWE but should still be able to see their families grow up even if they don’t know how to code.
On the remote work side, you have largely tech companies which are down for it no issue but aren’t most companies, and then you have employees who just want to see their families and soccer games and get to know their spouses before age 60.
This population gets ignored by the somewhat very powerful stakeholders for RTO by wrapping up the argument in abstract “national /personal meaning” arguments as if the office is the only way to get those, and then the addition is that the stay-at-home employees are pajama-wearing slackers who don’t understand this greater good.
But, as long as employees don’t budge by and large and hop companies for remote, this is in balance for both the employees that want to be remote and the ones that want an office.
But when employees who want to RTO and start advocating for it, it’s changed. They add the final piece for employers and stakeholders who ultimately just want commercial rent paid and downtown lunch traffic to say “see, employees want RTO too!” This is all over LinkedIn and op-eds consistently.
The sweeps start happening, and everyone comes in, all because Bob wanted easy access to after-work pub experiences. At the cost of other employees’ family lives and literal hours of their day on a commute.
I’m not advocating for censorship, I’m advocating for candor in evaluating what’s going on.
The Mayor of NYC and state governor are directly petitioning companies to “fill our downtown!” For Pete’s sake.
So, with that in mind, I’m advocating for employees who want to go back to consider how their vocal opinions affect other employees who don’t want it, which based on the ghost-town hybrid office attempts and midtown NYC being at like 40% capacity are a critical mass of workers, to understand how their vocal-ness gets co-opted by entities that care a lot less about that worker’s having a friend group and more about commercial real estate, getting commuters back and generally abstract “well this is how it’s always done” logic, and to understand that they as employees add the final piece to making RTO happen in a way that harms all employees who aren’t in nimble jobs like SWE but should still be able to see their families grow up even if they don’t know how to code.
On the remote work side, you have largely tech companies which are down for it no issue but aren’t most companies, and then you have employees who just want to see their families and soccer games and get to know their spouses before age 60.
This population gets ignored by the somewhat very powerful stakeholders for RTO by wrapping up the argument in abstract “national /personal meaning” arguments as if the office is the only way to get those, and then the addition is that the stay-at-home employees are pajama-wearing slackers who don’t understand this greater good.
But, as long as employees don’t budge by and large and hop companies for remote, this is in balance for both the employees that want to be remote and the ones that want an office.
But when employees who want to RTO and start advocating for it, it’s changed. They add the final piece for employers and stakeholders who ultimately just want commercial rent paid and downtown lunch traffic to say “see, employees want RTO too!” This is all over LinkedIn and op-eds consistently.
The sweeps start happening, and everyone comes in, all because Bob wanted easy access to after-work pub experiences. At the cost of other employees’ family lives and literal hours of their day on a commute.
I’m not advocating for censorship, I’m advocating for candor in evaluating what’s going on.
The great thing about markets is that we can both get what we want. You can get a remote job, and I can get an in-person job.
I will continue to argue against any government regulations forcing the issue one way or another. But if companies start demanding workers return and the pool of jobs available to you shrinks, that's not my problem.
To be clear, I oppose Mayor Adams's (and anyone else's) inept efforts to distort the labor market in favor of in-person working, even if it's towards something I personally prefer. Government should play no role in remote vs in-person.
I will continue to argue against any government regulations forcing the issue one way or another. But if companies start demanding workers return and the pool of jobs available to you shrinks, that's not my problem.
To be clear, I oppose Mayor Adams's (and anyone else's) inept efforts to distort the labor market in favor of in-person working, even if it's towards something I personally prefer. Government should play no role in remote vs in-person.
Yes I agree, interested to see how it plays out. But I’d argue Adams and Albany’s pressure on PwC or whoever to renew their midtown lease paired with my various employee-unity rants ITT will be what results in the meaningful RTO events. There
won’t be any laws, just social pressure.
The market might solve it via PwC tanking over 10 yrs due to talent, but in the meantime that’s 10 yrs of people who deserve to see their families more too and can’t.
You could argue they should just be good enough at their jobs and/or choose the right career as to get remote options. Fair enough and this is what I’ve done.
But the implied primitive that the market decides who gets more family time, especially when it’s almost as simple as internet at the office or internet at home, seems very socially wrong to me.
The market might solve it via PwC tanking over 10 yrs due to talent, but in the meantime that’s 10 yrs of people who deserve to see their families more too and can’t.
You could argue they should just be good enough at their jobs and/or choose the right career as to get remote options. Fair enough and this is what I’ve done.
But the implied primitive that the market decides who gets more family time, especially when it’s almost as simple as internet at the office or internet at home, seems very socially wrong to me.
You're asking for candor, but not giving a bit of it back. Your argument can be completely flipped for the other side and it would make the same points. You are assuming OP is on LinkedIn boards and in work meetings holding up signs to initiate RTO. In reality they are probably just on HN expressing an opinion. For Pete's sake.
How so? What am I not being candid about and how can it be flipped. I’m not assuming OP is anywhere, I’m pointing out what OPs opinion, in aggregate, does to job trends and the externalities and consequences are beyond a narrow “I miss going to the pub after work.”
Candidly, I believe that employees who advocate for RTO are playing into the hands of stakeholders who don’t care much at all about those employees interests and reasons for going in, and by extension it damages fellow employees who want to stay remote.
The issue is, and by extension my primitives:
- remote employees can stay remote without damaging RTO employees’ social connections as there are a mountain or ways to get those social connections outside of easy-mode work.
- if RTO employees start going back, remote employees get damaged. There is the binary in office/not in office option. demonstrated outcomes are RTO pressure from some leads to RTO pressure for all.
- so, remote employees aren’t infringing on RTO, but RTO infringes on remote. There is more than enough evidence of this. One is allowing whoever to do whatever, the other is infringing on one population to support the social needs of another. That doesn’t seem right for Pete’s sake.
Ultimately, between a person’s ability to get easy access to a pub in light of the above, vs the resulting damage on employees who just want to work via the internet connection in their homes vs the one in the office and as a result see their kids grow up and get to know their spouses outside of pre-8am and post-7pm… that seems like a clear greater good to orient around and to be aware of one’s views’ impacts. It’s more than just pub nights involved.
Candidly, I believe that employees who advocate for RTO are playing into the hands of stakeholders who don’t care much at all about those employees interests and reasons for going in, and by extension it damages fellow employees who want to stay remote.
The issue is, and by extension my primitives:
- remote employees can stay remote without damaging RTO employees’ social connections as there are a mountain or ways to get those social connections outside of easy-mode work.
- if RTO employees start going back, remote employees get damaged. There is the binary in office/not in office option. demonstrated outcomes are RTO pressure from some leads to RTO pressure for all.
- so, remote employees aren’t infringing on RTO, but RTO infringes on remote. There is more than enough evidence of this. One is allowing whoever to do whatever, the other is infringing on one population to support the social needs of another. That doesn’t seem right for Pete’s sake.
Ultimately, between a person’s ability to get easy access to a pub in light of the above, vs the resulting damage on employees who just want to work via the internet connection in their homes vs the one in the office and as a result see their kids grow up and get to know their spouses outside of pre-8am and post-7pm… that seems like a clear greater good to orient around and to be aware of one’s views’ impacts. It’s more than just pub nights involved.
The thing is you’re asking everyone else in the office to come in and experience all the negative externalities (commute, health, family) just so you can have an easy way to get out and about after work. That doesn’t seem fair to me.
I'm struggling to find the bit where I demand all the remote-first or hybrid companies changes their ways and conform to my preferences.
No, I'm looking for companies that fit my preferences. Which is making my job search much harder, but I know what I need.
No, I'm looking for companies that fit my preferences. Which is making my job search much harder, but I know what I need.
Right, but the louder opinions like yours are, and these are the ones that surface most in the public debate and wrapped in some good-for-productivity ideas, the more fuel it adds to the fire of moving everyone back in office.
Louder opinions like mine? In all the places i've seen remote work discussed, I've been made to feel like my preference is a distinct minority -- to the point of feeling like the preference itself is being erased from the discourse.
If your experiences are different, I'm sorry for that, the last thing I want portray remote as an invalid preference. But when the topic comes up, I'm not going to sit on mute if it feels like my preference isn't getting any airtime.
If your experiences are different, I'm sorry for that, the last thing I want portray remote as an invalid preference. But when the topic comes up, I'm not going to sit on mute if it feels like my preference isn't getting any airtime.
Look, your preferences are totally valid.
What I’m referring to is this. I’ve worked at a few places that maintain an in-person office option for employees like you to support hybrid offices. These offices are frequently libraries though. Nobody is there. So the following happens.
If it’s a disciplined, remote-first place, this is accepted and ok. The subset of companies that can support this is small IMO.
For most others, they look at the empty office, hear preferences like yours that want in-personal back via appeals for community, at the extensive and the loud culture of OpEds in the Wall Street Journal/NYT by Peggy Noonan or Malcolm Gladwell about how remote work is critical for national and personal meaning, and then the return to office discussions start b/c employees support it as do thought leaders, the media, and politicians, and the nearly-empty office is expensive.
To be sure, there might be work places that stay totally in-person and you’re free to work there.
But the other issue is a lot of people don’t want work friends as their friends. This is loose scientific evidence, but Office Space is a very popular movie in the US and the Office in UK/US for this reason, for example.
So calls for return to office means, imo, a lot of people who would also love to be remote but can’t bc they’re not software engineers or wherever get swept back in. So your personal needs harm that greater good as I see it.
What I’m referring to is this. I’ve worked at a few places that maintain an in-person office option for employees like you to support hybrid offices. These offices are frequently libraries though. Nobody is there. So the following happens.
If it’s a disciplined, remote-first place, this is accepted and ok. The subset of companies that can support this is small IMO.
For most others, they look at the empty office, hear preferences like yours that want in-personal back via appeals for community, at the extensive and the loud culture of OpEds in the Wall Street Journal/NYT by Peggy Noonan or Malcolm Gladwell about how remote work is critical for national and personal meaning, and then the return to office discussions start b/c employees support it as do thought leaders, the media, and politicians, and the nearly-empty office is expensive.
To be sure, there might be work places that stay totally in-person and you’re free to work there.
But the other issue is a lot of people don’t want work friends as their friends. This is loose scientific evidence, but Office Space is a very popular movie in the US and the Office in UK/US for this reason, for example.
So calls for return to office means, imo, a lot of people who would also love to be remote but can’t bc they’re not software engineers or wherever get swept back in. So your personal needs harm that greater good as I see it.
I don't think OP is. They know how they feels and they're betting others feel the same. Employees wanting to work in an office isn't the same thing as employers forcing people to.
Right, my base assumption is betting a lot of the other employees don’t feel the same. There are a core group of work friends that maybe stick around after leaving a job as friends, the rest are evenings you’re taking from me, my family, and my time at a pub b/c those pub nights are ultimately important for career management and matter little for meaningful socialization.
I feel like people get this or not. The relationships at work are more for career advancement than friendship (or I’m a sociopath). This has been a thing forever, Office Space was a hit for a reason.
I feel like people get this or not. The relationships at work are more for career advancement than friendship (or I’m a sociopath). This has been a thing forever, Office Space was a hit for a reason.
No, he’s looking for a job where his coworkers have similar desires. I don’t see the problem with this.
This feels like me to a tee! I see so many people crapping on 'work social' life as if its some despicable activity that only those with no standards could partake in. The truth is that some of the nicest and best people I have met have been at work, and I thoroughly enjoyed going out and decompressing with them!
Good times.
Good times.
Amen, same here. Each to their own, I guess it depends based on personality type, the company you're at, maybe the country you're in... but I've made a lot of good friends through work who are still good friends of mine despite not having worked together for many years.
The polarisation of this debate is quite weird to watch. I get why people who prefer remote feel they have to fight for it now that it has become a common thing, but it's weird to deny that other people might have other preferences and there is room for both.
The polarisation of this debate is quite weird to watch. I get why people who prefer remote feel they have to fight for it now that it has become a common thing, but it's weird to deny that other people might have other preferences and there is room for both.
Then drive into town after work and go out? Not doing that is entirely your decision and has nothing to do with home office.
> It's OK for there to not be a one-size fits all solution.
Funny, because before COVID, like 90% of the IT companies out there were using a "one-size fits all" solution (i.e., 100% office-based work).
Funny, because before COVID, like 90% of the IT companies out there were using a "one-size fits all" solution (i.e., 100% office-based work).
I think it was less available, but less than 90%, which is phrased a little akwardly, but basically, I worked remotely for 5 years before covid (hated it, but also hated the office and like the California salary outside California) and it was not available to new hires at all, but there were a lot of us who basically said, I’m moving for personal reasons, why can you do for me, and HR made it work.
It did involve flights and hotels for the around 10 weeks a year I was working in more of a lab situation, which I can see not wanting to do for 300 people instead of a few dozen.
It did involve flights and hotels for the around 10 weeks a year I was working in more of a lab situation, which I can see not wanting to do for 300 people instead of a few dozen.
[deleted]
> that those whose personalities differ are self-selecting for working in an office environment?
Remote doesn't specify where you work, though. In my 20 years of working remotely, I've worked from home, from cars, hotels, cafes, offices, out in the middle of a field, you name it I've probably done it. 100% remote working conditions can mean working in an office environment every single day, if that's your preference. Remote is a euphemism for "work wherever you please".
The actual differentiation here is whether or not an employer dictates a working location. Are you, perhaps, suggesting that there is strong overlap between those who prefer working in offices (which does no preclude 100% remote) and having a controlling power dictate how they live?
Remote doesn't specify where you work, though. In my 20 years of working remotely, I've worked from home, from cars, hotels, cafes, offices, out in the middle of a field, you name it I've probably done it. 100% remote working conditions can mean working in an office environment every single day, if that's your preference. Remote is a euphemism for "work wherever you please".
The actual differentiation here is whether or not an employer dictates a working location. Are you, perhaps, suggesting that there is strong overlap between those who prefer working in offices (which does no preclude 100% remote) and having a controlling power dictate how they live?
I think the problem is that people that misses working from an office don't miss the office itself, but the rest of their co-workers. So for them to be happy, they need the employer to mandate everybody back into the office. Otherwise, if they can go back to the office, but they find they're the only ones that actually want to work from the office, or maybe a couple of guys more, then it won't cut it.
Working in an office without your coworkers is in no way a substitute for working in an office with them. What people are talking about when they say they prefer an office environment is face to face collaboration and socialization. You don't get that unless the people in the office with you are you coworkers.
The theory proposed earlier is that you will self-select to work with other workers who choose to work in offices, if that's your preference, so it can remain a 100% remote situation where the preferred remote location is the office.
There is an implication as well, though, that there is an additional self-selection towards having dictation on how to live your life from a greater power among those who prefer working in offices, seeing those people self-select businesses that have mandated location requirements. That is what we are exploring here.
There is an implication as well, though, that there is an additional self-selection towards having dictation on how to live your life from a greater power among those who prefer working in offices, seeing those people self-select businesses that have mandated location requirements. That is what we are exploring here.
>Working in an office without your coworkers is in no way a substitute for working in an office with them. What people are talking about when they say they prefer an office environment is face to face collaboration and socialization.
This, right here, explains the pushback against those who favor in-office work; it's not that they simply want to be in the office, but they want their colleagues to make the commute to join them in the office and chat with them.
Conversely, remote workers do not place any such requirements on where their colleagues work. They aren't requiring that anyone else be in a specific location at a specific time, hence why it is better and more accommodating to others.
This, right here, explains the pushback against those who favor in-office work; it's not that they simply want to be in the office, but they want their colleagues to make the commute to join them in the office and chat with them.
Conversely, remote workers do not place any such requirements on where their colleagues work. They aren't requiring that anyone else be in a specific location at a specific time, hence why it is better and more accommodating to others.
Throughout my career it's been my experience that the type of people you describe are never the top performers, and seldom average performers. The ones craving social interactions often are just looking for distractions (like spending too long at the water cooler chatting) cause either they hate their job, hate the work, can't do the actual work or view work (exchange of labour/time for money) as a predominantly social activity. That type of person is usually a negative contributor overall.
No thanks. I get paid the same if it takes me 4 hours or 8 hours to complete my work. I'll take 4 hours and spend the rest of the day doing what I want.
No thanks. I get paid the same if it takes me 4 hours or 8 hours to complete my work. I'll take 4 hours and spend the rest of the day doing what I want.
Disclaimer: Working for remote-only company.
“People that like social interaction are average performers” is such a wild take to me. I’ve worked with incredibly talented people in the past, where we’d go for lunch beers, travel together, come back to the office, finish up pretty complicated features. I don’t consider myself a “top performer”, but those people certainly were, and downplaying their talent and abilities just because they enjoy the company of other people is just… not nice.
This whole debate of “remote only” vs “fully back to office” is extremely subjective. Some people love one, some people enjoy the other. I’ll be happy as long as both of the options stay competitive enough where people get a choice.
“People that like social interaction are average performers” is such a wild take to me. I’ve worked with incredibly talented people in the past, where we’d go for lunch beers, travel together, come back to the office, finish up pretty complicated features. I don’t consider myself a “top performer”, but those people certainly were, and downplaying their talent and abilities just because they enjoy the company of other people is just… not nice.
This whole debate of “remote only” vs “fully back to office” is extremely subjective. Some people love one, some people enjoy the other. I’ll be happy as long as both of the options stay competitive enough where people get a choice.
They've studied this and in a technical setting, more social engineers get more done because people are willing to help and back their ideas and help them when they hit roadblocks.
I think you've conflated two things.
People can be productive or slackers. And they can be social or antisocial. You personally noticed the social slackers. But I doubt you noticed the antisocial ones, because they're not visibly doing nothing; they're distracting themselves in quieter ways.
I know plenty of people who are both productive and social. Indeed, given that both software and business are mostly team sports, some of the most productive people I know are very social.
People can be productive or slackers. And they can be social or antisocial. You personally noticed the social slackers. But I doubt you noticed the antisocial ones, because they're not visibly doing nothing; they're distracting themselves in quieter ways.
I know plenty of people who are both productive and social. Indeed, given that both software and business are mostly team sports, some of the most productive people I know are very social.
That has been nearly the exact opposite of my experience.
As one advisor put it: researchers who prefer to keep their door closed often publish more papers over the course of a year, but researchers who keep their door open often publish more impactful research over the course of their lifetime.
As one advisor put it: researchers who prefer to keep their door closed often publish more papers over the course of a year, but researchers who keep their door open often publish more impactful research over the course of their lifetime.
Research impact is typically measured by peer driven citations. Peers also review papers and award grants. All of the above are easily gamed metrics by social engineers independently of the actual value of their work.
I've been working remotely for years with in-person visits on a monthly to quarterly basis. Brain-storming and planning in person definitely create value, but getting the work done is a different story. 10% inspiration (in person, maybe) and 90% perspiration (where they don't have to watch you sweat).
I've been working remotely for years with in-person visits on a monthly to quarterly basis. Brain-storming and planning in person definitely create value, but getting the work done is a different story. 10% inspiration (in person, maybe) and 90% perspiration (where they don't have to watch you sweat).
I'm curious how you would determine the "actual value of their work" without considering peer review or award grants? I'm not saying that shoddy work with good marketing deserves to be successful, but doing brilliant research that no one knows about seems like it's not particularly valuable either.
I've also worked with engineers who completely discounted the importance of the social aspect of their work. Frequently even their strongest work had minimal impact on the organization.
I've also worked with engineers who completely discounted the importance of the social aspect of their work. Frequently even their strongest work had minimal impact on the organization.
That statement about open vs closed door was commonly used to justify open plan offices. Now it is being repurposed to justify in-office work in general. Interesting.
Interesting, I haven't heard the statement used in that way, seems like taking things a bit past their logical conclusion -- after all, the presence of a door implies that the researchers had actual offices.
(My prior job was the first time I've worked in an open plan office so one of my hard requirements in my prior job search was no open plan offices.)
(My prior job was the first time I've worked in an open plan office so one of my hard requirements in my prior job search was no open plan offices.)
That's a pretty narrow viewpoint. I can tell you from personal experience that it is very difficult to graduate college almost straight into a (pandemic-induced) remote job in a new city while trying to make local connections and ramp up in my job during a global pandemic.
> I get paid the same if it takes me 4 hours or 8 hours to complete my work. I'll take 4 hours and spend the rest of the day doing what I want
This. working remotely you have the HUGE advantage of being able to work enough and spend the rest of your working time as you prefer, rather than waste it. Even if you deeply love your teammates, having more time for yourself is priceless, especially in a society where you're supposed to spend the most and the best of your life working.
This. working remotely you have the HUGE advantage of being able to work enough and spend the rest of your working time as you prefer, rather than waste it. Even if you deeply love your teammates, having more time for yourself is priceless, especially in a society where you're supposed to spend the most and the best of your life working.
Not everyone has your job function.
Not all job roles are the same and communication can be required for many. Building good rapport can help reduce tensions as well and being in person can help that.
Not all job roles are the same and communication can be required for many. Building good rapport can help reduce tensions as well and being in person can help that.
In my experience, the top performers find more work if they finish what they're working on. But we all have our own anecdotes.
Edit: Find more work or help the rest of the team out.
Edit: Find more work or help the rest of the team out.
"It only takes me 4 hours to complete my work" is a sign that you are a ticket drone and not an engineer with agency. This by definition means you are not a top performer. You also seem toxic to boot.
Most people aren't paid based on performance. The only difference between GPs behavior and the average company's mentality? The company making fat profits off of anyone willing to bust their hump for a pittance is nowhere near as condemned as an employee doing the equivalent.
Make performance scale better and the problem stops. There aren't enough jobs willing to do so.
Make performance scale better and the problem stops. There aren't enough jobs willing to do so.
That may all be true about compensation, but the poster was specifically making a claim about performance.
yup. Those are the kind that excels at "networking" but can't code a main function without an IDE if their lives depend on it
Have you considered that the those different personalities are ultimately asking for a friend group in-office composed of people that largely don’t want to be those forced-friends and by extension commute/sacrifice finances/family time to do it and then just zoom-call and slack in office anyway?
That’s the nonsensical aspect of all this. Everyone mentioning that the office was a key community or some higher ideal to spend time on for meaning forget that you can have that socialization and significantly more intrinsically valuable meaning-making with (a) family, (b) friends outside of work, (c) community involvement. All of which don’t require commutes, work lunches, losing family time for something that doesn’t matter in the long run. Instead, let’s hang out and support the extroverts who somehow don’t know how to make friends outside of those they helped launch a product with? Totally nonsensical.
Edit: I’m at a negative downvote and dropping fast, so fwiw one day everyone gets families of some kind and also stops working, even if that’s not understood now. what connections are left over after work stops are what will power you, and most people understand that eventually.
That’s the nonsensical aspect of all this. Everyone mentioning that the office was a key community or some higher ideal to spend time on for meaning forget that you can have that socialization and significantly more intrinsically valuable meaning-making with (a) family, (b) friends outside of work, (c) community involvement. All of which don’t require commutes, work lunches, losing family time for something that doesn’t matter in the long run. Instead, let’s hang out and support the extroverts who somehow don’t know how to make friends outside of those they helped launch a product with? Totally nonsensical.
Edit: I’m at a negative downvote and dropping fast, so fwiw one day everyone gets families of some kind and also stops working, even if that’s not understood now. what connections are left over after work stops are what will power you, and most people understand that eventually.
True, I think the rhetoric and The article are focused on killing the negative concepts around remote. To the extreme in pointing out that most of the common tropes are not accurate. The problem is I don’t think anti-remote people understand that in some cases there whole team may want to be remote 100% of the time, and that it’s not right to be in the mindset that those team members should be forced to come into an office to satisfying there need for socialization, in fact unfortunately in that situation maybe they need to change fields or companies.
A lot of people have. There is a reason remote only job postings have such a high number of applicants. In a lot of ways, remote already won. The question for me is really as to whether that means that anyone worth their salt will stay at non-remote places and whether old corps will suffer a brain drain.
Introverts have had to suffer work environments made for extroverts for too long.
As an introvert, I welcome the reversal. Deal with it.
As an introvert, I welcome the reversal. Deal with it.
> Have you considered that those of your view and those espousing that remote is more difficult might have different personalities, levels of need of social interaction, or lifestyles?
Yes and no.
There's the people personalities that affect the end result, but sometimes the company is the one setting hurdles that make everything hard.
"There's no free interaction, like at the coffee machine." but don't offer spaces (or time) for people to relax online and/or connect.
"You don't have the immediate help of others that are around you." others that can distract you sometimes, and meanwhile you want to even deduct the bathroom break's time from remote workers.
"I need some socialization." do your time, then find another outlet of socialization.
Some companies are not embracing remote working. Some might have valid reasons (most of the staff is local and we want the ones that could remote to have heavy interaction) or non-valid ones (I'm the boss and I want to see everyone at the office). Of course, for these companies, remote will be hard. They are making it so.
Yes and no.
There's the people personalities that affect the end result, but sometimes the company is the one setting hurdles that make everything hard.
"There's no free interaction, like at the coffee machine." but don't offer spaces (or time) for people to relax online and/or connect.
"You don't have the immediate help of others that are around you." others that can distract you sometimes, and meanwhile you want to even deduct the bathroom break's time from remote workers.
"I need some socialization." do your time, then find another outlet of socialization.
Some companies are not embracing remote working. Some might have valid reasons (most of the staff is local and we want the ones that could remote to have heavy interaction) or non-valid ones (I'm the boss and I want to see everyone at the office). Of course, for these companies, remote will be hard. They are making it so.
I think it is probably more of an intracompany issue, not intercompany.
I see older people in management who can't deal with remote and younger people who are eager to work from wherever.
I see older people in management who can't deal with remote and younger people who are eager to work from wherever.
I see exactly the opposite where I work, and I am "hard-core WFO" but non-discriminatory (WFH is fine!). You wrote your post like it is a physics theorem (absolute).
To be more open-minded: If you work in a place where (old/er) management is intolerant of diverse working styles... well, f-ck them! Please kindly find a better place to work! :-)
To be more open-minded: If you work in a place where (old/er) management is intolerant of diverse working styles... well, f-ck them! Please kindly find a better place to work! :-)
> It's OK for there to not be a one size fits all solution.
What? Nuanced thinking? No, we need a million click bait articles and BS business books about how going remote will help you win at everything no matter who you are or what your business is. Then when problems arise we can get another million click bait articles and BS business books about how remote is terrible and doesn't work... again no matter who you are or what you're doing.
How else will a generation of consultants make a living helping guide "remote transformations" and then another generation of consultants make a living doing the opposite?
What? Nuanced thinking? No, we need a million click bait articles and BS business books about how going remote will help you win at everything no matter who you are or what your business is. Then when problems arise we can get another million click bait articles and BS business books about how remote is terrible and doesn't work... again no matter who you are or what you're doing.
How else will a generation of consultants make a living helping guide "remote transformations" and then another generation of consultants make a living doing the opposite?
It's hard for me to imagine an office environment that would make up for commuting every day. Unless I live walking distance from the office I'll pick fully remote every time.
Have you considered that we live in the 21st century and if you can't handle modern social conventions, you're going to be left behind in an increasingly shrinking group just like everyone in previous generations who failed to adapt?
Nobody is actually stopping people from forming inofficial "local" offices. As in meet remote workers near you and try to hire at there company. After that, everyone hosts the office at his/her flat once a week.
I feel the same. I read GP and thought: "Oh, another 'extremist' WFH advocate." This is a never ending battle on HN -- with so little new, interesting input on either sides of the debate. The "all office" vs "all remote" crowd: It is exhasuting. Both are correct and wrong at the same time. Like Realpolitik in geopolitics: For each team, it is all about what works for your team. But please, don't tell me what works for my team / family / personal situation.
The very best teams have highly levels of adapability -- whatever comes we can adapt, but continue to be high functioning!
Personally, I really like WFO. Why? I like the pressure to wake up early, dress well (suit and tie!), ride the metro/subway, and perform at the office. However, I never pressure my teammates to do the same. I tell all new joiners: You can wear hoodie and jeans everyday, but please don't take away my necktie! Yes, I know that I am the cultural equivalent of an office / cultural dinosaur in 2022!
In my team, people that WFH more often have measurably lower rates of collaboration versus those who work-from-office (WFO). To be clear, the most advanced sales teams literally measure everything regarding collaberation or client contact. (I have seen custom built software at multiple companies that try to exactly measure this!) It does not mean that WFH is less productive or less collaborative. Instead, it means that each team is different.
A "WFH zealot" on my team was adamant that their previous boss who commuted by high speed rail twice per week more than 500km away was a "good situation". There is no limit for the zealots (on both sides: office vs home). It could be working from the moon (WFH -- new SpaceX colony!) or everyone sleeps in the office 7 days a week (ramen profitable / office uber-zealot). Both sides are simultaneously correct (with perfect fit team) or wrong (with terrible fit team).
This whole silly "argument" feels like the anti-vaxxer equivalent of WFH vs WFO. I am tired of it.
What is a good reply to this post? Talk about when/where you were wrong / learned something new (!). "Oh, I was WFH zealot, but then I was forced to WFO and was suddenly much higher collab and connected with my teammates." (Or the exact opposite -- "I am tired of annoying sales people asking me to fix their broken mouse!".) Please don't reply to this post if you are the anti-vaxxer equiv of WFH/WFO. You add nothing new to the debate.
Last: This whole debate feels eerily simliar to the mid-2000s argument about (only) "hire old/experienced" vs "hire young/inexperienced". Both sides were correct and wrong at the same time. The same old anti-vaxxer crowd argument again! The ultimate team had energetic people of all ages / genders / experience / ethnicity / religion. Hey... Looks the same in 2022!
The best team I ever worked on had wild variety in experience. All the way from "I-Am-Old-Get-Off-My-Lawn" to "17-year-old-summer-intern". Amazingly, people were open-minded and tolerant. As a result, we worked at a furious pace and team meetings were amazing.
The very best teams have highly levels of adapability -- whatever comes we can adapt, but continue to be high functioning!
Personally, I really like WFO. Why? I like the pressure to wake up early, dress well (suit and tie!), ride the metro/subway, and perform at the office. However, I never pressure my teammates to do the same. I tell all new joiners: You can wear hoodie and jeans everyday, but please don't take away my necktie! Yes, I know that I am the cultural equivalent of an office / cultural dinosaur in 2022!
In my team, people that WFH more often have measurably lower rates of collaboration versus those who work-from-office (WFO). To be clear, the most advanced sales teams literally measure everything regarding collaberation or client contact. (I have seen custom built software at multiple companies that try to exactly measure this!) It does not mean that WFH is less productive or less collaborative. Instead, it means that each team is different.
A "WFH zealot" on my team was adamant that their previous boss who commuted by high speed rail twice per week more than 500km away was a "good situation". There is no limit for the zealots (on both sides: office vs home). It could be working from the moon (WFH -- new SpaceX colony!) or everyone sleeps in the office 7 days a week (ramen profitable / office uber-zealot). Both sides are simultaneously correct (with perfect fit team) or wrong (with terrible fit team).
This whole silly "argument" feels like the anti-vaxxer equivalent of WFH vs WFO. I am tired of it.
What is a good reply to this post? Talk about when/where you were wrong / learned something new (!). "Oh, I was WFH zealot, but then I was forced to WFO and was suddenly much higher collab and connected with my teammates." (Or the exact opposite -- "I am tired of annoying sales people asking me to fix their broken mouse!".) Please don't reply to this post if you are the anti-vaxxer equiv of WFH/WFO. You add nothing new to the debate.
Last: This whole debate feels eerily simliar to the mid-2000s argument about (only) "hire old/experienced" vs "hire young/inexperienced". Both sides were correct and wrong at the same time. The same old anti-vaxxer crowd argument again! The ultimate team had energetic people of all ages / genders / experience / ethnicity / religion. Hey... Looks the same in 2022!
The best team I ever worked on had wild variety in experience. All the way from "I-Am-Old-Get-Off-My-Lawn" to "17-year-old-summer-intern". Amazingly, people were open-minded and tolerant. As a result, we worked at a furious pace and team meetings were amazing.
I sort of agree. We (small startup) went fully remote with COVID and remain so. Work communication is fine, but socializing doesn't happen the way it did at the office. It works okay because most of us had already been working together at the office, but it's harder for new hires, and especially for young junior-level engineers without much experience (i.e., fresh out of college). Hasn't worked well for interns either. But for older, experienced, workers who are able to communicate effectively online and would much rather not be bothered to go into an office, it works well.
We haven't tried hybrid but I don't really see the benefits of it. One big advantage of remote is being able to hire people in other locations. The only way I could see hybrid being useful would be to provide a work space for people who want to work away from home (i.e., for variety or because their house isn't conducive to it), and let those who prefer to work from home (i.e., parents with young kids who need a more flex schedule) do so without set office day requirements (or very few).
We haven't tried hybrid but I don't really see the benefits of it. One big advantage of remote is being able to hire people in other locations. The only way I could see hybrid being useful would be to provide a work space for people who want to work away from home (i.e., for variety or because their house isn't conducive to it), and let those who prefer to work from home (i.e., parents with young kids who need a more flex schedule) do so without set office day requirements (or very few).
In the book "A year without pants" by Scott Berkun where he spends a year with Wordpress and their then somewhat unique remote model, he emphasizes that it's still important for many to meet, it's just not necessary every day. I've worked remotely for almost 20 years and I believe quite strongly that remote companies often underestimate the importance of actually meeting occasionally, maybe every 3-6 months. Maybe importance is too strong, maybe it's just fun to meet up every now and then and share some adventures.
I feel much more socially connected with my remote team than I ever did in an office.
I had such a hard time focusing in the office that whenever I'd finally achieve momentum, somebody stopping by to chat was bittersweet--it might be another several hours before I manage to reacquire that state. Usually I'd just waste time until everybody went home and then do my actual job in an empty office. I grew to resent them a teensy bit because their social habits had me "working" 12 hour days.
Being remote, we use a slack app called donut (no affiliation, I just like it). It prompts me every week:
> You've been randomly paired with so-and-so, here are several times that you're both available
We pick one and have a 30 minute chat. Explicitly making time for social stuff really changes the equation. I'm working only 8 hrs a day for the first time since I started working a salaried job.
I had such a hard time focusing in the office that whenever I'd finally achieve momentum, somebody stopping by to chat was bittersweet--it might be another several hours before I manage to reacquire that state. Usually I'd just waste time until everybody went home and then do my actual job in an empty office. I grew to resent them a teensy bit because their social habits had me "working" 12 hour days.
Being remote, we use a slack app called donut (no affiliation, I just like it). It prompts me every week:
> You've been randomly paired with so-and-so, here are several times that you're both available
We pick one and have a 30 minute chat. Explicitly making time for social stuff really changes the equation. I'm working only 8 hrs a day for the first time since I started working a salaried job.
Communications and collaboration is very important. However, "socializing" through Slack is simply just not the same as going out to lunch with a coworker, for example. Permanent remote work has a very detached feel to it, at least for me.
I don't get this. If you have a coworker that enjoy having lunch with you... what's stopping you both doing so? I mean, even if you both work from home, you could still schedule a lunch together in the city, right? If you both live in different cities, well, I guess before COVID you weren't having lunch together that frequently.
100% remote doesn't dictate how (or with who) you eat lunch.
100% remote doesn't dictate how (or with who) you eat lunch.
>I don't get this. If you have a coworker that enjoy having lunch with you... what's stopping you both doing so? I mean, even if you both work from home, you could still schedule a lunch together in the city, right?
I don't like the office and work 100% remote but I remember collaboration scenarios that were easier and more natural in the office. Example...
- coworker and I discuss something at the cubicle or meeting room. Maybe use the whiteboard. It's now about noon so we agree to grab lunch at the cafeteria.
- continue discussion while walking toward the cafeteria
- continue at lunch table and/or walk back to desks
No coordination or invites on Zoom. Continued discussion in-real-life just flows while we're multitasking (i.e. getting some food) -- because we're both physically present.
So two remote workers getting in the car to meet for lunch isn't the same.
But at the moment, I'm not working on anything that requires that intense level of in-person collaboration described above -- so I'd rather remain working 100% at home.
I don't like the office and work 100% remote but I remember collaboration scenarios that were easier and more natural in the office. Example...
- coworker and I discuss something at the cubicle or meeting room. Maybe use the whiteboard. It's now about noon so we agree to grab lunch at the cafeteria.
- continue discussion while walking toward the cafeteria
- continue at lunch table and/or walk back to desks
No coordination or invites on Zoom. Continued discussion in-real-life just flows while we're multitasking (i.e. getting some food) -- because we're both physically present.
So two remote workers getting in the car to meet for lunch isn't the same.
But at the moment, I'm not working on anything that requires that intense level of in-person collaboration described above -- so I'd rather remain working 100% at home.
I am working remotely for 15 years, but from time to time I go to the local office; when I go to lunch, I just socialize with anyone that I see there and I either have an informal affinity (calling them friends may be too much) or I want to discuss a light business matter that does not require a formal meeting, but can be discussed over lunch.
Also I have a coworker in my team that is in the same city, but the opposite part, around 2 hour drive from me to his place. If we want to have lunch, we waste a lot of time (1 hour per direction for each of us); if we are in the office in the same day, there is zero cost.
I found small chat over lunch or a coffee break to be very effective in building relations with people you don't directly work with. This helped me many times in the past when I had to talk to someone and it was not a cold approach, so they made time to talk to me and help.
Also I have a coworker in my team that is in the same city, but the opposite part, around 2 hour drive from me to his place. If we want to have lunch, we waste a lot of time (1 hour per direction for each of us); if we are in the office in the same day, there is zero cost.
I found small chat over lunch or a coffee break to be very effective in building relations with people you don't directly work with. This helped me many times in the past when I had to talk to someone and it was not a cold approach, so they made time to talk to me and help.
Zero additional cost. You each pay 2 hours a day in commuting to get to the office. Take those two hours that you get back EVERY DAY and make friends within walking distance.
It is not about making friends, it is about relations with the people I work with. More than 10 years ago I saved someone's job just by simply clearing a serious misunderstanding with people I knew.
> If you have a coworker that enjoy having lunch with you... what's stopping you both doing so?
The fact that I don't even live in the same state or country as them anymore? When you hire people locally, you can exist in the same physical space as them. When you hire people remotely, and work for a remote startup, this isn't possible. I don't understand your question.
The fact that I don't even live in the same state or country as them anymore? When you hire people locally, you can exist in the same physical space as them. When you hire people remotely, and work for a remote startup, this isn't possible. I don't understand your question.
Well, physical distance might be a factor: they're 500 miles away. Previous company, everyone I worked with was 1000+ miles.
Just based on basic behavioral science and statistics, every desired action from pt A to pt B (e.g. visit website -> buy a product) is a collection of smaller actions that comprise a funnel.
For example, in the funnel of a customer visiting amazon to finally buying a product, amazon loses millions of dollars when initial page load times are 300ms slower within that funnel.
Any added friction between stages in a funnel will reduce the result at the end of the funnel. You add scheduling complexity, physical driving, distributed workforces, etc, and the number of shared lunches are going to drop super fast. Hell, you put 2 onsite employees in 2 different buildings on campus and their chance at a lunch together will drop.
If you or your company cares about in-person collaboration or socializing, you had better foster that behavior and not count on raw willpower to break out of the mold.
For example, in the funnel of a customer visiting amazon to finally buying a product, amazon loses millions of dollars when initial page load times are 300ms slower within that funnel.
Any added friction between stages in a funnel will reduce the result at the end of the funnel. You add scheduling complexity, physical driving, distributed workforces, etc, and the number of shared lunches are going to drop super fast. Hell, you put 2 onsite employees in 2 different buildings on campus and their chance at a lunch together will drop.
If you or your company cares about in-person collaboration or socializing, you had better foster that behavior and not count on raw willpower to break out of the mold.
Nothing stops you. But being together "forces" you to socialize. When I turn off the camera, you are gone.
Nothing prevents you from making plans to meet up with coworkers, once every few months. That is a very different thing, from a sense-of-belonging perspective, from having a group that you share meals with day after day.
The only thing besides work that could be comparable is a family. That's it's own challenge, though: easy to get cabin fever locked in with the same small group of people all the time.
The only thing besides work that could be comparable is a family. That's it's own challenge, though: easy to get cabin fever locked in with the same small group of people all the time.
Even if you lived in the same city, you'd have to waste time commuting from respective neighborhoods to some halfway point, which could easily be 30 min off your lunch hour.
I assume you don’t keep in touch with people through social media or texting then? Or would you not consider those remote people actual friends since you can’t collaborate with them in physical locations regularly?
There are former work colleagues that I do keep in touch with regularly, yes. We do text and do get together every now and then. I knew them from before the pandemic, when we worked at an office together, from before remote work became a semi-permanent thing. If you work at a "remote first" company where people are spread all over the country or world, this won't happen unless you happen to have someone nearby.
For the most part, I don't consider people I keep in contact with on social media or via text close friends. At best, our friendships are on hold.
Nearly all of the meaningful interactions I have with friends require collocation.
Nearly all of the meaningful interactions I have with friends require collocation.
> Meanwhile we have had no problem sourcing candidates since we can pull from anywhere in the world, we have some incredible people all over the world that we would not have gotten otherwise.
How do you handle taxes ?
For example in Europe a German company can't hire a French dev if the german company doesn't have a legal entity in France, it quickly gets out of control both in term of paperwork and cost. The dev can't be a freelancer because a freelancer with a full time, fixed hours, single customer is illegal in many places
Also let's say you have an American company with 200 german employees but no office on german soil, does that mean they don't pay any local tax because technically they don't operate their business in the country ?
I feel like a lot of loopholes which were seldom used will promptly be closed once they become widely used
How do you handle taxes ?
For example in Europe a German company can't hire a French dev if the german company doesn't have a legal entity in France, it quickly gets out of control both in term of paperwork and cost. The dev can't be a freelancer because a freelancer with a full time, fixed hours, single customer is illegal in many places
Also let's say you have an American company with 200 german employees but no office on german soil, does that mean they don't pay any local tax because technically they don't operate their business in the country ?
I feel like a lot of loopholes which were seldom used will promptly be closed once they become widely used
> The dev can't be a freelancer because a freelancer with a full time, fixed hours, single customer is illegal in many places.
In many countries where that's the case, it's fine if the company you're freelancing for is foreign (IANAL). Because as you say, there's no other simple way to do it. Though you can also use services like remote.com.
In many countries where that's the case, it's fine if the company you're freelancing for is foreign (IANAL). Because as you say, there's no other simple way to do it. Though you can also use services like remote.com.
I have a friend who's physically in the UK and works for a US company. I was interviewing for a remote job in the UK while being physically in France.
In both situations, the setup is a local company (possibly self-owned) that bills the actual company. So you're not UsCorp's employee, you're an YourOwnCorp employee, and UsCorp is YourOwnCorp's client.
This way, all taxes and related issues are handled locally. Sure, there's overhead, but from what I've seen it's worth it.
In both situations, the setup is a local company (possibly self-owned) that bills the actual company. So you're not UsCorp's employee, you're an YourOwnCorp employee, and UsCorp is YourOwnCorp's client.
This way, all taxes and related issues are handled locally. Sure, there's overhead, but from what I've seen it's worth it.
In the UK we have IR35 and AFAIK in other countries there are similar laws in place to prevent people working as contractors for their own limited company when they "should" be an employee (determined by various factors), and as far as I know it applies regardless of whether both entities are in the same country or not. Of course, you can be careful with contracts and working conditions etc. to try to avoid this, but it's definitely not trivial and something of a grey area.
According to [0], this seems concerned with "taxation fairness"; basically making sure you don't take advantage of some possible lower tax rates (I suppose, I don't live in the UK) levied on companies instead of workers.
It's my understanding that, basically, if you're an "outsourced employee", you have to pay the same things as if you were an actual employee: so salary, income tax, whatever else HMRC requires, rather than milking the dividends... It doesn't seem to me that the actual setup is illegal.
[0] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/understanding-off-payroll-workin...
---
edit: In France, I'm not aware of a similar law in regard to taxation. However, there's a "worker protection" law that says that if you're only working for a client, you are subordinate to them, and basically the only difference between an actual employee and you is that you're outsourced, you can then sue the company to be "promoted" to an internal employee, and you're basically guaranteed to win.
It's my understanding that, basically, if you're an "outsourced employee", you have to pay the same things as if you were an actual employee: so salary, income tax, whatever else HMRC requires, rather than milking the dividends... It doesn't seem to me that the actual setup is illegal.
[0] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/understanding-off-payroll-workin...
---
edit: In France, I'm not aware of a similar law in regard to taxation. However, there's a "worker protection" law that says that if you're only working for a client, you are subordinate to them, and basically the only difference between an actual employee and you is that you're outsourced, you can then sue the company to be "promoted" to an internal employee, and you're basically guaranteed to win.
How do you deal with health insurance, pension, unemployment benefits, &c. ?
Sounds like a massive headache
Sounds like a massive headache
It isn't, really.
Sure, there is some paperwork to set everything up. But once that's done (and you can pay someone to do it for you), it's pretty much smooth sailing.
The biggest "hassle" is closing the accounts for the year and sending them to the Administration, and those have to be signed off by an actual accountant. But this takes like 1 hour per year, it's not that bad.
Regarding health insurance, etc you can either get your own, private one or have it bought by the company. It's the same thing if you're a full-on employee: if you're not happy with the coverage the employer has, you can get your own on top of it. When you're your own boss, you can choose what you want straight away. All this may vary depending on the type of company you set up (there's no such thing as "freelance" as far as the law is concerned). This will also have an effect on pension – if you only pay yourself in dividends, there's no pension.
Sure, there are a few things to be taken care of, but if you invest a few days and do your research, it's a good tradeoff.
The other approach, as siblings said, is to use some kind of "shell company" that does this for you. But from what I've seen, their cut is ridiculous, so it's absolutely not worth it.
NB: this comes from France, but I expect the situation to be roughly similar in other countries.
Sure, there is some paperwork to set everything up. But once that's done (and you can pay someone to do it for you), it's pretty much smooth sailing.
The biggest "hassle" is closing the accounts for the year and sending them to the Administration, and those have to be signed off by an actual accountant. But this takes like 1 hour per year, it's not that bad.
Regarding health insurance, etc you can either get your own, private one or have it bought by the company. It's the same thing if you're a full-on employee: if you're not happy with the coverage the employer has, you can get your own on top of it. When you're your own boss, you can choose what you want straight away. All this may vary depending on the type of company you set up (there's no such thing as "freelance" as far as the law is concerned). This will also have an effect on pension – if you only pay yourself in dividends, there's no pension.
Sure, there are a few things to be taken care of, but if you invest a few days and do your research, it's a good tradeoff.
The other approach, as siblings said, is to use some kind of "shell company" that does this for you. But from what I've seen, their cut is ridiculous, so it's absolutely not worth it.
NB: this comes from France, but I expect the situation to be roughly similar in other countries.
I have my own solo company, I send an invoice with my company details and my company's bank account number. that's it.
Then the company you own pays all these things. Not the company that hired my own company. It's more a B2B relationship than employee mentality.
I hired another startup to do all my accounting since it's really simple.
I keep some cash inside my company to pay taxes and so on. In my jurisdiction it's even cheaper the tax you pay as company than as an individual.
I have some sort of salary because my local legislation demands, but most is taken as dividends.
The spare money due to reduced costs I can also afford extra private "unemployment" insurance. One that covers two months, not even counting my personal emergency reserve.
So yes, you need to stop living by paycheck even if it means buying less stuff on Amazon.com.
Then the company you own pays all these things. Not the company that hired my own company. It's more a B2B relationship than employee mentality.
I hired another startup to do all my accounting since it's really simple.
I keep some cash inside my company to pay taxes and so on. In my jurisdiction it's even cheaper the tax you pay as company than as an individual.
I have some sort of salary because my local legislation demands, but most is taken as dividends.
The spare money due to reduced costs I can also afford extra private "unemployment" insurance. One that covers two months, not even counting my personal emergency reserve.
So yes, you need to stop living by paycheck even if it means buying less stuff on Amazon.com.
>> How do you deal with health insurance, pension, unemployment benefits, &c. ?
You have to ensure the rate includes a premium to pay all those costs. Otherwise it isnt worth doing.
You have to ensure the rate includes a premium to pay all those costs. Otherwise it isnt worth doing.
[deleted]
We use a service called Deel, but we are US entity and that helps in many cases.
Essentially they have companies in most countries and you pay them (deel) directly and then they payout to your staff. This also simplifies benefits for healthcare, taxes, retirement.
If you find it helpful, heres my referral code https://deel.com/referrals/Michael-n53jPEZJ
Essentially they have companies in most countries and you pay them (deel) directly and then they payout to your staff. This also simplifies benefits for healthcare, taxes, retirement.
If you find it helpful, heres my referral code https://deel.com/referrals/Michael-n53jPEZJ
I feel like this will continue to evolve until we get something akin to virtual countries, where I pay fees/taxes into some virtual substrate that manages my access to services regardless of where I am.
> where I pay fees/taxes into some virtual substrate
The thing is that you're supposed to be tax where you live to finance the public infrastructure you use, pension schemes of locals, &c.
I know a few of wantrepreneurs who live abroad, bill under an Estonian "e company" , don't pay taxes locally and on top of that illegally get unemployment benefits from their home country
This trend has to cease and with the new "remote first" mentality I can imagine it won't stop anytime soon
The thing is that you're supposed to be tax where you live to finance the public infrastructure you use, pension schemes of locals, &c.
I know a few of wantrepreneurs who live abroad, bill under an Estonian "e company" , don't pay taxes locally and on top of that illegally get unemployment benefits from their home country
This trend has to cease and with the new "remote first" mentality I can imagine it won't stop anytime soon
Sure that happens today, in part because it's so painful to 'do the right thing'. I stayed in San Diego for a month last year and didn't pay a single penny of income tax to the city. Meanwhile my home city was paid for my income and I was a lightweight customer during that month.
I think the idea would be something along the lines of creating virtual citizens that live in the locality and meet all of the obligations of the locality, and the company just handles swapping the association of these citizens to real people when the time comes.
So then when you show up with your passport from Roamatopia all of the paperwork has been done to make sure you are pulling your weight.
Obviously this can be gamed as well but I like the idea.
I think the idea would be something along the lines of creating virtual citizens that live in the locality and meet all of the obligations of the locality, and the company just handles swapping the association of these citizens to real people when the time comes.
So then when you show up with your passport from Roamatopia all of the paperwork has been done to make sure you are pulling your weight.
Obviously this can be gamed as well but I like the idea.
>I stayed in San Diego for a month last year and didn't pay a single penny of income tax to the city.
States are starting to crack down on income taxes for non-residents working there. Obviously in many cases they have no way of tracking but if you're there on business (and have expenses), Concur for one offers companies an audit service. The rules vary by state but if you spend enough time in a state and pass some threshold you can be on the hook to file income taxes. (A lot of the original impetus for these sorts of laws was to tax entertainers and pro athletes.)
States are starting to crack down on income taxes for non-residents working there. Obviously in many cases they have no way of tracking but if you're there on business (and have expenses), Concur for one offers companies an audit service. The rules vary by state but if you spend enough time in a state and pass some threshold you can be on the hook to file income taxes. (A lot of the original impetus for these sorts of laws was to tax entertainers and pro athletes.)
New York City is pretty aggressive about this and has been for at least 7-8 years...at least if you work for a bank headquartered there. I had to provide a separate attestation that I did or did not work over a certain amount of time and, if so, had a bunch of extra paperwork to do.
In my case it was a privately funded trip, nobody at my company had any clue where I was beyond the ones I told.
In my case it was a privately funded trip, nobody at my company had any clue where I was beyond the ones I told.
You wrote: <<I stayed in San Diego for a month last year and didn't pay a single penny of income tax to the city.>>
Where is your citizenship?
If you had young children who attended local schools (even for one month), do you think that is fair? (Assume pay low/zero tax.)
Where is your citizenship?
If you had young children who attended local schools (even for one month), do you think that is fair? (Assume pay low/zero tax.)
It's not really up to me to say if its fair, it's up to the people of San Diego. I definitely spent a lot more money in town (on vacation) than I would if I lived there full time. That said, I'm guessing most would say it's not fair.
My point though is that this kind of things happens all of the time because there isn't a clean process to handle these situations. The concept of a virtual country could actually help fix this by establishing channels to compensate communities for services used by roaming visitors.
My point though is that this kind of things happens all of the time because there isn't a clean process to handle these situations. The concept of a virtual country could actually help fix this by establishing channels to compensate communities for services used by roaming visitors.
> you're supposed to be tax where you live to finance the public infrastructure you use, pension schemes of locals,
The problem exists only because the cost for most of these services is socialized via general taxes. One possible solution is to pay a flat tax for local services in the place you live for as long as you are there. The pension scheme solution is to select a pension scheme and pay there, no matter where you are located. The problem with these solutions is you cannot have a Bismark pension scheme, lime most of Europe, and the local administrations need to deal with deductions for people with low income, but it is nothing that cannot be solved.
The problem exists only because the cost for most of these services is socialized via general taxes. One possible solution is to pay a flat tax for local services in the place you live for as long as you are there. The pension scheme solution is to select a pension scheme and pay there, no matter where you are located. The problem with these solutions is you cannot have a Bismark pension scheme, lime most of Europe, and the local administrations need to deal with deductions for people with low income, but it is nothing that cannot be solved.
How are preferential equity schemes handled? i.e in the UK, best case tax rate on equity is 10%. But if you're not on government-approved scheme, you'll get taxed at around 55% in the event of a meaningful exit.
When I've raised this previously, the point has been dismissed as "45% of lots is still lots", but if you're doing an expected returns calculation and considering other jobs (like a large well-paying org with RSUs) it becomes quite meaningful.
When I've raised this previously, the point has been dismissed as "45% of lots is still lots", but if you're doing an expected returns calculation and considering other jobs (like a large well-paying org with RSUs) it becomes quite meaningful.
What happens when an employee is fired or quits ? Does he qualifies for unemployment benefits ? And who pays for it ?
It probably depends on the local laws, but here in France, such a company would employ you and pay all the taxes that go with your employment contract, like social security, health insurance, unemployment, etc.
Unemployment benefits are paid by the state, through the taxes that are levied on those who are employed.
Unemployment benefits are paid by the state, through the taxes that are levied on those who are employed.
> For example in Europe a German company can't hire a French dev if the german company doesn't have a legal entity in France, it quickly gets out of control both in term of paperwork and cost.
They can - they just have him as a contractor, not a permanent employee. Source: I'm a Polish contractor contracting for a German startup.
They can - they just have him as a contractor, not a permanent employee. Source: I'm a Polish contractor contracting for a German startup.
But then you have no job security, pension, &c. which is like half of the benefit of working for a wester EU country
As an entrepreneur (contractor) in Poland, you get free state-provided healthcare. You're also paying mandatory contributions to state-provided pensions (equivalent of US social security). It's true there is no job security, but in return you pay 17% in total tax burden on your income and not 40-50% you pay in Germany. The rates are also much higher than full time salaries, so in the end you take home probably twice what your German colleagues take, while having a fraction of their costs of living. Do that for 10 years and you end up with $1 million in the bank, which is enough to retire early in Poland.
I thought services like remote.com would help solve those problems ..
I work for an Italian nonprofit from the US, after I moved back from Italy for family reasons. I'm a full-time contractor. I (or my 'employer') have to prove to the Italian government that I am a US taxpayer, but beyond that it's fine, and at least from my perspective much easier than dealing with the Italian government otherwise (those who know the language and system may feel different of course). I am very happy not to be throwing a huge chunk of my paycheck into the Italian pension system since I have never intended to retire in Italy, so it was simply a gift to the government of those lovely people.
I'm not sure how much variability there is with this kind of setup within EU member countries.
Also let's say you have an American company with 200 german employees but no office on german soil, does that mean they don't pay any local tax because technically they don't operate their business in the country ?
The American perspective on this is that the employer pays employment taxes for their employees (but not contractors), and the employees/contractors are responsible for their own income taxes, wherever they work (US or abroad). Surely the German employees would report and pay their income tax?
Taxes are not a tithe to the Church. They are not a moral obligation. They are a payment for past, present and future government services. If you (or your family) are not receiving services from that government, then you shouldn't be obligated to pay them. Pay for the services from your own government.
It is good to question how much of the tax burden should be paid by employers vs. employees, but the idea that some tax burden is split by different parties in different nations is not a new one. For example, international trade has been occurring for as long as nations have existed. There is no shortage of precedent to draw from.
The dev can't be a freelancer because a freelancer with a full time, fixed hours, single customer is illegal in many places
This might actually be what may changes rather than the 'closing of loopholes'. From what I have understood after talking with German in-laws, these laws are nominally to prevent the abuse of workers who are denied the rights and benefits of full employment. From a workers' rights perspective, this makes sense for 20th C. laborers, but not really for 21st century knowledge workers who could be getting paid >2x working from Germany for an American company compared to what they would be able to get working domestically. So in practice, this type of law can keep wages lower and give more control to German companies at the expense of the workers, so you know who will fight the changes to the laws to preserve the status quo. But if tech/knowledge workers who wish to have better remote employment opportunities can band together to pressure their elected officials, then this could change.
I'm not sure how much variability there is with this kind of setup within EU member countries.
Also let's say you have an American company with 200 german employees but no office on german soil, does that mean they don't pay any local tax because technically they don't operate their business in the country ?
The American perspective on this is that the employer pays employment taxes for their employees (but not contractors), and the employees/contractors are responsible for their own income taxes, wherever they work (US or abroad). Surely the German employees would report and pay their income tax?
Taxes are not a tithe to the Church. They are not a moral obligation. They are a payment for past, present and future government services. If you (or your family) are not receiving services from that government, then you shouldn't be obligated to pay them. Pay for the services from your own government.
It is good to question how much of the tax burden should be paid by employers vs. employees, but the idea that some tax burden is split by different parties in different nations is not a new one. For example, international trade has been occurring for as long as nations have existed. There is no shortage of precedent to draw from.
The dev can't be a freelancer because a freelancer with a full time, fixed hours, single customer is illegal in many places
This might actually be what may changes rather than the 'closing of loopholes'. From what I have understood after talking with German in-laws, these laws are nominally to prevent the abuse of workers who are denied the rights and benefits of full employment. From a workers' rights perspective, this makes sense for 20th C. laborers, but not really for 21st century knowledge workers who could be getting paid >2x working from Germany for an American company compared to what they would be able to get working domestically. So in practice, this type of law can keep wages lower and give more control to German companies at the expense of the workers, so you know who will fight the changes to the laws to preserve the status quo. But if tech/knowledge workers who wish to have better remote employment opportunities can band together to pressure their elected officials, then this could change.
You wrote: << I am very happy not to be throwing a huge chunk of my paycheck into the Italian pension system>
I disagree. Why do you think the Italian pension system needs to adapt to you / your situtation?
I disagree. Why do you think the Italian pension system needs to adapt to you / your situtation?
Where I work we used to do stuff during breaks, like play football in the park next to the office. Or fly around with tiny toy drones, or do other silly stuff. On Friday we used to have drinks, which more often then not resulted in a subset of the group having a bite to eat together. All of the above cannot be replaced digitally.
When working from home you can decide to meet up, which does happen, but since it involves getting your calendars together, it hardly ever happens.
I know lots of people want to keep business and personal split in their lives, and I respect that. For me though; I decided that since I spend 40 hours a week working, I better do this with people I like and enjoy spending time with.
When working from home you can decide to meet up, which does happen, but since it involves getting your calendars together, it hardly ever happens.
I know lots of people want to keep business and personal split in their lives, and I respect that. For me though; I decided that since I spend 40 hours a week working, I better do this with people I like and enjoy spending time with.
Right on. Not to mention that some people need that kick in the behind to get up and do some exercise, which commuting and being in the office definitely is one.
I have to clock over 3 miles in total going to my train and then the office, so I feel wired and alive when I come home.
Working from home ALL the time requires a jedi level of discipline to not eat like a pig and work out.
I have to clock over 3 miles in total going to my train and then the office, so I feel wired and alive when I come home.
Working from home ALL the time requires a jedi level of discipline to not eat like a pig and work out.
> Socializing is encouraged via huddles in Slack and I can communicate with anyone in the company if I need to.
I enjoy remote, but cannot agree with your comment. Socializing simply doesn't occur in Slack, for me. Communication, as you put it, does - but not the genuine socialization that I've come to miss.
I enjoy remote, but cannot agree with your comment. Socializing simply doesn't occur in Slack, for me. Communication, as you put it, does - but not the genuine socialization that I've come to miss.
> I never really understood why people say productivity and socializing is difficult remote.
If you'd like to understand, just go back and reread what you wrote. You described a lot of novel, innovative practices that require people to learn new habits and examine why their mostly subconscious, lifelong social habits aren't working for them anymore. That's hard! Hard enough that I'd guess you're in the top 1% of remote workplaces as far as collaboration goes.
That you've managed to succeed at a small, all-remote place is impressive. But imagine trying to go back to your bigco and switch everybody over. That sounds extremely hard to me.
If you'd like to understand, just go back and reread what you wrote. You described a lot of novel, innovative practices that require people to learn new habits and examine why their mostly subconscious, lifelong social habits aren't working for them anymore. That's hard! Hard enough that I'd guess you're in the top 1% of remote workplaces as far as collaboration goes.
That you've managed to succeed at a small, all-remote place is impressive. But imagine trying to go back to your bigco and switch everybody over. That sounds extremely hard to me.
I think one thing noone wants to admit is that a significant part of your team don't even want to "socialize" with coworkers outside of work. They want to just do their work, go home, and socialize with their friends/family.
Exactly this in my opinion. There is a galaxy of op-eds, federal govt weigh-in, angry debates all largely hinging on this premise being true or not but not admitting to it.
It's sometimes referred to as "not shitting where you eat". My coworkers are not my friends or people I want socialize with outside of a work settings. I keep it like that on purpose. That doesn't mean I won't treat my coworkers with the utmost respect while being friendly and kind, or that they aren't awesome people, it just means I like to keep my personal life separate from my work life.
How do you replicate water cooler talk in a fully remote environment? Do people do work while tuned in to a meeting where anyone can drop in and talk to them?
We have two 30 minute watercooler meetings a week where we talk about everything except work and our manager purposely doesn't join one of them.
When I started working for Basho, which was fully remote, many of the engineers were logged to a Mumble channel for chatting, while simultaneously on Slack.
I couldn't handle that level of distraction, but some of them clearly enjoyed it.
I couldn't handle that level of distraction, but some of them clearly enjoyed it.
Lots of public slack channels works pretty well in my experience. People end up talking about a lot in plain view and people hop in etc
This feels about as intimate and satisfying as talking with randoms on discord. Or posting on HN.
It's not like it's random people every time though. There tend to be regulars in certain discussions and interest groups. Just like forums and chat rooms (on which I've definitely made connections with "randoms" due to discussing shared interests online and having a persistent identity there.
in a huge company sure but in smaller startups it's fine, it's nice even.
i've been at companies with 10 people and 10s of thousands and in between and obviously this stops holding true at a fairly small number of employees. but there are plenty of companies of the size that this works for fine.
i've been at companies with 10 people and 10s of thousands and in between and obviously this stops holding true at a fairly small number of employees. but there are plenty of companies of the size that this works for fine.
If I want to talk about what happened on Johnny Carson last night I get in my DeLorean and rev it up to 88 mph. WTF have we become.
I understand that some people don't see the value in face-to-face interaction with coworkers -- and I say this as someone who has worked in most scenarios (long-term remote, long-term full-time office, and partial remote). It obviously has more value for some than it does others. I actually prefer full-time remote, but I understand why some people don't like it.
For some people, face-to-face makes it easier for them to get to know co-workers and develop a solid working relationship with them. Also, those face-to-face interactions often result in benefits for the company, as you often do still end up talking about things related to work, and valuable ideas can be exchanged that would not otherwise have been. Even if you don't talk about work things, knowing your co-workers well can be a benefit to the company. Obviously there are cases where you don't want to know an abrasive person well, so it varies.
Your post sounds like you are saying in-office work is obsolete due to it being an "old-fashioned idea" (unless I am reading you wrong). If that is the case, I would caution against the possibility thinking newer is always better, because it clearly isn't always. Again, as I said, I prefer remote work, but I also understand why others don't. The same work model is not best for everyone in the world.
For some people, face-to-face makes it easier for them to get to know co-workers and develop a solid working relationship with them. Also, those face-to-face interactions often result in benefits for the company, as you often do still end up talking about things related to work, and valuable ideas can be exchanged that would not otherwise have been. Even if you don't talk about work things, knowing your co-workers well can be a benefit to the company. Obviously there are cases where you don't want to know an abrasive person well, so it varies.
Your post sounds like you are saying in-office work is obsolete due to it being an "old-fashioned idea" (unless I am reading you wrong). If that is the case, I would caution against the possibility thinking newer is always better, because it clearly isn't always. Again, as I said, I prefer remote work, but I also understand why others don't. The same work model is not best for everyone in the world.
Have you made good friends amongst your colleagues in your remote company, during the remote-work era ?
All the trustworthy people i know from work were people i socialized with in person, at the office, around coffe-breaks, post-work drinks, etc. I don't see something similar happening over Zoom meetings and my guess is that 95% of people are like me in that regards.
Now, this may not be a big deal over the short-term but I believe that an actual company culture need actual tangible human bonds over the long-term.
All the trustworthy people i know from work were people i socialized with in person, at the office, around coffe-breaks, post-work drinks, etc. I don't see something similar happening over Zoom meetings and my guess is that 95% of people are like me in that regards.
Now, this may not be a big deal over the short-term but I believe that an actual company culture need actual tangible human bonds over the long-term.
It is possible that I come from a different generation. I was talking on various chats since I was a teen. Physical interaction was a complement and not a mutually exclusive state. And I still keep up with buddies, who live farther than I am willing to go, because internet allows for like minds to not be limited by geography alone.
I started a new job recently and results are mixed. One person I now chat with daily including weekends; some I only interact with the day I spend in office and that is ok too.
We are not all the same. We should not have pretend we are.
I started a new job recently and results are mixed. One person I now chat with daily including weekends; some I only interact with the day I spend in office and that is ok too.
We are not all the same. We should not have pretend we are.
> Have you made good friends amongst your colleagues in your remote company, during the remote-work era ?
Not the OP, but I certainly have. It takes some effort, but it's not particularly difficult if you know and understand how to communicate effectively over a remote medium. It requires an understanding of how communications attenuate over a screen--you need to project!, in-person-normal levels of reservation tends to seem unfriendly. It requires not just strong writing and reading comprehension skills, but reflexively strong capabilities in both of those areas; it needs to be inherent enough that you aren't "turning it on", you're just doing it. And I'm sure some people can't do that. But I've been making friends on the Internet, as well as in person, for about thirty years now, and I've now started two separate jobs since March 2020 and I've met people I'd consider good friends at both of them.
Not the OP, but I certainly have. It takes some effort, but it's not particularly difficult if you know and understand how to communicate effectively over a remote medium. It requires an understanding of how communications attenuate over a screen--you need to project!, in-person-normal levels of reservation tends to seem unfriendly. It requires not just strong writing and reading comprehension skills, but reflexively strong capabilities in both of those areas; it needs to be inherent enough that you aren't "turning it on", you're just doing it. And I'm sure some people can't do that. But I've been making friends on the Internet, as well as in person, for about thirty years now, and I've now started two separate jobs since March 2020 and I've met people I'd consider good friends at both of them.
> It takes some effort, but it's not particularly difficult if you know and understand how to communicate effectively over a remote medium
So I've got zero doubt you _can_ do that, I did over lockdown. But if we make socialising systemically harder across the board, we're basically setting ourselves up to be a lonelier, more isolated society.
So I've got zero doubt you _can_ do that, I did over lockdown. But if we make socialising systemically harder across the board, we're basically setting ourselves up to be a lonelier, more isolated society.
You aren't wrong, but I don't necessarily think people should be deriving the majority of their social interactions from work in the first place.
This probably suggests that we should be working less, generally speaking, and doing more in our communities. I'm not religious, but I do wonder how much of this "be in the office so I can get social interaction" is because the office has replaced the church and the community center. That, to me, is the engine of loneliness; even if you make good friends at work you do lose significant shared context with them when you or they move on.
This probably suggests that we should be working less, generally speaking, and doing more in our communities. I'm not religious, but I do wonder how much of this "be in the office so I can get social interaction" is because the office has replaced the church and the community center. That, to me, is the engine of loneliness; even if you make good friends at work you do lose significant shared context with them when you or they move on.
That may be bad for the company, but I don't see it as being bad for the worker. Less work friends, but less loyalty so it's easier to pack and move on when it's time.
>I never really understood why people say productivity and socializing is difficult remote.
Productivity, with the right mindset, tools, support, can probably be as good as in person.
Now, I rather go see my friends in person than setup a Zoom meeting and be all virtually together. I rather go see my father and talk to him over WhatsApp. I rather go to Paris than watching a video of paris from my room. I no doubt doubt that socializing is much, much better in person.
Now, I rather go see my friends in person than setup a Zoom meeting and be all virtually together. I rather go see my father and talk to him over WhatsApp. I rather go to Paris than watching a video of paris from my room. I no doubt doubt that socializing is much, much better in person.
On my team, we've had to be intentional about creating time specifically for social events (fully optional). It can be challenging since it doesn't feel "productive" and it takes a long time to see the benefits.
I like remote work and have been doing so for more than ten years. I have found that the way people interact and socialize is different in-person than it is through remote tools:
The company I work for now organically grew into a distributed company. It did not start out that way, and the fully remote guy who came in before me pioneered the practices, equipment, to make that happen. (E.g. company all hand meetings were remote Zoom even though most of the people worked in the same office). The engineering team embraced remote-first, starting with the remote, morning standup. Some of the sales team in the field would remote in from time to time. When the lockdown came, the sales team got hit the hardest. They made it work, pioneered things like social time, and ended up embracing it when they hired remote from all around the country. Remote became part of the company culture.
- Chat workspaces like Slack requires very different etiquette
- Zoom and video meetings requries a different etiquette. You can't use body language to signal when you want to speak. On the other hand, the chat backchannel enables interactions you can't do with in-person meetings.
- Writing and speaking engages different areas of the brain. Someone who is good at speaking is not necessarily be as good as writing, and vice versa
- In-person work favors good speakers, and remote work favors good writers
- The intuitions for how much to communicate is different between in-person and on remote. If you are used to in-person work, remote work requires a communication style that will feel like overcommunication, but it is not.
- Socialization on remote, distributed teams are less spontaneous and requires more concious effort
- When there's an in-person gathering with some remote people, remote-people tend to get forgotten. Decisions and ideas favor the people in-person.
- When I joined my first distributed team (that's not as a solo contractor), the engineering manager made sure the team still got together periodically, because there are some things you can do in-person that is not so easy with remote. This can include going to conferences. It is far easier to get to know someone as a person (and not as their role) in-person than it is by remote
- Some line of work favors remote than in-person, and vice versa. Software engineering can favor remote ... but not as much for creatives (like game studios) or sales.
The company I work for now organically grew into a distributed company. It did not start out that way, and the fully remote guy who came in before me pioneered the practices, equipment, to make that happen. (E.g. company all hand meetings were remote Zoom even though most of the people worked in the same office). The engineering team embraced remote-first, starting with the remote, morning standup. Some of the sales team in the field would remote in from time to time. When the lockdown came, the sales team got hit the hardest. They made it work, pioneered things like social time, and ended up embracing it when they hired remote from all around the country. Remote became part of the company culture.
> and actively encourage 'water cooler' talk.
I can't help but think the reason companies like Apple want employees to return to office is so that managers can "be more on top of them" (aka track their producitivty).
It's interesting to see that at some companies, water cooler talk is encouraged. I used to work for a small mom + pop business where the owner saw every second we weren't working 8 hours a day as a wasted opportunity productivity wise for his wage dollar he was paying us.
That's an extreme example but, where does the answer typically all? How much water cooler talk is encouraged, allowed, monitored, tracked? It's not hard to spend a few hours a day shooting the sh*t on Slack (or get together and go to a 1-2 hour lunch with everybody in office who can't really concentrate/is looking to do anything to pass time)... I don't know if management would like that?
I can't help but think the reason companies like Apple want employees to return to office is so that managers can "be more on top of them" (aka track their producitivty).
It's interesting to see that at some companies, water cooler talk is encouraged. I used to work for a small mom + pop business where the owner saw every second we weren't working 8 hours a day as a wasted opportunity productivity wise for his wage dollar he was paying us.
That's an extreme example but, where does the answer typically all? How much water cooler talk is encouraged, allowed, monitored, tracked? It's not hard to spend a few hours a day shooting the sh*t on Slack (or get together and go to a 1-2 hour lunch with everybody in office who can't really concentrate/is looking to do anything to pass time)... I don't know if management would like that?
> I never really understood why people say productivity and socializing is difficult remote.
Absolutely agree with productivity, partially agree with socializing. Socializing is still possible, but you lose out on things like impromptu conversations at the coffee maker and such. Also, if there's a big meeting, there can be one speaker at a time. In person, 60 people can be having 30 conversations in smaller groups. It's hard to pull off virtually.
The latter point is something the company I work for has been experimenting with lately (not development wise, just how we can emulate that within). Tandem offers an "overhear" option in their Tables feature, which is alright. More distracting for some reason than in real life though. Break out rooms are okay, but have more of a barrier than turning to your left.
Overall though, remote work rules and I don't think I'll ever go back.
Absolutely agree with productivity, partially agree with socializing. Socializing is still possible, but you lose out on things like impromptu conversations at the coffee maker and such. Also, if there's a big meeting, there can be one speaker at a time. In person, 60 people can be having 30 conversations in smaller groups. It's hard to pull off virtually.
The latter point is something the company I work for has been experimenting with lately (not development wise, just how we can emulate that within). Tandem offers an "overhear" option in their Tables feature, which is alright. More distracting for some reason than in real life though. Break out rooms are okay, but have more of a barrier than turning to your left.
Overall though, remote work rules and I don't think I'll ever go back.
> I never really understood why people say productivity and socializing is difficult remote
For me, there is something about the physical presence of other people that slows me down (in a good way). With online interaction, I too find myself impatient, and eager to bring whatever I'm doing to a conclusion.
For example, around 20 years, I played a lot of go (the board game), both in-person and online. Online, I found myself playing impatiently and recklessly, especially if I was in the lead. Whereas in person it felt natural to take a long time, and I played better games and enjoyed myself much more in person.
If productivity and socializing works for you remotely, wonderful! Far be it from me to piss on your parade. But I for one found the obstacles to be quite serious.
For me, there is something about the physical presence of other people that slows me down (in a good way). With online interaction, I too find myself impatient, and eager to bring whatever I'm doing to a conclusion.
For example, around 20 years, I played a lot of go (the board game), both in-person and online. Online, I found myself playing impatiently and recklessly, especially if I was in the lead. Whereas in person it felt natural to take a long time, and I played better games and enjoyed myself much more in person.
If productivity and socializing works for you remotely, wonderful! Far be it from me to piss on your parade. But I for one found the obstacles to be quite serious.
As someone that has always used whatever chat system the company is using to write the person right in front and next to me so to not interrupt their flow, I do not enjoy socializing via chat or even calls. Whether in profesional or personal life. Beyond the occasional meme or interesting content sharing. If I'm not working on something or I'm not in a meeting, I prefer spending time off screen. Having a stroll around the block, grabbing a coffee or lunch with someone, play some cards, etc.
This doesn't mean automatically that I wouldn't run a company completely remote. Just wanted to chime in why socializing might be difficult for some in a remote environment.
This doesn't mean automatically that I wouldn't run a company completely remote. Just wanted to chime in why socializing might be difficult for some in a remote environment.
> Socializing is encouraged via huddles in Slack and I can communicate with anyone in the company if I need to.
I've been remote for 14 years and I would never go back to the office. I have plenty of calls, direct messages and group messages for communicating with my colleagues, former colleagues, friends, family, etc. I'm happy that it is a good replacement for you, but I need some real face to face people time and I find it challenging to get enough of that when I'm remote.
That said, that's part of why productivity can be higher in remote jobs, so it's a compromise that needs to be metered appropriately to maintain mental health and good relationships.
I've been remote for 14 years and I would never go back to the office. I have plenty of calls, direct messages and group messages for communicating with my colleagues, former colleagues, friends, family, etc. I'm happy that it is a good replacement for you, but I need some real face to face people time and I find it challenging to get enough of that when I'm remote.
That said, that's part of why productivity can be higher in remote jobs, so it's a compromise that needs to be metered appropriately to maintain mental health and good relationships.
I heartfully agree. My experience with remote working for US companies has been: 1. been hired, 2. work for 3 or 4 months, 3. the company demands a local team in your site to continue working.
Yep. Outsourcing work to other countries might be cheaper but from what I have seen there is no the same level of involvement of all parties. Much of the time both contractor and company are expendables. And yes, if you are lucky, you get to form a team and let them work for 6 months tops before client's dissolution.
Perhaps in US market startups are an attractive thing but most senior (over 30+ years) talent will prefer a solid company at least here in Europe. YMMYV
Yep. Outsourcing work to other countries might be cheaper but from what I have seen there is no the same level of involvement of all parties. Much of the time both contractor and company are expendables. And yes, if you are lucky, you get to form a team and let them work for 6 months tops before client's dissolution.
Perhaps in US market startups are an attractive thing but most senior (over 30+ years) talent will prefer a solid company at least here in Europe. YMMYV
If socializing worked for your group you are by FAR the exception. I can tell you that my company tried everything over the years to get a solid socializing experience for remote workers.
It. Just. Didn't. Work. It's far too different and people just didn't want to go to remote socializing events. Sure, there were pockets of people that played online games together or other niche activities, but these are not inclusive.
Speaking of people from all over the world, at scale timezone differences also become a huge problem. No, not everyone wants to attend work meetings or social events either after local work hours or extremely early in the morning.
It. Just. Didn't. Work. It's far too different and people just didn't want to go to remote socializing events. Sure, there were pockets of people that played online games together or other niche activities, but these are not inclusive.
Speaking of people from all over the world, at scale timezone differences also become a huge problem. No, not everyone wants to attend work meetings or social events either after local work hours or extremely early in the morning.
A very specific question if I may... How do you handle cameras in meetings? Are they mandatory for everyone present? What do you do when someone has a bad connection?
Asking because in all settings I was in, when someone came online with their camera off, others soon followed suit. At least to me, there is a huge difference between a videoconference and a voice chat... Seeing other people makes remote meetings much more pleasant. Or is it just me?
What rules do those who work remotely have for video?
Asking because in all settings I was in, when someone came online with their camera off, others soon followed suit. At least to me, there is a huge difference between a videoconference and a voice chat... Seeing other people makes remote meetings much more pleasant. Or is it just me?
What rules do those who work remotely have for video?
I agree. I think the problem is companies that try to do a hybrid model, and end up using tools and workflows optimized for on-site work, which makes the remote experience very subpar and clunky.
In a remote-first company, everything (tools, workflows, etc.) will be organized around that remoteness, which yields much better results (and doesn't make remote workers feel like second-class citizens).
In a remote-first company, everything (tools, workflows, etc.) will be organized around that remoteness, which yields much better results (and doesn't make remote workers feel like second-class citizens).
Different personality types. Some people thrive working remote, they can fulfill all (or most) of their daily social needs through slack and virtual meetings. Others need face to face time, or even just a regular "second place" that is separate from their living space.
What I don't like is how dismissive everyone is of anyone who disagrees with them on WFH. Everybody is different.
What I don't like is how dismissive everyone is of anyone who disagrees with them on WFH. Everybody is different.
My leaderships idea of improving remote work culture is playing bingo at the all-hands. That's not even sarcasm.
I don't feel like I particularly thrive in a remote environment, and you're right, I didn't really have to put thought into work social events(which I enjoyed), it was kind of an added perk. But I also recognize the benefits of it, and am certainly not complaining!
I don't feel like I particularly thrive in a remote environment, and you're right, I didn't really have to put thought into work social events(which I enjoyed), it was kind of an added perk. But I also recognize the benefits of it, and am certainly not complaining!
>sourcing candidates since we can pull from anywhere in the world
What about work hours. Do you guys just never meet? How do you handle having to meet someone from Zurich and someone from Tokyo on the same day? If the answer is async communication, doesn't that lead to a long turnaround in certain cases that need high levels of collaboration?
What about work hours. Do you guys just never meet? How do you handle having to meet someone from Zurich and someone from Tokyo on the same day? If the answer is async communication, doesn't that lead to a long turnaround in certain cases that need high levels of collaboration?
I'm started at a remote optional company 6 mo ago and just had a team on-site a few weeks ago.
Collaboration was through the roof. Maybe it's how our previous virtual meetings were run, but it felt like items like planning, architecture discussions and reviewing strategy documents was 5x more productive in person than virtual.
Collaboration was through the roof. Maybe it's how our previous virtual meetings were run, but it felt like items like planning, architecture discussions and reviewing strategy documents was 5x more productive in person than virtual.
I suddenly remembered that in high school, the vast majority of my socializing was done via IM.
Personally, I prefer having access to an office because it means I can separate work and home, I can use the commuting time to decompress e.g. walk and listen to an ebook/podcast, and I can use my office space at home to do other kinds of work.
We really need more 6 hour work days on remote though. 8 hours on remote can often be just as tedious as being in office with productivity monitoring that companies do.
At this point Slack should be running with full "voice to text capability... Even TikTok can transcribe audio. Too many things are just tedious and time consuming to do within modern companies. The pandemic gave so many a break to realize that for many roles, remote works better, yet productivity tools haven't innovated much to ease the transition.
Companies will save tons of money on real estate and office equipment alone on a move to remote work, and the ability to hire independent of physical location is a big benefit of normalizing remote work. My biggest concerns in the evolution of remote work are usually security and authenticity, which always prove to be quickly evolving threats.
At this point Slack should be running with full "voice to text capability... Even TikTok can transcribe audio. Too many things are just tedious and time consuming to do within modern companies. The pandemic gave so many a break to realize that for many roles, remote works better, yet productivity tools haven't innovated much to ease the transition.
Companies will save tons of money on real estate and office equipment alone on a move to remote work, and the ability to hire independent of physical location is a big benefit of normalizing remote work. My biggest concerns in the evolution of remote work are usually security and authenticity, which always prove to be quickly evolving threats.
>Hybrid models will always struggle and 1/3/1
What does 1/3/1 refer to?
What does 1/3/1 refer to?
> Hybrid models will always struggle and 1/3/1 is going to be probably the best you can do.
I think you should elaborate on why the hybrid model is a struggle, I personally don't see it as one.
I think you should elaborate on why the hybrid model is a struggle, I personally don't see it as one.
Its the worst of both worlds. The benefit of remote work is that it gives employees the flexibility to live where they want, and eliminates daily miseries like a commute, both of which the pandemic have proven to be massive priorities for employees. It opens up potential hires to anywhere in the country (or even world). It also allows you to focus on investing in software and practices aimed at maximizing remote effectiveness. You also can potentially greatly downsize or even eliminate a physical office.
In office work benefits are often said to include the socialization, and in particular "water-cooler talk" that is supposedly better for collaboration. When everyone is going to the office, the company can also invest into more extensive facitilites, including amenities that make being at the office more pleasant (a gym, catering, etc).
With hybrid, you are simultaneously eliminating the ability for employees to live somewhere where they don't need to commute to the office regularly. You also make it so that investing in remote-friendly tools, and office amenities, are both required and less beneficial than if you just picked one. And if "water-cooler talk" and in person collaboration really is that much more effective, then you are still reducing the capacity for that happening by 40+% or more by letting employees work from home 2 or more days a week.
I personally vastly prefer 100% remote, but I don't really see the point of hybrid if the company is going to insist on people coming back to the office. And in my case, it would literally be impossible since I (and many others who have been hired since the pandemic started) are hundreds of miles away from the office.
In office work benefits are often said to include the socialization, and in particular "water-cooler talk" that is supposedly better for collaboration. When everyone is going to the office, the company can also invest into more extensive facitilites, including amenities that make being at the office more pleasant (a gym, catering, etc).
With hybrid, you are simultaneously eliminating the ability for employees to live somewhere where they don't need to commute to the office regularly. You also make it so that investing in remote-friendly tools, and office amenities, are both required and less beneficial than if you just picked one. And if "water-cooler talk" and in person collaboration really is that much more effective, then you are still reducing the capacity for that happening by 40+% or more by letting employees work from home 2 or more days a week.
I personally vastly prefer 100% remote, but I don't really see the point of hybrid if the company is going to insist on people coming back to the office. And in my case, it would literally be impossible since I (and many others who have been hired since the pandemic started) are hundreds of miles away from the office.
> And if "water-cooler talk" and in person collaboration really is that much more effective, then you are still reducing the capacity for that happening by 40+% or more by letting employees work from home 2 or more days a week.
Weird, you talked about the benefits of either side (remote or office) and then just completely dispelled one side of it (in office) as if. If each side has benefits, isn't it the "best of both worlds"?
> You also make it so that investing in remote-friendly tools, and office amenities, are both required and less beneficial than if you just picked one.
So this is the downside? The tooling investments you made are less beneficial?
> And in my case, it would literally be impossible since I (and many others who have been hired since the pandemic started) are hundreds of miles away from the office.
I think this is the crux. Companies that went fully remote during COVID and are now forcing any office time without considering the changes in people's personal living situations (e.g. "I moved to San Antonio and can't possibly commute to Dallas 3x a week"). I think that is a different, but related, issue entirely.
Weird, you talked about the benefits of either side (remote or office) and then just completely dispelled one side of it (in office) as if. If each side has benefits, isn't it the "best of both worlds"?
> You also make it so that investing in remote-friendly tools, and office amenities, are both required and less beneficial than if you just picked one.
So this is the downside? The tooling investments you made are less beneficial?
> And in my case, it would literally be impossible since I (and many others who have been hired since the pandemic started) are hundreds of miles away from the office.
I think this is the crux. Companies that went fully remote during COVID and are now forcing any office time without considering the changes in people's personal living situations (e.g. "I moved to San Antonio and can't possibly commute to Dallas 3x a week"). I think that is a different, but related, issue entirely.
For me at least, hybrid (some days remote, some days at the office) makes impossible to live in Antwerp and to work for a company based in Amsterdam. Commute is, at best, 2h one way. Same about working for any other Dutch company that is not based on Antwerp. So, basically hybrid means "back to pre-COVID times" when it comes to the pool of companies I can apply to.
I don’t enjoy remote collaboration. I’ve done a few different styles and I just vastly prefer being around people.
You’ve described an entirely different dynamic and that’s fine, but it’s not the dynamic I’m interested in having.
I already stare at a screen for programming I don’t want to stare at one for collaborating with people.
For me it isn’t around the effort or lack thereof put into remote.
You’ve described an entirely different dynamic and that’s fine, but it’s not the dynamic I’m interested in having.
I already stare at a screen for programming I don’t want to stare at one for collaborating with people.
For me it isn’t around the effort or lack thereof put into remote.
Do you guys pay based on cost of living or everyone gets “US rates”?
> Socializing is encouraged via huddles in Slack
It’s just not the same
It’s just not the same
what is 1/3/1?
I think it really depends on what kind of 'worker' you are. Some people can take a task, go off by themselves, and work independently for hours or days at a time to complete it with little or no interaction with others. These people are highly productive in a remote setting.
Others require constant interaction with others in order to accomplish much of anything. They need a barrage of ideas and help coming at them constantly and in every direction. While modern remote tools can help with this, an in-person office seems more ideal for this kind of worker.
In the late 90s, I worked for a startup making disk utilities (PartitionMagic). I got married and my wife was doing a residency program in another state. I was able to negotiate a remote work arrangement with my company, even though dial-up connections at the time made things hard to collaborate.
They gave me a new project to design and implement (Drive Image - a disk backup program). I would fly back to the office every couple of months and show them the latest version that I had completed. I did this for almost 2 years and was very, very productive. It helped that I was the only one on the team for most of that time (they didn't assign someone to help me until sales of the product reached several million $).
Others require constant interaction with others in order to accomplish much of anything. They need a barrage of ideas and help coming at them constantly and in every direction. While modern remote tools can help with this, an in-person office seems more ideal for this kind of worker.
In the late 90s, I worked for a startup making disk utilities (PartitionMagic). I got married and my wife was doing a residency program in another state. I was able to negotiate a remote work arrangement with my company, even though dial-up connections at the time made things hard to collaborate.
They gave me a new project to design and implement (Drive Image - a disk backup program). I would fly back to the office every couple of months and show them the latest version that I had completed. I did this for almost 2 years and was very, very productive. It helped that I was the only one on the team for most of that time (they didn't assign someone to help me until sales of the product reached several million $).
Also depends on what kind of worker you want to be. I want to just clear Jira tickets. Anything that requires cross department collaboration, I neglect until someone else takes.
I have no interest in doing one damn extra meeting to deal with org politics.
I have no interest in doing one damn extra meeting to deal with org politics.
It’s possible that some companies will pay significantly more to keep all of their employees in office all of the time. But they’ll be paying 2-3 times: higher TCO, more expensive real-estate, and more scope for the (fortunately few) “I’m have people skills damnit” careerist middle managers without technical chops (higher payroll and worse mechanism design).
The A16Z model sounds about right to me: flex work with low real-estate burden, spend some of the savings on frequent, family friendly off sites.
I know this is controversial, just like, my opinion man.
The A16Z model sounds about right to me: flex work with low real-estate burden, spend some of the savings on frequent, family friendly off sites.
I know this is controversial, just like, my opinion man.
You can pay as much as you want but after a certain threshold having the possibility to work from home is paying for itself in many ways. No stress from commuting, more flexibility and more focus.
> You can pay as much as you want but after a certain threshold
I'm curious if there is a multiplier a company could pay you personally to convince you to endure the commuting stress and inflexibility of an in-person office?
I.e. would you go back to a commute for 1.2x, 1.5x, 2x, or 3x your current salary?
I'm curious if there is a multiplier a company could pay you personally to convince you to endure the commuting stress and inflexibility of an in-person office?
I.e. would you go back to a commute for 1.2x, 1.5x, 2x, or 3x your current salary?
Just answering for myself, but no, absolutely not. Especially not while the office remains an open floor plan with no noise isolation.
I hate commuting, I hate shitty office lunches and interruptions totally ruin my focus. The things that people like about the office (long lunches with coworkers, spontaneous events, fun conversations) are literally my bane.
I hate commuting, I hate shitty office lunches and interruptions totally ruin my focus. The things that people like about the office (long lunches with coworkers, spontaneous events, fun conversations) are literally my bane.
You raise an excellent point: I hope the shift to remote forces in-person companies to make their offices more attractive for workers (i.e. not open offices) to compete for the shrinking pool of people willing to work in-person.
But for the sake of argument imagine the least-bad in-person office you've worked at, and a company able to pay up to high six figures. Are you saying there's does not exist a salary in that range that would convince you to return?
But for the sake of argument imagine the least-bad in-person office you've worked at, and a company able to pay up to high six figures. Are you saying there's does not exist a salary in that range that would convince you to return?
The utility of money decreases as you have more of it.
The first $100k a year is huge. The second $100k a year is useful. By the time you're at 300k, 400k, the utility is very low unless you just really enjoy collecting sports cars.
I have a nice home. It is 25 years old, but I do a lot of work on it myself. I have a nice enough vehicle that is reliable. I can afford whatever books I want, to go hiking wherever, and whatever I want at the grocery store.
Why would I give up a work environment I like, with great food and no commute, where I can have it quiet as a mouse, just to make more money that wouldn't make a difference to my life?
The first $100k a year is huge. The second $100k a year is useful. By the time you're at 300k, 400k, the utility is very low unless you just really enjoy collecting sports cars.
I have a nice home. It is 25 years old, but I do a lot of work on it myself. I have a nice enough vehicle that is reliable. I can afford whatever books I want, to go hiking wherever, and whatever I want at the grocery store.
Why would I give up a work environment I like, with great food and no commute, where I can have it quiet as a mouse, just to make more money that wouldn't make a difference to my life?
> The utility of money decreases as you have more of it.
I think this is an important point. Especially for well-paid professions I'm betting that most companies cannot afford to pay high enough salaries to get skilled developers to work in person and they'll either make do with early-career folks or realize being in-person isn't actually as critical as they thought.
> Why would I give up a work environment I like ... just to make more money that wouldn't make a difference to my life?
For someone without the nasty habit of consumerism the only thing that comes to mind would be the ability to "retire" early and work on whatever projects or organizations light your fancy. (Teaching, non-profit work, hiking the Appalachian Trail, local government, home improvements, open source...)
Not trying to convince anyone, mind you, just answering your question why someone might do that. I worked with some folks who retired in their early thirties after a few 18-month stints with overtime+hazard pay. Not my cup of tea, but they seem to enjoy working on their motorcycles.
Thanks for your input!
I think this is an important point. Especially for well-paid professions I'm betting that most companies cannot afford to pay high enough salaries to get skilled developers to work in person and they'll either make do with early-career folks or realize being in-person isn't actually as critical as they thought.
> Why would I give up a work environment I like ... just to make more money that wouldn't make a difference to my life?
For someone without the nasty habit of consumerism the only thing that comes to mind would be the ability to "retire" early and work on whatever projects or organizations light your fancy. (Teaching, non-profit work, hiking the Appalachian Trail, local government, home improvements, open source...)
Not trying to convince anyone, mind you, just answering your question why someone might do that. I worked with some folks who retired in their early thirties after a few 18-month stints with overtime+hazard pay. Not my cup of tea, but they seem to enjoy working on their motorcycles.
Thanks for your input!
You know what.. at three times the salary, I can rationalize a lot of corporate idiocy. There is indeed a number, but between hour commute and higher prices on everything, WFH is ideal ( and some employers muse they can lower those salaries ).
All I can say is, good luck. Bar a heavy economic disaster ( its possible ), it looks the odds favor WFH crowd now.
All I can say is, good luck. Bar a heavy economic disaster ( its possible ), it looks the odds favor WFH crowd now.
Thanks, that's useful input.
> some employers muse they can lower those salaries
That seems reasonable given their much larger labor pool of remote workers. They'll probably couch it as paying a premium to attract and retain in-person workers but its the same end-result as lowering salaries for remote workers.
To me the bigger question is not how many developers will be working full remote vs hybrid vs in-person, but what the salary differences will end up being.
> some employers muse they can lower those salaries
That seems reasonable given their much larger labor pool of remote workers. They'll probably couch it as paying a premium to attract and retain in-person workers but its the same end-result as lowering salaries for remote workers.
To me the bigger question is not how many developers will be working full remote vs hybrid vs in-person, but what the salary differences will end up being.
For me personally, 2x-3x.
And that is assuming a ~20-30 minute commute I don't need to move/uproot my family.
And that is assuming a ~20-30 minute commute I don't need to move/uproot my family.
Thanks, that's good to know!
My guess is that if the salary premium required for in-person workers ends up being ~2x or more, most companies will decide that going remote is feasible after all.
On the other hand, if the salary premium employees demand ends up only being, say ~1.3x, then many companies will just bite the bullet and pay it.
My guess is that if the salary premium required for in-person workers ends up being ~2x or more, most companies will decide that going remote is feasible after all.
On the other hand, if the salary premium employees demand ends up only being, say ~1.3x, then many companies will just bite the bullet and pay it.
First nobody is going to pay me 3x for the same job in an office so this kind of question hardly makes sense. However even in reality it would be possible to get 1.5x which is already a strecth i dont think i would forego the convenience of working from home.
The question was to get a better sense of the range of how people value the benefit of working remotely. If some folks are only willing to come back into the office for 3x (say high-six figures for US devs) that's helpful information regardless of whether the local labor market actually ends up requiring in-person employers to pay that much.
My experience so far has been that the average multiplier is smaller, closer to ~1.2x for many software engineers. I suspect many companies would be willing and able to pay 1.5x for in-person developers but I think you're right that significantly fewer would be willing or able to pay 2x or 3x.
My experience so far has been that the average multiplier is smaller, closer to ~1.2x for many software engineers. I suspect many companies would be willing and able to pay 1.5x for in-person developers but I think you're right that significantly fewer would be willing or able to pay 2x or 3x.
The $1M question in my mind is:
Will wages in, say, Lagos or Buenos Aires rise to SF/NYC levels? Or will the reverse happen?
Economics says that it depends on the value of the labor, but cost of living matters too (or at least, has in the past within say, the USA).
I think this essay https://blog.pragmaticengineer.com/software-engineering-sala... shows evidence that says the answer is "yes", that we'll see a weird fracturing of labor markets.
Will wages in, say, Lagos or Buenos Aires rise to SF/NYC levels? Or will the reverse happen?
Economics says that it depends on the value of the labor, but cost of living matters too (or at least, has in the past within say, the USA).
I think this essay https://blog.pragmaticengineer.com/software-engineering-sala... shows evidence that says the answer is "yes", that we'll see a weird fracturing of labor markets.
Culture, language, timezones, etc. will still be a factor.
What I think you can probably safely say is that, within the US say, you'll probably have some degree of normalization of salaries over time. You'll probably still have outliers with the biggest/best-paying tech companies, some areas of finance, particularly well-funded startups, etc. But, as was already the case before, a lot of companies simply won't even try to match the top-tier salary bands. And mostly they'll be fine because hiring practices are simply random enough that no one really skims the cream with their processes.
What I think you can probably safely say is that, within the US say, you'll probably have some degree of normalization of salaries over time. You'll probably still have outliers with the biggest/best-paying tech companies, some areas of finance, particularly well-funded startups, etc. But, as was already the case before, a lot of companies simply won't even try to match the top-tier salary bands. And mostly they'll be fine because hiring practices are simply random enough that no one really skims the cream with their processes.
There are virtually no engineers in Lagos and very few in Buenos Aires who compete with engineers in SF/NYC (the one getting SF/NYC salary) in terms of skill set. One thing that many people overestimate is number of competent engineers outside of well known tech hubs.
I know that it was big surprise for FB and other big tier 1 companies when they started to hire remotely was that it was not actually easier to hire remotely than hiring in NYC/SF. The remote pool ended up being pretty small.
I know that it was big surprise for FB and other big tier 1 companies when they started to hire remotely was that it was not actually easier to hire remotely than hiring in NYC/SF. The remote pool ended up being pretty small.
I'm simply not buying it. If you can't find potential in a candidate pool that's practically in the tens to hundreds of millions, it's more likely your search methods aren't cutting it.
EDIT: But let me specify - the original premise to this was that there are already two comparable candidates in SF and somewhere else in the world.
EDIT: But let me specify - the original premise to this was that there are already two comparable candidates in SF and somewhere else in the world.
"Finding potential" and "finding someone to build this thing in a quick and useful way in the immediate future, not the far future" are VERY different things.
I've worked with overseas devs who I'm pretty sure were smarter than me (PhDs, ability to go deep on tons of technologies) yet didn't have the skills needed to quickly turn around a request from a business person and build the right feature.
I think salaries will level out to a certain amount inside the US and other countries - but it's going to be a long time before highly competitive companies wouldn't be shooting themselves in the foot by eliminating themselves from consideration by coastal devs, experience-wise - but cross-country language and communication barriers (especially when timezones are involved) will remain very high.
Companies have already been trying to do that sort of outsourcing for 20 years, and yet US salaries have only gone up in that time frame. Solving "working remotely in the US in a few timezones" is a very different problem than solving the persistent, unsolved-for-decades "hiring programmers in a different country" problem.
I've worked with overseas devs who I'm pretty sure were smarter than me (PhDs, ability to go deep on tons of technologies) yet didn't have the skills needed to quickly turn around a request from a business person and build the right feature.
I think salaries will level out to a certain amount inside the US and other countries - but it's going to be a long time before highly competitive companies wouldn't be shooting themselves in the foot by eliminating themselves from consideration by coastal devs, experience-wise - but cross-country language and communication barriers (especially when timezones are involved) will remain very high.
Companies have already been trying to do that sort of outsourcing for 20 years, and yet US salaries have only gone up in that time frame. Solving "working remotely in the US in a few timezones" is a very different problem than solving the persistent, unsolved-for-decades "hiring programmers in a different country" problem.
It makes sense right now -- those folks didn't get the same mentorship as the ones in tech hubs, because all the senior people who were good moved to the tech hubs until recently.
I think this will normalize over time, but it will normalize to no one getting good mentorship as all the senior folks work remotely.
I think this will normalize over time, but it will normalize to no one getting good mentorship as all the senior folks work remotely.
There aren't "hundreds of millions" of developers on this planet. The talent pool is small because just a small fraction of the workforce worldwide has the training, skills and capabilities to work as software engineers.
Sure - let's cut that number down from hundreds, to millions.
For the discussion, let's assume that the whole world of IT candidates is now your pool of potential employees. India alone seems to produce around a million computer science graduates a year. Europe, probably in the same ballpark. Rest of Asia? Who knows. Same for Central and South America. That's each and every year, new candidates that are added to the pool (minus those removed).
Even the absolute outliers would result in a sizeable number.
You are right, not all of these might have the required knowledge (if looking for experience hire), or some other number of factors.
But it would probably be easier to just start poaching top talent from top companies around the world.
For the discussion, let's assume that the whole world of IT candidates is now your pool of potential employees. India alone seems to produce around a million computer science graduates a year. Europe, probably in the same ballpark. Rest of Asia? Who knows. Same for Central and South America. That's each and every year, new candidates that are added to the pool (minus those removed).
Even the absolute outliers would result in a sizeable number.
You are right, not all of these might have the required knowledge (if looking for experience hire), or some other number of factors.
But it would probably be easier to just start poaching top talent from top companies around the world.
I picked those two cities on a whim, because I've heard they have burgeoning tech sectors. No experience with engineers there.
I've personally worked with engineers at "hot SF startup" and also engineers from Croatia. Both were folks I'd consider of equivalent skill. #anecdata
> I know that it was big surprise for FB and other big tier 1 companies when they started to hire remotely was that it was not actually easier to hire remotely than hiring in NYC/SF.
Do you have any articles or references for this? I'd love to learn more about this.
I've personally worked with engineers at "hot SF startup" and also engineers from Croatia. Both were folks I'd consider of equivalent skill. #anecdata
> I know that it was big surprise for FB and other big tier 1 companies when they started to hire remotely was that it was not actually easier to hire remotely than hiring in NYC/SF.
Do you have any articles or references for this? I'd love to learn more about this.
> FB and other big tier 1 companies when they started to hire remotely
All of the big tier 1 companies have serious strings attached for remote work. I've interviewed at several in the last year or two, and they all advertised remote work but also had weird requirements like "must be within 150 miles of an office" and "for certain positions" and "based on seniority."
Perhaps the reason they are struggling to hire remote employees is linked to the fact that they have poor remote culture AND dubious support for remote employees in the future.
All of the big tier 1 companies have serious strings attached for remote work. I've interviewed at several in the last year or two, and they all advertised remote work but also had weird requirements like "must be within 150 miles of an office" and "for certain positions" and "based on seniority."
Perhaps the reason they are struggling to hire remote employees is linked to the fact that they have poor remote culture AND dubious support for remote employees in the future.
Why do you think they have these restrictions? One word: Collaboration.
>One thing that many people overestimate is number of competent engineers outside of well known tech hubs.
I think at this point, the meaning of competent is the top 1% of engineers
I think at this point, the meaning of competent is the top 1% of engineers
I don't see why they would need to do that. If they open up the doors to that market, the supply greatly outnumbers the demand. You will have equally qualified candidates do the same job for WAY less.
If you pay a top programmer in the Philippines, say $45k/year, that's 10x more than the average dev. salary in Philippines. It would be like offering $1M in salary to someone in the US. You could pick and choose between the best.
You're not gonna get any better candidates if you up that salary to SF-level salaries, like $250k/year. The law of diminishing returns will kick in after a certain level. Comparing wages in city A in country X and city B in country Y is like comparing apples and oranges.
If you pay a top programmer in the Philippines, say $45k/year, that's 10x more than the average dev. salary in Philippines. It would be like offering $1M in salary to someone in the US. You could pick and choose between the best.
You're not gonna get any better candidates if you up that salary to SF-level salaries, like $250k/year. The law of diminishing returns will kick in after a certain level. Comparing wages in city A in country X and city B in country Y is like comparing apples and oranges.
$45k in the Philippines is not even close to $1M in the US. There's a fallacy to consider that CoL increases linearly. At best it's a fixed offset of $XXk. A few thousands more in rent, a few hundreds more in food, and that's basically it. Real estate is crazy in most capital of the world. Consumer products have a fixed price worldwide, and it's often cheaper in the US, imagine that!
Also third world country savings pretty much limit your retirement options to third world countries. You aren't going to retire in the South of France on a third world salary.
Also third world country savings pretty much limit your retirement options to third world countries. You aren't going to retire in the South of France on a third world salary.
Point was that $45k (from my very brief googling 20 mins ago) seems to be 10x of average annual programmer salary in the Philippines. I admit I do not know the COL - like purchasing a home in the Philippines, but that could vary very much from country to country. I used Philippines because it's a country with very low salaries.
But then again, purchasing a home in SF or NYC is very expensive.
But then again, purchasing a home in SF or NYC is very expensive.
Okay, how about a tad more nuance though.
The better headline would be "Remote Startups will win the war for top talent among employees who prefer to work remotely"
Not quite so sexy. Sure some; probably even most software devs prefer remote/hybrid work, but there are still plenty of incredibly talented people out there who prefer being in the office every day.
The better headline would be "Remote Startups will win the war for top talent among employees who prefer to work remotely"
Not quite so sexy. Sure some; probably even most software devs prefer remote/hybrid work, but there are still plenty of incredibly talented people out there who prefer being in the office every day.
I enjoy intense brainstorm jams on multi-wall whiteboards. In person. I guess I'm old.
However, it seems like most programmers here are just javascript pushers. So dinking with a front-end button click handler for hours on end is something that doesn't really require collaboration.
However, it seems like most programmers here are just javascript pushers. So dinking with a front-end button click handler for hours on end is something that doesn't really require collaboration.
I worked for 2 years in Silicon Valley with a WFH policy that I used maybe 2 days total (once for a package and the other for apartment maintenance). If you live close to work commuting isn't so bad. I need physical space in my life. Ideally every day of the week would have a commute to a different location.
> If you live close to work commuting isn't so bad
This, I work from home when the weather is bad, otherwise it's a 10 minute bike ride, which is actually quite enjoyable when the weather is good and a nice way to compartmentalise the day (+ using my legs isn't a bad thing either)
This, I work from home when the weather is bad, otherwise it's a 10 minute bike ride, which is actually quite enjoyable when the weather is good and a nice way to compartmentalise the day (+ using my legs isn't a bad thing either)
As a contrary point, I lived 5 minutes on foot from the office and still greatly preferred staying at home (even though I didn't expect that to be true before I switched to remote).
The ergonomics of an office workplace can't compare to the extent I can customize my at-home office and kitchen supplies to suite my exact needs.
The ergonomics of an office workplace can't compare to the extent I can customize my at-home office and kitchen supplies to suite my exact needs.
Polio, Monkey Pox, Covid variant x, environmental concerns, inflation. The office isn't coming back unless we fall into some dystopia where they force people back in.
People had a taste of life WFH during the pandemic. Overwhelmingly they loved working from home even though there were a minority who wanted a return to the office.
The hybrid model or remote work will be the only real possibilities going forward. Top talent does matter and is the edge that companies like Apple and Google use to stay competitive. They need that talent more that talent needs them. Plain and simple.
People had a taste of life WFH during the pandemic. Overwhelmingly they loved working from home even though there were a minority who wanted a return to the office.
The hybrid model or remote work will be the only real possibilities going forward. Top talent does matter and is the edge that companies like Apple and Google use to stay competitive. They need that talent more that talent needs them. Plain and simple.
After 2.5 years of remote work, I feel like I'm living in a dystopia already.
> Polio, Monkey Pox, Covid variant x
I don't really think these are reasons to work remotely, at this point. Until we eradicate disease, we have and will continue to operate in a world with small but not-insignificant risk of disease transmission.
I don't really think these are reasons to work remotely, at this point. Until we eradicate disease, we have and will continue to operate in a world with small but not-insignificant risk of disease transmission.
Lower pollution. At this point it's almost criminal to force people to go to the office. Companies should be required to apply and get approval from the government on a case by case basis and explain why that employee needs to commute to the office and add pollution to the air we share.
>> Polio, Monkey Pox, Covid variant x
> Almost criminal
This is hyperbole and degrades your point.
> Companies should be required to apply and get approval...
Are you sure your perspective isn't too biased towards professionals working in tech and business service industries? Your proposal is logically consistent with lowering emissions and changing the culture of the way we work, but it rests on a few assumptions that have not yet been demonstrated, namely the effectiveness of remote work. I worry you're underestimating the impact (stifling) that this will have on the flexibility and growth of businesses across many industries.
I also see this as a major loss of individual freedom. You can argue that this loss of freedom is worth the cost, but I don't think you can say that this criticism is invalid.
> Almost criminal
This is hyperbole and degrades your point.
> Companies should be required to apply and get approval...
Are you sure your perspective isn't too biased towards professionals working in tech and business service industries? Your proposal is logically consistent with lowering emissions and changing the culture of the way we work, but it rests on a few assumptions that have not yet been demonstrated, namely the effectiveness of remote work. I worry you're underestimating the impact (stifling) that this will have on the flexibility and growth of businesses across many industries.
I also see this as a major loss of individual freedom. You can argue that this loss of freedom is worth the cost, but I don't think you can say that this criticism is invalid.
Im not taking a stance on disease risk. Im simply pointing out that many people will. And it will favor remote work.
Remote work is great once a project has been scoped out and responsibilities have been assigned. You get to work on your own terms and be very productive, because let’s face it, modern open space offices are horrible places to get work done.
But, if you are not an entry level employee, your objective is to find work. That means socializing with people in the company to understand where the opportunities lie, collecting subtle clues, show your human side to gain trust. A zoom thumbnail on a scheduled call cannot do any of these.
One last thing. I have not found anything as effective for problem solving as having X people in the same room staring at a whiteboard and scratching their heads at the same time.
But, if you are not an entry level employee, your objective is to find work. That means socializing with people in the company to understand where the opportunities lie, collecting subtle clues, show your human side to gain trust. A zoom thumbnail on a scheduled call cannot do any of these.
One last thing. I have not found anything as effective for problem solving as having X people in the same room staring at a whiteboard and scratching their heads at the same time.
If the work is not obvious, it's almost certainly not important.
If you can't communicate, changing where people are located won't help.
Please don't lock me into a room to stare at you while you slowly gather your thoughts. My time is important. Gather your thoughts and then present them. Don't make me babysit you.
If you can't communicate, changing where people are located won't help.
Please don't lock me into a room to stare at you while you slowly gather your thoughts. My time is important. Gather your thoughts and then present them. Don't make me babysit you.
If work is obvious then I don’t need to pay one 6 figures to do it.
Or to put it better, if work is obvious, someone has already done the work for you
Or to put it better, if work is obvious, someone has already done the work for you
> if work is obvious, someone has already done the work for you
I wish that was true. A lot of work is obvious but undone. A lot of issues go unresolved or are chalked up as "unimportant". Let me use your product for five minutes and I will give you the work that needs to be done.
I wish that was true. A lot of work is obvious but undone. A lot of issues go unresolved or are chalked up as "unimportant". Let me use your product for five minutes and I will give you the work that needs to be done.
And lots of work is obvious to some not other engineers who need mentoring or docs to do it because they’re new to the company or field or tech. White board situations are far and few between ime.
One interesting spin on this is the question "what new competitor would you be most afraid of? 100% remote, hybrid or in person team?"
The poll I saw overwhelmingly had "in person team" as the competitor that is most dangerous.
Talent isn't just about hiring the right people, but getting the most out of them. With 100% remote you're also selecting for people that want to be more comfortable or unsupervised. It could be a good or bad.
The poll I saw overwhelmingly had "in person team" as the competitor that is most dangerous.
Talent isn't just about hiring the right people, but getting the most out of them. With 100% remote you're also selecting for people that want to be more comfortable or unsupervised. It could be a good or bad.
If it's a small company, definitely the in person team. Information just flows way faster, and if you get to keep your employees, you don't need to "waste" too much on documentation, since everyone knows everything.
For a big company, if you are wel organized, I think the remote team can be way more productive. But it should be made up of mainly seniors.
For a big company, if you are wel organized, I think the remote team can be way more productive. But it should be made up of mainly seniors.
This thread has interesting debate, and makes me think these are the core questions which I wonder how others feel:
- Who believes most work friends are actual friends that by and large want to be there as well?
- Who builds and maintains friends at work for 90% career management, and the other 10% are cool people you enjoy working with and then you stay in touch with 1-2 of them once you leave a job?
- Who views the work socialization as actual socialization versus career management requirements?
My experience with a relatively successful path in tech is that most friends at work aren’t actual friends, that 90/10 split is true, and that work socialization is for career management.
It feels like the remote work debate is partially about if work fiends are actual friends and it’s worth bringing everyone in-office to support that truism, and then if remote work enables the same level of career management abilities IMO it does and it’s easier to do so. For instance, Leading in slack is a lot easier than leading vs the ex-athlete with a MBA in meetings who projects confidence.
- Who believes most work friends are actual friends that by and large want to be there as well?
- Who builds and maintains friends at work for 90% career management, and the other 10% are cool people you enjoy working with and then you stay in touch with 1-2 of them once you leave a job?
- Who views the work socialization as actual socialization versus career management requirements?
My experience with a relatively successful path in tech is that most friends at work aren’t actual friends, that 90/10 split is true, and that work socialization is for career management.
It feels like the remote work debate is partially about if work fiends are actual friends and it’s worth bringing everyone in-office to support that truism, and then if remote work enables the same level of career management abilities IMO it does and it’s easier to do so. For instance, Leading in slack is a lot easier than leading vs the ex-athlete with a MBA in meetings who projects confidence.
This seems like a very cynical way to look at the world. Work friends are real friends in the same way your pick-up league or board game night friends are real friends. You like some of them more than others, and you probably won't stay friends with most of them if you stop coming to whatever shared activity brought you together initially unless you make a concerted effort to stay in touch.
I think it’s a cynical way to look at work but those views don’t extend to my world.
The issue with work socialization is career advancement involved, which means money, which means basic security for you and your family is on the line.
I can be open and myself with my friends playing board games. Part of openness is testing out ideas and risking conflict. If I say something wrong, the worst that happens is I get a new group of friends to play Catan with. If that happens at work, my mortgage and family is on the line.
The issue with work socialization is career advancement involved, which means money, which means basic security for you and your family is on the line.
I can be open and myself with my friends playing board games. Part of openness is testing out ideas and risking conflict. If I say something wrong, the worst that happens is I get a new group of friends to play Catan with. If that happens at work, my mortgage and family is on the line.
Those seem like fairly arbitrary lines to draw. If I told you that the worst case scenario for your board game night is that you offend someone to the point where they pull out a gun and shoot you you would probably tell me that's an event that's so unlikely it's not worth considering.
Similarly I feel like choosing to not socialize in a normal way at work because someone might get you fired, while not as unlikely as getting shot, is still incredibly unlikely and not worth considering. This does assume a base level of social competence of course.
Similarly I feel like choosing to not socialize in a normal way at work because someone might get you fired, while not as unlikely as getting shot, is still incredibly unlikely and not worth considering. This does assume a base level of social competence of course.
Well risk is about likelihood vs impact, and work interactions are shaped by risk.
It’s a low likelihood but high impact event to be shot by your board game buddy.
It’s a med or high likelihood and high impact event that your career will suffer bc of a misstep in a social sphere at work, or imo more accurately it’s a medium/high likelihood and high impact reward that by navigating work socialization correctly and as anything but a normal social interaction, you’ll do well.
Both result in high impact/high likelihood results for my family.
So why take the risk/lose out on the reward just so I can have work friends who are truly friends?
Fwiw, there is legit academic research on the work social dynamic being about anything except normal friendships. The Organization Man is one example of academic research, the other is https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-... which is a bit more pop-psychology that still rings true vs experiences.
It’s a low likelihood but high impact event to be shot by your board game buddy.
It’s a med or high likelihood and high impact event that your career will suffer bc of a misstep in a social sphere at work, or imo more accurately it’s a medium/high likelihood and high impact reward that by navigating work socialization correctly and as anything but a normal social interaction, you’ll do well.
Both result in high impact/high likelihood results for my family.
So why take the risk/lose out on the reward just so I can have work friends who are truly friends?
Fwiw, there is legit academic research on the work social dynamic being about anything except normal friendships. The Organization Man is one example of academic research, the other is https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-... which is a bit more pop-psychology that still rings true vs experiences.
You can reach whatever conclusion you want by assigning "high risk" to the things you don't want to do and "low risk" to the things you want to do but that doesn't make it more objective.
My experience is that the risk-adjusted expected value of being a sociable person at work is positive, both for your career and your overall happiness. I gather you think it's negative, which is fine, but let's not pretend one of us is more objectively correct than the other.
I haven't read The Organization Man (summary says it's a set of interviews with CEOs, does not seem too relevant for normal employees). I have read the Gervais principle. It's fun, and contextualizing it with your own experiences is valuable, but it is very loosely correlated to reality based on my own experience.
My experience is that the risk-adjusted expected value of being a sociable person at work is positive, both for your career and your overall happiness. I gather you think it's negative, which is fine, but let's not pretend one of us is more objectively correct than the other.
I haven't read The Organization Man (summary says it's a set of interviews with CEOs, does not seem too relevant for normal employees). I have read the Gervais principle. It's fun, and contextualizing it with your own experiences is valuable, but it is very loosely correlated to reality based on my own experience.
No, I don’t think it’s negative. Being sociable as actually the best way to get ahead in work. People want to help people who are nice and help back. This is the only way to do well long term at work, paired with really knowing your skill set.
The difference is I can do that sociable action just fine without adding an office dynamic that adds a commute and related expenses to my day (from a remote work discussion angle) and then hedge related risk of a social misfire damaging work (from a ITT angle).
I mean have you never seen someone drop the professional but social veneer for their true selves and seen it backfire? I certainly have but my experiences aren’t everything for sure.
Summary of Org Man is wrong. It’s a longitudinal study of lower/middle managers as they advance their careers on how workplace culture actually works and how they make decisions vs what’s taught in MBA programs. it’s all about tactical socialization and they leave their real selves at the door.
Edit - it’s also useful for engineers to read to understand the context that governs their work beyond making great tech. I was recommended it a while back and it saves my sanity.
The difference is I can do that sociable action just fine without adding an office dynamic that adds a commute and related expenses to my day (from a remote work discussion angle) and then hedge related risk of a social misfire damaging work (from a ITT angle).
I mean have you never seen someone drop the professional but social veneer for their true selves and seen it backfire? I certainly have but my experiences aren’t everything for sure.
Summary of Org Man is wrong. It’s a longitudinal study of lower/middle managers as they advance their careers on how workplace culture actually works and how they make decisions vs what’s taught in MBA programs. it’s all about tactical socialization and they leave their real selves at the door.
Edit - it’s also useful for engineers to read to understand the context that governs their work beyond making great tech. I was recommended it a while back and it saves my sanity.
I have, but not in a way that has me worried for myself. The cases of backfire I've seen it's been either horrid opinions or gross misconduct.
I don't disagree that some of this might be needed if you're angling to climb the management ladders and large multinationals but I don't think that accurately describes most posters at HN.
Thanks for the updated summary, it sounds super interesting. I'm going to read it as soon as I can.
I don't disagree that some of this might be needed if you're angling to climb the management ladders and large multinationals but I don't think that accurately describes most posters at HN.
Thanks for the updated summary, it sounds super interesting. I'm going to read it as soon as I can.
You seem to have a pretty transactional view of what friendship means, whether it is at work or outside of work. Its very easy to not put your livelihood on the line at work and in work relationships...just don't be an idiot and respect those around you. If you just have an intolerable itch to spill all of your beliefs to every person in your life so that you can 'test out ideas and risk conflict'...the consequences of that are all on you, not society.
Hm, where am I discussing my view of non-work community? Fwiw, I believe the richest interactions and results are from selfless involvement in a community and a family and building something long term.
Work culture tries to fill the same dynamic, but the profit motive, MBA culture and general sociopathy of the workplace (maybe you’d call me one?) make it a loose imitation at best.
So I play the game at work, and I actively build and value true bonds in my community and family where nobody cares about OKRs or RSUs.
Work culture tries to fill the same dynamic, but the profit motive, MBA culture and general sociopathy of the workplace (maybe you’d call me one?) make it a loose imitation at best.
So I play the game at work, and I actively build and value true bonds in my community and family where nobody cares about OKRs or RSUs.
Idk why but I can't help but think remote-first feels so dystopian. I joined and left a job that was 100% remote, and tbh I barely remember working there. I can barely remember names or anything I did. It was like Severance. Now I'm hybrid, and feel way more "connected" (whatever that means).
I've been remote for a decade now and -still- feel that way.
Ultimately, I think I've decided I probably prefer a hybrid approach. Like T/Th in office. But that only works if everyone is on board - that is, what's the point of me going in on Tuesday if I'm the only one there?
That said, I live in the middle of nowhere in a non-tech city, so that's just a pipe dream anyways for now...
Ultimately, I think I've decided I probably prefer a hybrid approach. Like T/Th in office. But that only works if everyone is on board - that is, what's the point of me going in on Tuesday if I'm the only one there?
That said, I live in the middle of nowhere in a non-tech city, so that's just a pipe dream anyways for now...
I find myself feeling that way in the office as well, so I prefer remote.
There are so many forces pulling in so many directions. The world is being re-shuffled. Ultimately, I don't think it will favor labor at US/FAANG talent prices.
- Young workers typically want to socialize with other young workers
- Older workers prefer to be alone, with family, etc. Have funds for larger homes and at-home amenities
- Nearly everyone hates commutes
- Cities are expensive and small, but exciting. Rural is large, open, inexpensive, but can be socially boring
- Office REITs want a return to the office because that's how they make their income
- Cities want a return to the office to support their tax base and economies
- Offices and cities are a huge tax on companies
- Some managers like to manage in person
- Extroverted roles may tend to prefer in person
- Physical work (hardware), whiteboarding, etc. are harder to do remotely. (Or impossible. You can't passage cell cultures remotely.)
- Much of the time spent in the office is wasted / distracting
- Remote work allows greater flexibility of running errands, doing chores, multi-tasking, childcare, ...
- Workers will tend to choose remote work over onsite work if the pay is the same
- It's expensive to live and work in California, not so much in middle America
- The pool of talent stretches far beyond America. Fungible remote workers means you can pay $50k for someone in another country to do the job of a $300k+ FAANG worker.
From a purely economic perspective, it seems like remote work will win out. But that entails drastic and cascading changes to everything. Labor will move beyond expensive American borders and become much cheaper for companies to hire and replace.
- Young workers typically want to socialize with other young workers
- Older workers prefer to be alone, with family, etc. Have funds for larger homes and at-home amenities
- Nearly everyone hates commutes
- Cities are expensive and small, but exciting. Rural is large, open, inexpensive, but can be socially boring
- Office REITs want a return to the office because that's how they make their income
- Cities want a return to the office to support their tax base and economies
- Offices and cities are a huge tax on companies
- Some managers like to manage in person
- Extroverted roles may tend to prefer in person
- Physical work (hardware), whiteboarding, etc. are harder to do remotely. (Or impossible. You can't passage cell cultures remotely.)
- Much of the time spent in the office is wasted / distracting
- Remote work allows greater flexibility of running errands, doing chores, multi-tasking, childcare, ...
- Workers will tend to choose remote work over onsite work if the pay is the same
- It's expensive to live and work in California, not so much in middle America
- The pool of talent stretches far beyond America. Fungible remote workers means you can pay $50k for someone in another country to do the job of a $300k+ FAANG worker.
From a purely economic perspective, it seems like remote work will win out. But that entails drastic and cascading changes to everything. Labor will move beyond expensive American borders and become much cheaper for companies to hire and replace.
Companies could hire and replace workers outside of American borders for the last... century at least? Video chat and conference calls have been a thing for decades at this point.
Why does remote change this equation? If American real estate and salaries are expensive, businesses could always just open an office in a cheaper country, somewhere in Eastern Europe, India, or Asia, etc.
I'm a little confused how the bullet points you provided lead to the outcome in your final paragraph. Could you clarify?
Why does remote change this equation? If American real estate and salaries are expensive, businesses could always just open an office in a cheaper country, somewhere in Eastern Europe, India, or Asia, etc.
I'm a little confused how the bullet points you provided lead to the outcome in your final paragraph. Could you clarify?
To many businesses, remote workers are faceless and fungible, regardless of where they are located.
There may be time zone, educational, language, regional/cultural, tax/ITAR/regulatory, or other differences between workers located in different countries, but ultimately these differences probably do not amount to much.
If that's the case, then these differences do not support a six figure salary differential based on location or nationality. The switch to remote work in the US places US workers into the same pool as the worldwide talent market. If the only interface between workers is text and occasional video chat, then a command of ESL English is pretty much the only barrier to entry for having workers communicate with one another.
There may be time zone, educational, language, regional/cultural, tax/ITAR/regulatory, or other differences between workers located in different countries, but ultimately these differences probably do not amount to much.
If that's the case, then these differences do not support a six figure salary differential based on location or nationality. The switch to remote work in the US places US workers into the same pool as the worldwide talent market. If the only interface between workers is text and occasional video chat, then a command of ESL English is pretty much the only barrier to entry for having workers communicate with one another.
The pandemic turned out to be the gamechanger - as it ushered in remote work on a unprecedented scale.
At least it gave a decent indicator (for companies) on what worked, what didn't, and how adapt for the future.
At least it gave a decent indicator (for companies) on what worked, what didn't, and how adapt for the future.
Remote startups may win the war for top talent (in the short term) but who will win on productivity and by extension revenue? I guess we will all see that in the next 24 months.
This is the crucial question.
Colocated employees clearly cost more in the form of office space. They can also command higher salaries than similarly-skilled remote workers because they constitute a significantly smaller labor pool.
Despite the counter-arguments in the article I do find it plausible colocated employees (ed: or maybe organizations) may be, on average, more productive.
But because there are so many confounding variables I think it'll take many years of evidence before we can empirically answer the question of whether the increase in productivity generally exceeds the costs of being in-person.
(For the record my guess is that it will be dependent on the industry and role. I think winner-take-all markets and roles like R&D and startup founders may be worth the added in-person tax, and everyone else will eventually be remote.)
Colocated employees clearly cost more in the form of office space. They can also command higher salaries than similarly-skilled remote workers because they constitute a significantly smaller labor pool.
Despite the counter-arguments in the article I do find it plausible colocated employees (ed: or maybe organizations) may be, on average, more productive.
But because there are so many confounding variables I think it'll take many years of evidence before we can empirically answer the question of whether the increase in productivity generally exceeds the costs of being in-person.
(For the record my guess is that it will be dependent on the industry and role. I think winner-take-all markets and roles like R&D and startup founders may be worth the added in-person tax, and everyone else will eventually be remote.)
[deleted]
This thread treats the question as if it has a single correct answer, but there's a pretty big probability it will vary between sectors, companies, employees and countries.
I'm not sure productivity maps that directly to revenue. People are wildly productive when they work remotely. What's harder is sharing context and tackling large problems with other people.
Maybe the word productivity is creating some ambiguity here. Company (net) productivity is very different than individual or team productivity. Direction, Strategy and Agility play a much more significant role than raw speed or throughput.I believe with in person communication & interaction it is much easier to succeed in that.
Remote introduces barriers. It is theoretically possible that remote can move 100x faster & have better net productivity than in person, however that is far from the truth today.
Remote introduces barriers. It is theoretically possible that remote can move 100x faster & have better net productivity than in person, however that is far from the truth today.
Remote vs. in office has no difference in productivity from what I've seen. Most of in office communication is still over slack/chat. When collaboration is needed usually a tv screen is needed to screen share since two people sitting at one laptop is uncomfortable, and video chat screen share is better for that anyways. On top of that you don't have to wait for a meeting room that may be booked at the moment you want to collaborate.
Another big thing is the psychological effect of being a chair warmer. Sitting in an office environment, and being "seen" gives the impressing of working. Imagine seeing someone in their chair before and after you leave each day. It gives the impression that they are "working hard". With remote only there is no chair warming, you have to show results.
Another big thing is the psychological effect of being a chair warmer. Sitting in an office environment, and being "seen" gives the impressing of working. Imagine seeing someone in their chair before and after you leave each day. It gives the impression that they are "working hard". With remote only there is no chair warming, you have to show results.
I think remote has the biggest issue with onboarding people that can't hit the ground running. I'd hate to be a new grad right now.
IME: This aspect of things has not proven to be a problem in practice; Slack and videoconferencing works well, FWIW. Managers are mainly complaining about forward planning not working as well as pre-pandemic, but they’re unwilling to actually change to fix that problem, which is how you get rigid hybrid plans and not flexibility.
There are better and worse ways to do it. But I found it uncomfortable to provide the "spin around and ask your co-worker" experience when helping to onboard people remotely. If someone's taking much longer than expected to get up to speed you want to find some way to make yourself more available without looking like you're watching their every move.
My productivity went at least 10x when the pandemic happened.
- No commute
- No 1 hour lunch (walking, buying, eating, cleaning up)
- Not in an open-desk office where I'm constantly interrupted
- Meetings are much more focused and I can hop between meetings quickly
- Easy to do chores if necessary during the day and then work extra hours at night to make up
- Office politics much reduced, output is easier to measure by necessity and people's output is much more clear
Additionally I was forced to double-down on socialization outside of the office, reinforcing relationships that exist no matter what company I work for, further reducing my aversion to jumping ship.
In summation, WFH forever, I'm never going back
- No commute
- No 1 hour lunch (walking, buying, eating, cleaning up)
- Not in an open-desk office where I'm constantly interrupted
- Meetings are much more focused and I can hop between meetings quickly
- Easy to do chores if necessary during the day and then work extra hours at night to make up
- Office politics much reduced, output is easier to measure by necessity and people's output is much more clear
Additionally I was forced to double-down on socialization outside of the office, reinforcing relationships that exist no matter what company I work for, further reducing my aversion to jumping ship.
In summation, WFH forever, I'm never going back
I had almost the exact opposite experience, and for basically all the same reasons you mentioned.
- Lost my amazing bike commute. It's infinitely harder to motivate myself to bike for 30 mins in the morning and afternoon now, so I don't do it.
- No lunch reset. I still take an extended lunch because I need it to break up my day, but now it's just me depressingly eating by myself.
- Not in an open-desk office where I get to interact with people regularly. Being by myself all the time makes focusing pretty much impossible.
- Meetings seem mostly the same to me, except that people are way less engaged.
- Really easy to do non-work stuff instead of working, so I often find myself doing that instead.
- Output remains impossible to measure. Building relationships is now extra difficult, so the people who have them have an even bigger leg up.
And finally, reduced my connection to my peers and my org which drastically reduces my engagement and job satisfaction.
I'm trying to get back to the office ASAP, and basically coming to terms with the fact that I'm probably going to need to switch industries because of this.
- Lost my amazing bike commute. It's infinitely harder to motivate myself to bike for 30 mins in the morning and afternoon now, so I don't do it.
- No lunch reset. I still take an extended lunch because I need it to break up my day, but now it's just me depressingly eating by myself.
- Not in an open-desk office where I get to interact with people regularly. Being by myself all the time makes focusing pretty much impossible.
- Meetings seem mostly the same to me, except that people are way less engaged.
- Really easy to do non-work stuff instead of working, so I often find myself doing that instead.
- Output remains impossible to measure. Building relationships is now extra difficult, so the people who have them have an even bigger leg up.
And finally, reduced my connection to my peers and my org which drastically reduces my engagement and job satisfaction.
I'm trying to get back to the office ASAP, and basically coming to terms with the fact that I'm probably going to need to switch industries because of this.
Meanwhile the people who were interrupting you have now had their productivity hit.
The question is, do the two tradeoff as a net positive or a net negative for the company and how does that tradeoff work in more collaborative roles?
The question is, do the two tradeoff as a net positive or a net negative for the company and how does that tradeoff work in more collaborative roles?
One thing I learned going from hybrid to physical, then moving back to remote in the last decade os that the type of people that interrupts you all the time don't learn how to solve similar problems, because asking is cheaper.
Having a history on your slack you can just search and remember the solution given.
For myself it's also easy to remind someone of the similar problem and adapt from the slack history, like similar commands and steps to solve an issue.
If more than one person asks about the same problem you can just copy and paste to a wiki and pin on the channel.
It's definitely better if everyone is on the Toyota model mentality instead of the ancient Ford model.
Then with the spare time I can actually do a lot with my remote teammates that is more social. Online games are a thing. Sharing photos of your last hike trail is another, discovering similar tastes and food recipes is also awesome.
I get that remote is not for everyone, specially people wired for social touching, but I felt extremely handcuffed in a open office space, doing my actual work by getting into the office 1 to 2 hours before everyone else.
I found that I'm more willing to socialize now because of better planning, decent schedules, and doing small talks after completing the hardest parts of the sprint, and respecting everyone's schedules by proper use of async comms.
Remote is not "anti collaborative". It only requires a different mindset.
Having a history on your slack you can just search and remember the solution given.
For myself it's also easy to remind someone of the similar problem and adapt from the slack history, like similar commands and steps to solve an issue.
If more than one person asks about the same problem you can just copy and paste to a wiki and pin on the channel.
It's definitely better if everyone is on the Toyota model mentality instead of the ancient Ford model.
Then with the spare time I can actually do a lot with my remote teammates that is more social. Online games are a thing. Sharing photos of your last hike trail is another, discovering similar tastes and food recipes is also awesome.
I get that remote is not for everyone, specially people wired for social touching, but I felt extremely handcuffed in a open office space, doing my actual work by getting into the office 1 to 2 hours before everyone else.
I found that I'm more willing to socialize now because of better planning, decent schedules, and doing small talks after completing the hardest parts of the sprint, and respecting everyone's schedules by proper use of async comms.
Remote is not "anti collaborative". It only requires a different mindset.
Big win for working 100% remote, at least for me, is that it suddenly makes it possible for me to potentially work for any IT company in my entire country without having to switch cities or commuting. That's the deal for me. The moment a job description says 4 days remote, 1 day at the office... that already kills it (e.g., imaging living in Frankfurt and working for a Berlin-based company... or living in Seville and working for a Barcelona-based company)
I had a Berlin offer and live at the other end of the country. I was able to negotiate a 3-4per month presence but at the end I got a more competitive offer. Out of interest: Is this something that you have seen working in Germany
?
I've seen offers for hybrid approach in Germany, The Netherlands, France,... I don't apply to such offers, but their amount is not negligible.
I always think this is a funny argument because most companies don't need top talent.
For nearly every business, good enough is definitely good enough.
So the question to me is for average to slightly above average employees, will remote companies "win"?
For nearly every business, good enough is definitely good enough.
So the question to me is for average to slightly above average employees, will remote companies "win"?
I'm not sure it's a question of having top talent. What I see happening is that any given organization has a minimum acceptable level of skill and experience for developers in order to be acceptable for hire. There's no concept of "well we'll hire this kind of crappy person for the open job because that's all we can get". What remote work has done is to make the pool of available candidates that exceed the competence bar massively bigger. I have seen this play out in a medium sized SV tech start up -- they were able to staff up during the pandemic at a much higher rate because nobody cared where the candidates were located. This seems like a Rubicon that can't be un-crossed -- once you have a ton of people in Seattle and San Diego and on the east coast, and people who decided to move back to their home town in Kentucky, there's no going back to on-site folks who rode the bus in from Gilroy.
In the US for W2 employees, there are significant costs (money, time, and effort – both upfront and ongoing) that go into hiring an employee in a state where you currently don't have any employees. These costs are most significant to small businesses because larger companies have either dealt with them in the past or have the resources/knowledge/experience to deal with them.
It can still be a lot cheaper to hire good enough talent remotely.
If you're an average company in California you can hire good enough, remote talent 2-3 times cheaper remotely than if you had to hire locally. Just compare avg developer salaries in US vs Europe. "Slightly above average" developers in Europe can do the same job twice as cheap.
If you're an average company in California you can hire good enough, remote talent 2-3 times cheaper remotely than if you had to hire locally. Just compare avg developer salaries in US vs Europe. "Slightly above average" developers in Europe can do the same job twice as cheap.
If you are average startup in California you should absolutely not hire devs in Europe unless you are ready to pay time zone cost. You will have literally 30min/day that’s inconvenient for everyone to meet (8:30AM in SF/5:30PM in Berlin). Good luck making Europeans meet after 6pm or Californians before 8AM)
I hear you. In this case why even have an HQ in California? Why not become fully remote and hire from a range of compatible timezones?
I'm just saying that such a fully remote company could hire "average talent" 2-3 times cheaper than its counterpart headquartered in an expensive area. That's clearly a competitive advantage.
I'm just saying that being remote also gives an edge for hiring average talent, not only top talent.
I'm just saying that such a fully remote company could hire "average talent" 2-3 times cheaper than its counterpart headquartered in an expensive area. That's clearly a competitive advantage.
I'm just saying that being remote also gives an edge for hiring average talent, not only top talent.
Yup, most of the hard problems were solved in 1960 to 1980, and modern libraries cover 99.999% of use-cases.
If people are focused on Research and Development in a large commercial project, it will often catch the ire of people responsible for risk mitigation.
If people are focused on Research and Development in a large commercial project, it will often catch the ire of people responsible for risk mitigation.
> most of the hard problems were solved in 1960 to 1980
Yes, if you're talking about sorting algorithms and similar. But there are, of course, still many, many even harder problems waiting to be solved. Harder, because they are compound, and more complex. There's still need for top talent. But it's true that most "ordinary" businesses do not need those types of programmers.
Yes, if you're talking about sorting algorithms and similar. But there are, of course, still many, many even harder problems waiting to be solved. Harder, because they are compound, and more complex. There's still need for top talent. But it's true that most "ordinary" businesses do not need those types of programmers.
True Scientific inquiry is unpredictably random, and while someone will often eagerly publish a paper on a subject to boost perceived relevance... many rarely credit upstream sources outside academic contexts. Patents are also nice, as you often get to sue people who forgot to cite your work properly.
It is astonishingly impressive anything relevant, generalizable, and repeatable actually makes it back into the public domain. Like watching your dog eat 1kg of cheese... impressive for all the wrong reasons... lol =)
It is astonishingly impressive anything relevant, generalizable, and repeatable actually makes it back into the public domain. Like watching your dog eat 1kg of cheese... impressive for all the wrong reasons... lol =)
^^^ this.
In Vancouver I used to spend anywhere rom 80 to 120 minutes commuting one way to downtown core from the suburbs. It was brutal. You then get to the office, have to make quick small chat, settle down, get coffee, go to the bathroom, and another hour has passed before you are reading emails. meetings and then its lunch time. come back and you settle down again, go to the bathroom, meeting. 4 hours remain to get work done but you can't leave at 5 because of traffic. so you stay behind.
Those times I save I directly deliver in value working remote. I can work more hours and I can be more efficient since I'm not tired. not to mention the ridiculous tax and rent costs due to property prices that do not reflect local wages adding to the stress.
yeah, NO THANK YOU. I get local recruiters hitting me up and not only is the salary here ridiculously low, they are either hybrid or require showing up at the office. Vancouver recruiters are a special breed: they won't list salary ranges, and get angry when you ask for it, require 2~3x the work experience for the same position elsewhere, and 40~50% haircut when we have the highest living cost in the region. There's a reason why most of its workforce in tech do not speak English at the office, they rather have new immigrants who can put up with this toxicity, and the management exploits them. Modern day colonialism.
Those times I save I directly deliver in value working remote. I can work more hours and I can be more efficient since I'm not tired. not to mention the ridiculous tax and rent costs due to property prices that do not reflect local wages adding to the stress.
yeah, NO THANK YOU. I get local recruiters hitting me up and not only is the salary here ridiculously low, they are either hybrid or require showing up at the office. Vancouver recruiters are a special breed: they won't list salary ranges, and get angry when you ask for it, require 2~3x the work experience for the same position elsewhere, and 40~50% haircut when we have the highest living cost in the region. There's a reason why most of its workforce in tech do not speak English at the office, they rather have new immigrants who can put up with this toxicity, and the management exploits them. Modern day colonialism.
I don't like working remote. I like working in an office. I find it more productive when my coworkers are right by me. Software development done well is an interactive, creative process. It is easier if you and I work together and can brainstorm on a whiteboard, or over lunch, and reduce the friction. And then go off to our respective cubes to hack it up and then share our work. That's the process I've found works best for teams.
But I want to work at what I'm doing, for the startup that I'm contracting for, in the space that I'm doing work in. And that's not here (they're not "anywhere" really) and all the local (southern Ontario, west of Toronto) companies suck, underpay, and are generally mismanaged.
And I'm not moving and giving up the life that I have I have so I can be where the interesting work is. I've done that once already in my 20s -- left my parents and siblings to go to the only place in Canada where the tech industry was really a thing (at the time) -- and I won't be made to do it again.
Canadian tech companies have been profiting from underpaying their engineering staff (relative to the US market) for a couple decades. Now they will suffer because they have to compete with remote. Recession might change this, but for now I intend on taking advantage of this.
So, remote it is. It's not perfect. But I'm not going to drive almost 2 hours a day to get underpaid by some mediocre local company run by mediocre management and mediocre investors. There's a larger world out there, accessible to me for the first time ever.
But I want to work at what I'm doing, for the startup that I'm contracting for, in the space that I'm doing work in. And that's not here (they're not "anywhere" really) and all the local (southern Ontario, west of Toronto) companies suck, underpay, and are generally mismanaged.
And I'm not moving and giving up the life that I have I have so I can be where the interesting work is. I've done that once already in my 20s -- left my parents and siblings to go to the only place in Canada where the tech industry was really a thing (at the time) -- and I won't be made to do it again.
Canadian tech companies have been profiting from underpaying their engineering staff (relative to the US market) for a couple decades. Now they will suffer because they have to compete with remote. Recession might change this, but for now I intend on taking advantage of this.
So, remote it is. It's not perfect. But I'm not going to drive almost 2 hours a day to get underpaid by some mediocre local company run by mediocre management and mediocre investors. There's a larger world out there, accessible to me for the first time ever.
I am in the same shoes. I want to work in that domain doing my role. But I was trying to get into the companies in my area and that role was rare and with way to heavy competition, so I work remote for a company that was not able to find the talents in their area. Do I like it? No but I am not giving my life (10min everywhere by bicycle) and frankly the pay is above average.
I’ll keep doing until it last and will see how the world looks in 24months.
I’ll keep doing until it last and will see how the world looks in 24months.
This is exactly where I am at now. I live in Canada and where I am at the local market of companies is just pathetic. I generally receive recruter emails from companies in my city offering a 25-50% of what I am making at a smaller shop remotely.
I miss being in an office and having a connection to the people I work with, but I also refuse to compromise my salary, time, ergonomic home office, and flexibility to get this connection.
I miss being in an office and having a connection to the people I work with, but I also refuse to compromise my salary, time, ergonomic home office, and flexibility to get this connection.
Where abouts are you, if you don't mind me asking? (You don't have to answer).
I'm rural just right outside Hamilton. The local market in Oakville/Burlington is sad. And right now it's not worth the commute into Toronto (used to live there).
I was getting excellent comp at Google Waterloo, but the drive was killing my body, and my soul was dead.
I'm rural just right outside Hamilton. The local market in Oakville/Burlington is sad. And right now it's not worth the commute into Toronto (used to live there).
I was getting excellent comp at Google Waterloo, but the drive was killing my body, and my soul was dead.
I was part of a startup that was pure remote circa 2013 based on popular OSS projects.
I was quite spoiled to experience what would become the norm after a pandemic.
I wrote a blog on my experiences of being "remote first". Funny enough, it includes this author's tweet that went a bit viral.
https://jondouglas.dev/remote-first/
I was quite spoiled to experience what would become the norm after a pandemic.
I wrote a blog on my experiences of being "remote first". Funny enough, it includes this author's tweet that went a bit viral.
https://jondouglas.dev/remote-first/
I sure hope so. I’ve been wait 15 years for this kind of change.
I've always wanted to live in the future shown in science fiction. Remote work is a big step in that direction.
As someone who took their first software engineering job as a junior during covid, I have to say I definitely struggled to learn and execute on tasks in a way which I know I wouldn't in an in person setting.
I found asking for help as a junior is definitely harder when you don't have people around (walking up to someone's desk vs slack message with ~20-60 minute delay then zoom call): and I often found myself blocked on tasks.
I found learning is generally harder remotely for me as well: the sheer amount of information + resources + help you get from serendipitous conversations with other engineers should not be understated. It's the same reason people got so angry over paying so much for remote university: it is objectively a worse learning experience.
I think this is just my personal stance: but I think in my perfect world I work in office for the first 5-10 years of my career to optimize for learning + relationship building, and then once I get more senior (or have kids) I transition into either hybrid or fully remote.
I found asking for help as a junior is definitely harder when you don't have people around (walking up to someone's desk vs slack message with ~20-60 minute delay then zoom call): and I often found myself blocked on tasks.
I found learning is generally harder remotely for me as well: the sheer amount of information + resources + help you get from serendipitous conversations with other engineers should not be understated. It's the same reason people got so angry over paying so much for remote university: it is objectively a worse learning experience.
I think this is just my personal stance: but I think in my perfect world I work in office for the first 5-10 years of my career to optimize for learning + relationship building, and then once I get more senior (or have kids) I transition into either hybrid or fully remote.
I'm sorry you had this experience, but I will put the blame on your company's onboarding.
This was your first job so you may lack data points, but if you ended up not getting helped/being supported as a new, out of school, engineer in a remote setting, I strongly doubt that it would have been any better in an office.
I've been a manager/director working with distributed teams for the past 6 or 7 years, I've onboarding dozens of folks for whom it was their first or second job and they all had a really good experience.
This was your first job so you may lack data points, but if you ended up not getting helped/being supported as a new, out of school, engineer in a remote setting, I strongly doubt that it would have been any better in an office.
I've been a manager/director working with distributed teams for the past 6 or 7 years, I've onboarding dozens of folks for whom it was their first or second job and they all had a really good experience.
i think if you had 2 teams working on the same type of thing and one was 100% remote across 6 time zones and one was 100% concentrated in one city with a office they could go to and only required 1 day/week the concentrated team would have a better working relationship with each other. this depends on the people more than anything. and it’s not guaranteed. but i’d say more times than not the people seeing each other in person would enjoy their work more
They might win the war for the best “talent” (whatever that means). Remote only may lose the war for building the best products.
Why non-remote employees are commuting (in anger), remote employees are spending time with their family, exercising, working on their hobbies.
Which of those two employee types do you think will have have better work output? I'm have a pretty good idea, but am not totally sure.
Which of those two employee types do you think will have have better work output? I'm have a pretty good idea, but am not totally sure.
I worked in an office for a lot of years and I almost never, ever remember "commuting in anger".
I basically did a comp-sci degree on the train to and from work, contributed to opensource software, caught up on work, read books , talked to colleagues, napped etc. It was actually pretty productive alone time for me. Forced quiet time for 3 hours a day. I was young and I had a 1.5 train trip each way to work.
I built my career further and could afford to live closer to my office, but it was still a 30 minute cycle each way, that was still beautiful, my more recent office job, it was a 10 minute ride in a beautiful city.
I work remote now, while I think my personal life is for sure better, I'm not sure we're functioning as well as a group.
The spending time with the family bit, sounds good, but I'm honestly still working insane hours remotely. Had to sacrifice a lot of personal time of late to my work. I'm probably working harder and longer hours know than almost anytime I remember. It's 6am meetings, 9pm meetings. That never used to happen for me.
I basically did a comp-sci degree on the train to and from work, contributed to opensource software, caught up on work, read books , talked to colleagues, napped etc. It was actually pretty productive alone time for me. Forced quiet time for 3 hours a day. I was young and I had a 1.5 train trip each way to work.
I built my career further and could afford to live closer to my office, but it was still a 30 minute cycle each way, that was still beautiful, my more recent office job, it was a 10 minute ride in a beautiful city.
I work remote now, while I think my personal life is for sure better, I'm not sure we're functioning as well as a group.
The spending time with the family bit, sounds good, but I'm honestly still working insane hours remotely. Had to sacrifice a lot of personal time of late to my work. I'm probably working harder and longer hours know than almost anytime I remember. It's 6am meetings, 9pm meetings. That never used to happen for me.
> I was young and I had a 1.5 train
> I built my career further and could afford to live closer to my office
> it was still a 30 minute cycle each way
> it was a 10 minute ride in a beautiful city
Almost none of these apply to the average American commuter. Public transportation/biking infrastructure is poor to non-existent in most of the US. And the places where it does exist are usually the most expensive. For 95% of American workers, a commute does not mean leisurely spending time on a train unwinding while they read or sleep, or getting outside for a nice bike ride through the city. It means bumper to bumper traffic on the highway for 2 hours every day.
As for the 6am and 9pm meetings, can you not just tell people to not schedule meetings then? My company made it clear that due to our distributed work force, meetings are only scheduled within core hours near the middle of the day so that no one is getting up early or working late.
Almost none of these apply to the average American commuter. Public transportation/biking infrastructure is poor to non-existent in most of the US. And the places where it does exist are usually the most expensive. For 95% of American workers, a commute does not mean leisurely spending time on a train unwinding while they read or sleep, or getting outside for a nice bike ride through the city. It means bumper to bumper traffic on the highway for 2 hours every day.
As for the 6am and 9pm meetings, can you not just tell people to not schedule meetings then? My company made it clear that due to our distributed work force, meetings are only scheduled within core hours near the middle of the day so that no one is getting up early or working late.
America is a democracy and people should ask for public transport if they hate commuting so much. Which is interesting because people seem to hate driving but also not willing to demand better public transport.
Such a conundrum.
Interestingly, it seems working from home has largely killed the demand and focus on self-driving cars. I'm sure people are still working on it, but it definitely feels less important, at least on HN :)
Such a conundrum.
Interestingly, it seems working from home has largely killed the demand and focus on self-driving cars. I'm sure people are still working on it, but it definitely feels less important, at least on HN :)
> on the train
> 30 minute cycle
The vast majority of Americans don't have this option (unfortunately)
> 30 minute cycle
The vast majority of Americans don't have this option (unfortunately)
Individually I think remote workers will be more productive.
But collectively I do not yet know. I find it plausible that the average in-person organization may turn out to be more productive than the average remote organization.
Either way I'm excited to find out!
But collectively I do not yet know. I find it plausible that the average in-person organization may turn out to be more productive than the average remote organization.
Either way I'm excited to find out!
What a lot of the journalists and execs miss is that the remote part of remote work is only half the story.
The other half, arguably more impactful, is the process. Geographic distribution mandates certain work practices to remain productive, and those can be highly rewarding and enjoyable to work with. Especially compared to something like agile/scrum.
They'll catch up eventually, but at least in the meanwhile I'm getting paid to help with this.
The other half, arguably more impactful, is the process. Geographic distribution mandates certain work practices to remain productive, and those can be highly rewarding and enjoyable to work with. Especially compared to something like agile/scrum.
They'll catch up eventually, but at least in the meanwhile I'm getting paid to help with this.
The article headline's assertion is true for software, but it won't necessarily be true for hardware.
In the hardware world, access to excellent equipment (and colleagues) can be a huge draw for top talent.
If you work on optical clocks, odds are good that JILA/NIST and the Boulder ecosystem will be at or near the top of your list for places to work. You just can't do that kind of work without the right resources.
In the hardware world, access to excellent equipment (and colleagues) can be a huge draw for top talent.
If you work on optical clocks, odds are good that JILA/NIST and the Boulder ecosystem will be at or near the top of your list for places to work. You just can't do that kind of work without the right resources.
I worked at an all-remote company. I've never suffered such poor productivity in my career. This was a company dedicated to remote work, so the processes were streamlined for it, but I found that I spent a lot of time spinning my wheels.
Onboarding was especially hard, and trying to get the attention of my coworkers was where I spent most of my idle time. Something that would have taken 3 minutes onsite now meant first scheduling a meeting and waiting until I had their dedicated time.
Things like slack didn't work for more complex issues. I remember being in a technical disagreement/conversation/argument for about 1.5 hrs on slack, and I drew a picture and uploaded it and everything got resolved almost instantly. We didn't go to a meeting because it started as a simple slack conversation and it snowballed into a bigger disagreement so we never thought "okay let's have a meeting". Once it was resolved we went about our way but having slack as the primary way of communicating is exhausting and very slow.
I quit and joined a brick-and-mortar company and am happy again.
Onboarding was especially hard, and trying to get the attention of my coworkers was where I spent most of my idle time. Something that would have taken 3 minutes onsite now meant first scheduling a meeting and waiting until I had their dedicated time.
Things like slack didn't work for more complex issues. I remember being in a technical disagreement/conversation/argument for about 1.5 hrs on slack, and I drew a picture and uploaded it and everything got resolved almost instantly. We didn't go to a meeting because it started as a simple slack conversation and it snowballed into a bigger disagreement so we never thought "okay let's have a meeting". Once it was resolved we went about our way but having slack as the primary way of communicating is exhausting and very slow.
I quit and joined a brick-and-mortar company and am happy again.
Remote startups with what cheap money? That era is coming to an end. They won't win anything, with cheap or expensive labor.
Is the thinking that VCs will stop funding remote companies? Because one advantage a fully remote org will have a slightly extended runway not spending money on rent, office furniture, and other costs associated with operating in-person operations.
To me, an office sounds like something a tech company should only obtain after a strong and established revenue stream.
To me, an office sounds like something a tech company should only obtain after a strong and established revenue stream.
The thinking is that VCs will stop funding startups period.
In the post dotcom bust startups were exceedingly rare, and what's happening right now is much larger than the dotcom burst.
In the post dotcom bust startups were exceedingly rare, and what's happening right now is much larger than the dotcom burst.
That doesn't make much sense. Nobody is going to decide that a few percentage points bump in interest rates is going to stop them from pursuing profit entirely.
Also, it's silly to compare current conditions to post-bust conditions: the market at the time of the bust was incredibly immature and people had been throwing money at ridiculous garbage just because someone had a landing page and a marketing team. We've gone through several entire generations of startups at this point. VCs are far more sophisticated than they were back then, and far more people have made in the tech / startup industry.
Millennials and Zoomers are far more hedonistic than their parents and grandparents. They will gladly go into debt to fund their lifestyles rather than cancel that 8th streaming service they haven't watched in 3 months. They're so bad at managing money that we literally have services like Trim to remind them that they're being stupid with their bank accounts.
We're not entering into a recession because the economy is collapsing and value has disappeared. We're entering into a recession because of a myriad of supply chain issues and because people are literally making and spending too much. While I believe that our entire monetary system is a disaster waiting to happen... we're a long way from being in a bad spot in terms of investment.
Also, it's silly to compare current conditions to post-bust conditions: the market at the time of the bust was incredibly immature and people had been throwing money at ridiculous garbage just because someone had a landing page and a marketing team. We've gone through several entire generations of startups at this point. VCs are far more sophisticated than they were back then, and far more people have made in the tech / startup industry.
Millennials and Zoomers are far more hedonistic than their parents and grandparents. They will gladly go into debt to fund their lifestyles rather than cancel that 8th streaming service they haven't watched in 3 months. They're so bad at managing money that we literally have services like Trim to remind them that they're being stupid with their bank accounts.
We're not entering into a recession because the economy is collapsing and value has disappeared. We're entering into a recession because of a myriad of supply chain issues and because people are literally making and spending too much. While I believe that our entire monetary system is a disaster waiting to happen... we're a long way from being in a bad spot in terms of investment.
Its trending downward, but Q2 saw roughly the same number of deals as Q2 2018, with funding up 25% from the same period.
The funding levels of 2001-2005 are a long way down from here.
The funding levels of 2001-2005 are a long way down from here.
Right? Startup wages are pathetic for top talent, there would need to be a fundamental shift in the industry to afford them.
I'm always surprised that more people can't see the writing on the wall.
The startup boom exists because money was so cheap you had to spend it. Then consumer spending started to ramp up again and money was flowing both ways. Worrying about profits was viewed as silly since that would get in the way of maximizing growth under the assumption that you could one day flip a switch and generate profit.
With inflation rising consumers have much less to spend (and are already starting to rapidly take on more debt), this alone would hurt tech companies (you see this in cancelation rates rising with streaming services and a drop in e-commerce spending), but the end of cheap money will have disastrous consequences for the startup ecosytem.
The number of IPOs is declining rapidly. Investors saw this coming when the pandemic hit and started to get everything together so the could cash out their chips before the casino closed.
Massive layoffs are coming in tech as unprofitable companies will be forced to demonstrate that they can in fact make money (if they really can) and even profitable companies start to see their income drop (since their income is primarily other tech companies or consumers who will be increasingly tightening their wallets).
What's coming is going to make the dotcom bust seem mild.
The startup boom exists because money was so cheap you had to spend it. Then consumer spending started to ramp up again and money was flowing both ways. Worrying about profits was viewed as silly since that would get in the way of maximizing growth under the assumption that you could one day flip a switch and generate profit.
With inflation rising consumers have much less to spend (and are already starting to rapidly take on more debt), this alone would hurt tech companies (you see this in cancelation rates rising with streaming services and a drop in e-commerce spending), but the end of cheap money will have disastrous consequences for the startup ecosytem.
The number of IPOs is declining rapidly. Investors saw this coming when the pandemic hit and started to get everything together so the could cash out their chips before the casino closed.
Massive layoffs are coming in tech as unprofitable companies will be forced to demonstrate that they can in fact make money (if they really can) and even profitable companies start to see their income drop (since their income is primarily other tech companies or consumers who will be increasingly tightening their wallets).
What's coming is going to make the dotcom bust seem mild.
There is no scenario in which tech declines without the US entering a recession and when the US enters a recession, the "cheap money" is going to be coming back.
There is no way the dotcom crash is repeated because today IT is integrated inside every aspect of every business. It will be just another regular recession.
The biggest threat to programming jobs in the US is outsourcing (and, in the longer term - automation), not an imaginary apocalyptic event.
There is no way the dotcom crash is repeated because today IT is integrated inside every aspect of every business. It will be just another regular recession.
The biggest threat to programming jobs in the US is outsourcing (and, in the longer term - automation), not an imaginary apocalyptic event.
I'll make sure to check back on this comment in 6 months, certainly hoping that I do so laughing about how much I was overreacting.
If you think you will be able to tell by looking at a period of 6 months whether a contraction (that hasn't actually even started yet in terms of total employment) is just a regular recession or the apocalypse you prophesize, I have a brooklyn bridge to sell you.
"Apocalypse" is needlessly dramatic language.
I think in 6 months we'll:
- Unquestionably be in a recession
- Have interest rates higher than they are today (i.e. cheap money does not return)
- Major layoffs across the board at tech companies
- It will be much harder to find a tech job after layoffs
- Inflation still not tamed despite interest rate hikes and declining employment
- Clear sentiment that this is worse that the dotcom bust
I'm not sure how anyone working in tech, looking at the data behind the scenes, seeing where all the math doesn't quite add up, can possibly think what we're heading for will be a "regular recession". "apocalypse" is a bit hyperbolic, but this is going to be bad and I will be delighted to realize that I'm foolishly wrong on this one.
For the record, this is what I thought would happen during covid, but never imagine the insane[0] amount of money the FED would pump into the market. However we've exhausted that option, and I don't see how we're going to print money out of this one.
0. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL
I think in 6 months we'll:
- Unquestionably be in a recession
- Have interest rates higher than they are today (i.e. cheap money does not return)
- Major layoffs across the board at tech companies
- It will be much harder to find a tech job after layoffs
- Inflation still not tamed despite interest rate hikes and declining employment
- Clear sentiment that this is worse that the dotcom bust
I'm not sure how anyone working in tech, looking at the data behind the scenes, seeing where all the math doesn't quite add up, can possibly think what we're heading for will be a "regular recession". "apocalypse" is a bit hyperbolic, but this is going to be bad and I will be delighted to realize that I'm foolishly wrong on this one.
For the record, this is what I thought would happen during covid, but never imagine the insane[0] amount of money the FED would pump into the market. However we've exhausted that option, and I don't see how we're going to print money out of this one.
0. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL
I agree. Its not going to be good. My main concern is staying employed for that whole period of time. As long as I can stay employed, I think I can come out on top, since people currently employed get hired easier than people who get laid off, ironically.
I don't expect the economy to ever "return to normalcy." Our economy is currently diabetic and we are pumping it full of insulin to offset the years of sugar we pumped into it last decade. It may even out after a REALLY long time...everything does eventually. But until then things are going to be rocky.
And I think your hunch is about as correct as your rationale for posting the M1 graphic without reading the note below it or noticing that it jumped 4-fold in a single month.
I'm well aware of both the note and the jump. If you think that increase is merely an artifact of a change in methodology then you should spend a bit more time researching on what you're looking at. The jump is quite real.
There's actually a good stack exchange post covering this: https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/45886/has-ther...
As well as the FRED itself release and explanation: https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2021/01/whats-behind-the-rec...
> In late February and early March of 2020, the Fed cut its policy interest rate dramatically to help ease credit conditions during the COVID-19 crisis. The resulting acceleration in the supply of M1 can be understood largely as banks accommodating an increase in people’s demand for money.
This leads back to your original "money will be cheap again" point. It won't, since we're partially living in the consequences of doing this during covid. Inflation is being driven by many factors, but the FED will continue to increase interest rates to try to fight it.
Again I'll be more than happy to see you proven right but so far your responses haven't given me much confidence.
There's actually a good stack exchange post covering this: https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/45886/has-ther...
As well as the FRED itself release and explanation: https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2021/01/whats-behind-the-rec...
> In late February and early March of 2020, the Fed cut its policy interest rate dramatically to help ease credit conditions during the COVID-19 crisis. The resulting acceleration in the supply of M1 can be understood largely as banks accommodating an increase in people’s demand for money.
This leads back to your original "money will be cheap again" point. It won't, since we're partially living in the consequences of doing this during covid. Inflation is being driven by many factors, but the FED will continue to increase interest rates to try to fight it.
Again I'll be more than happy to see you proven right but so far your responses haven't given me much confidence.
If you are well-aware, why didn't you use a more adequate money supply measure like M2 or M3? Is it maybe because the growth there was nothing out of the ordinary looking at the past 10 years?
At first I was all-in for working remote, but after having done it for two years, the question that made me think otherwise was simply:
- Ten years from now, would I be glad that I had spent ~70% of my time at home?
As you can see from all these comments, whether working at the office is good or bad, depends hugely on context. E.g. what type of commute are we talking about? 15 minutes walking to the office or spending 4 hours everyday standing still on the freeway? There simply is no single answer for this.
Working remote certainly has its upside in that it allows one to have more control of the day. Bad storm projected for next morngin? I guess I’ll just work from home. Not having to walk out the door means more predictability. But coming back to the original question, this sort of control might come at the cost of losing some color in your everyday life in the long run. And thats what freaks me out the most: am I purposefully grayscaling my life for the sake of convenience and control?
I’d rather not.
- Ten years from now, would I be glad that I had spent ~70% of my time at home?
As you can see from all these comments, whether working at the office is good or bad, depends hugely on context. E.g. what type of commute are we talking about? 15 minutes walking to the office or spending 4 hours everyday standing still on the freeway? There simply is no single answer for this.
Working remote certainly has its upside in that it allows one to have more control of the day. Bad storm projected for next morngin? I guess I’ll just work from home. Not having to walk out the door means more predictability. But coming back to the original question, this sort of control might come at the cost of losing some color in your everyday life in the long run. And thats what freaks me out the most: am I purposefully grayscaling my life for the sake of convenience and control?
I’d rather not.
Also, local startups will win the war for top talent too.
Some people like to work remote and some like to work in office.
One thing that doesn't work well (usually), is hybrid where a team is a mix of remote and in office.
In the end, I could see some companies or groups in companies going full remote, and some being fully on site, and individual devs migrate to wherever they are happy.
One benefit of covid is it created a giant social experiment where we got a chance to taste what full remote work companies would be like, and now it is no longer something theoretical. As someone who went full remote way before covid, this is great as now their is more opportunity to stay fully remote where I am most happy.
Some people like to work remote and some like to work in office.
One thing that doesn't work well (usually), is hybrid where a team is a mix of remote and in office.
In the end, I could see some companies or groups in companies going full remote, and some being fully on site, and individual devs migrate to wherever they are happy.
One benefit of covid is it created a giant social experiment where we got a chance to taste what full remote work companies would be like, and now it is no longer something theoretical. As someone who went full remote way before covid, this is great as now their is more opportunity to stay fully remote where I am most happy.
One huge advantage of remote, is that it seriously cuts down on harassment, sexual and otherwise.
The corporate world is full of examples of predators that hide in the multitude of in-person interactions to annoy, threaten, or harass. Remote makes that harder, and makes it much easier to document harassment.
The corporate world is full of examples of predators that hide in the multitude of in-person interactions to annoy, threaten, or harass. Remote makes that harder, and makes it much easier to document harassment.
I would actually love to get some perspective on my own perceptions. If i'm slinging code, remote work sounds awesome. But when i'm slinging ideas, i want to be in person. I want to have the brains in a room around a market board figuring things out. The creative and communicative energy is just totally different.
My problem with the code-slingers who want to be totally remote -- don't you need to have periodic collaborative discussions with your peers? Do you really find those discussions are as good over a computer screen as they were in a room? Over a screen, most people are multi-tasking -- having multiple conversations, doing their laundry, whatever. That's a poor imitation of true collaboration, in my opinion. What am I not considering?
My problem with the code-slingers who want to be totally remote -- don't you need to have periodic collaborative discussions with your peers? Do you really find those discussions are as good over a computer screen as they were in a room? Over a screen, most people are multi-tasking -- having multiple conversations, doing their laundry, whatever. That's a poor imitation of true collaboration, in my opinion. What am I not considering?
Automattic (Wordpress etc) is a great example, and have been doing it for years. However, they are very purposeful about it, including:
+ Hire for the culture
+ Commit to awesome, persistent written communication
+ Meritocracy in which trust can be earned by the work itself
+ Periodic in-person get togethers (not always to 'do work')
+ Hire for the culture
+ Commit to awesome, persistent written communication
+ Meritocracy in which trust can be earned by the work itself
+ Periodic in-person get togethers (not always to 'do work')
I've heard their interview process can take upwards of 80 hours.
I think there's a barbell effect: those early in their career and those in the top levels of leadership much prefer in-person environment, while most of those in the middle prefer remote.
Of course, that's a broad generalization and yes, there are different preferences up and down, but I've seen that play out.
I've always been an advocate of remote work before COVID and think it'll be a much larger part of tech. It's not without flaws though, as the tooling, processes and general attitudes need to evolve.
It's also hard to decouple COVID from it, too. Working remotely during a scary, global plague where schools are shut down, groceries are sold out, and family members are dying is different than working remotely during a relatively normal time.
Of course, that's a broad generalization and yes, there are different preferences up and down, but I've seen that play out.
I've always been an advocate of remote work before COVID and think it'll be a much larger part of tech. It's not without flaws though, as the tooling, processes and general attitudes need to evolve.
It's also hard to decouple COVID from it, too. Working remotely during a scary, global plague where schools are shut down, groceries are sold out, and family members are dying is different than working remotely during a relatively normal time.
I agree a lot with the sentiment. But these points are terrible:
> Fortune 500 company found that just 10 percent of all communications occurred between employees whose desks were more than 500 meters apart. This suggests that once companies span multiple floors, buildings, or campuses, they’ve already lost much of the collaborative value of being “in the office” together.
1. 500 meters is a huge distance. It's actually surprising the distance at which 10% of communications happens is that far, which undermines the point the author is making.
2. You aren't supposed to collaborate with the whole company. You are supposed to collaborate primarily with your team, and less frequently with adjacent stakeholders.
> Fortune 500 company found that just 10 percent of all communications occurred between employees whose desks were more than 500 meters apart. This suggests that once companies span multiple floors, buildings, or campuses, they’ve already lost much of the collaborative value of being “in the office” together.
1. 500 meters is a huge distance. It's actually surprising the distance at which 10% of communications happens is that far, which undermines the point the author is making.
2. You aren't supposed to collaborate with the whole company. You are supposed to collaborate primarily with your team, and less frequently with adjacent stakeholders.
The last time I checked the remote startups were not even willing to pay me half of what companies with brick-and-mortar offices were willing to pay me. Sorry, I can't see how remote startups will win the top talent with such less pay!
They're paying far more than brick and mortar companies are where I live. Outside of SV and perhaps Boston and NYC, this is very likely the case.
There's so much BS and such a dance that revolves around hiring that I have trouble believing that just being remote alone will really decide if a given company gets "top talent".
If you tie the company's future with employees closely, with great incentives to accomplished milestones for effective contributions, it does not matter where they work from, they might work even more as a remote player.
Earning a stable and boring fixed salary, some will opt to do the minimum to get by, there is little downside of that at least for a few years. The leadership team needs to stay creative nowadays instead of saying "back to office or you're fired", how to do that? refer to paragraph 1 above.
Earning a stable and boring fixed salary, some will opt to do the minimum to get by, there is little downside of that at least for a few years. The leadership team needs to stay creative nowadays instead of saying "back to office or you're fired", how to do that? refer to paragraph 1 above.
I agree with the vast majority of the article, but take contention with this sarcastic question:
> Does anyone, outside of company management, believe that considering your coworkers your closest social relationships is a good thing?
Over the years, I have really underestimated the strength of friendships which were made at the office. And also, how much they meant to me as well.
The flexibility of remote work is awesome, but I don't think it is in its final form. There are definitely aspects missing which we haven't solved yet.
> Does anyone, outside of company management, believe that considering your coworkers your closest social relationships is a good thing?
Over the years, I have really underestimated the strength of friendships which were made at the office. And also, how much they meant to me as well.
The flexibility of remote work is awesome, but I don't think it is in its final form. There are definitely aspects missing which we haven't solved yet.
When workers say 'hybrid' they really mean 100% remote? what aspect of this definition is a hybrid of working from the office?
The problem? When workers say hybrid, they typically mean they want the flexibility to choose where they work from and when, all the time. (In a sign of how jarring this concept is to ingrained expectations, Gartner refers to this as “radical flexibility.”) On average, that will be three days a week from home, two from somewhere else.A fair number of people use it to mean that they could go into an office or that some co-workers go into an office even if they rarely do so themselves. It can mean come in for 3 days/week but it doesn't necessarily.
What is more rewarding?
1. Relocating to an obscure town in Texas to work intensely with ambitious engineers on hard space exploration technology.
2. Building a truly breakthrough software system (eg metaverse/gaming/crypto) with ambitious engineers in a fully distributed company?
I find it hard to see how a company doing (1) would lose against a competitor doing (1) in a distributed fashion. I also find it hard to see how a company doing (2) would lose against a competitor doing (2) in an onprem fashion.
1. Relocating to an obscure town in Texas to work intensely with ambitious engineers on hard space exploration technology.
2. Building a truly breakthrough software system (eg metaverse/gaming/crypto) with ambitious engineers in a fully distributed company?
I find it hard to see how a company doing (1) would lose against a competitor doing (1) in a distributed fashion. I also find it hard to see how a company doing (2) would lose against a competitor doing (2) in an onprem fashion.
Yes, but you are comparing apples to oranges. The comparison is:
1. Relocating to (city) to work in person with ambitious engineers on X. 2. Living where you choose to work remotely with ambitious engineers on X.
When there is a choice, it seems workers generally greatly prefer 2. If your labor market is inelastic, you might be fine. If it's elastic, it seems like on-prem will definitely lose out to remote in terms of the labor pool.
1. Relocating to (city) to work in person with ambitious engineers on X. 2. Living where you choose to work remotely with ambitious engineers on X.
When there is a choice, it seems workers generally greatly prefer 2. If your labor market is inelastic, you might be fine. If it's elastic, it seems like on-prem will definitely lose out to remote in terms of the labor pool.
Working remotely since covid has actually been a boon personally.
I have intense anxiety and panic when working in skyscrapers. I get a feeling similar to fear of heights and I'm unable to function productively.
In addition I was able to mitigate some of my interviewing anxiety by drinking half a glass of wine during the remote interview.
I now get to work at a FAANG company where previously my mental health/anxiety would have barred me from even having a shot.
I have intense anxiety and panic when working in skyscrapers. I get a feeling similar to fear of heights and I'm unable to function productively.
In addition I was able to mitigate some of my interviewing anxiety by drinking half a glass of wine during the remote interview.
I now get to work at a FAANG company where previously my mental health/anxiety would have barred me from even having a shot.
Not entirely. Startups have a <4% success rate. I'd prefer a more stable opportunity. As a senior principal, I consider myself "top talent".
Even as someone who refuses to go back to the office, I can see in person serving as a filter for passionate people who actually care about the product.
Remote and local will change a lot. And will merge a lot.
Drop some Metaverse (or VR by Google/MS/Apple) in the mix and the patterns of interaction on remote teams will come closer to local.
Add some of the Gitlab tricks into the methodologies used on local and people will need less time at the office.
Add some unavoidable adjustments in the price of real estate or commuting patterns and some remotes might accept a bit of office.
Drop some Metaverse (or VR by Google/MS/Apple) in the mix and the patterns of interaction on remote teams will come closer to local.
Add some of the Gitlab tricks into the methodologies used on local and people will need less time at the office.
Add some unavoidable adjustments in the price of real estate or commuting patterns and some remotes might accept a bit of office.
This will just shake out into a market like anything else. Some companies will be remote, some companies will be in person, some people will be remote, some people will be in person, and for the more in-demand companies and employees they will get to decide what they prefer, the less in-demand companies and employees will need to just take what the market offers them.
That might be true, but this is probably the beginning of sharply declining developer salaries. If you're going remote, a developer in California is going to be competing with devleopers in Kansas, not to mention overseas. The era of people fresh out of a developer bootcamp getting six figure salaries is all but done.
this is probably the beginning of sharply declining developer salaries
That might well be true for FAANG-sized companies. Those businesses will pay start to pay less if they start embracing remote working (although right now they seem to be pushing for people to return to the office). It is not true for the rest of the IT world though. When developers can get remote jobs they're free to work for the highest paying company rather than whatever local IT industry there is. That pushes wages up if you're in Bumsville Idaho. Not to six-figures-for-a-junior levels, sure, but far more than you could earn before.
Overall I strongly suspect remote work will lead to developers earning more over the whole industry even if peak Bay Area wages drop a lot. Sucks if you work in the Bay I guess, and it sucks even more if you're a Bay Area landlord, but for the rest of us it's going to be awesome.
That might well be true for FAANG-sized companies. Those businesses will pay start to pay less if they start embracing remote working (although right now they seem to be pushing for people to return to the office). It is not true for the rest of the IT world though. When developers can get remote jobs they're free to work for the highest paying company rather than whatever local IT industry there is. That pushes wages up if you're in Bumsville Idaho. Not to six-figures-for-a-junior levels, sure, but far more than you could earn before.
Overall I strongly suspect remote work will lead to developers earning more over the whole industry even if peak Bay Area wages drop a lot. Sucks if you work in the Bay I guess, and it sucks even more if you're a Bay Area landlord, but for the rest of us it's going to be awesome.
Besides for entry-level positions, there's still huge shortages of software engineers. There's no reason to expect the secular technology trends of the past 30 years, software eating the world, to suddenly reverse just because of one business cycle. Becoming a good software engineer is probably equally as difficult as becoming a good doctor, attorney, accountant or corporate manager. So low-to-mid six figures seems like a floor.
My company pays SF-payscale salaries no matter where the employee lives. That's how we attract and retain the best talent.
I don't believe it. There is always a catch. Can you share any job descriptions if possible ?
EDIT: There you go. I found one job description that says "Remote anywhere in US". It doesn't say anywhere in the world:
https://boards.greenhouse.io/recur/jobs/4171929004
I also found examples of hiring remote but specifically in Asia Pacific. Are you saying those people are getting paid SF level salary ?
https://boards.greenhouse.io/recur/jobs/4625482004
EDIT: There you go. I found one job description that says "Remote anywhere in US". It doesn't say anywhere in the world:
https://boards.greenhouse.io/recur/jobs/4171929004
I also found examples of hiring remote but specifically in Asia Pacific. Are you saying those people are getting paid SF level salary ?
https://boards.greenhouse.io/recur/jobs/4625482004
I’m happy for you. Let’s talk in 3 years.
May I dare to ask how profitable your company is at the moment and how sustainable their business model is ? I hope we are not talking some of those NFT thingy where money apparently appears out of thin air and disappears as quickly as it showed up.
For now.
I live in a town where the primary industry is resource extraction. There are some software development jobs but they pay a pittance relative to remote work. I see many of my peers in my area working remotely (alongside myself) for this reason. I expect that local salaries will have to be increased or those local jobs will become stepping stones for new grads to transition to remote work eventually.
So, maybe big city folks will see their wages stagnate, but for those of us out in "Kansas" it's a dream.
So, maybe big city folks will see their wages stagnate, but for those of us out in "Kansas" it's a dream.
Be careful what you wish for. Remote will eventually cause a serious compression in the total comp of US based workers.
If top end compensation decreases by 20% but bottom end compensation rises by 50% as I'm seeing in local jobs which promote remote work, then I really don't care. It's still a fantastic upgrade over before.
The entire reason that I'm in the DFW area is because I couldn't find meaningful work in the New Orleans area, where my family has been for over 300 years. The culture of Texas is just like the hue of the buildings in its cities: beige crap. The cultural equivalent of a generic strip mall. Yet here I am, because there wasn't any remote work at the time. Because of remote employment, the wages that are now available in the NOLA area are about far higher than they were a few years ago. So I really do not care if the people making 500K are eventually forced to accept 400K, because the people who were forced to accept 80K for a senior position are now getting 140K for the same type of work, and that number is accelerating upward. Compression is a great thing at the bottom.
The entire reason that I'm in the DFW area is because I couldn't find meaningful work in the New Orleans area, where my family has been for over 300 years. The culture of Texas is just like the hue of the buildings in its cities: beige crap. The cultural equivalent of a generic strip mall. Yet here I am, because there wasn't any remote work at the time. Because of remote employment, the wages that are now available in the NOLA area are about far higher than they were a few years ago. So I really do not care if the people making 500K are eventually forced to accept 400K, because the people who were forced to accept 80K for a senior position are now getting 140K for the same type of work, and that number is accelerating upward. Compression is a great thing at the bottom.
A major swedish fashion retailer is _just now_ manating everyone in the IT department back to the office (about 4000 tech people), as of next week.
There is a big pushback, and no suppprt from the unions for this return to the office. There will be a wave of resignations very soon.
Who's hiring? :)
There is a big pushback, and no suppprt from the unions for this return to the office. There will be a wave of resignations very soon.
Who's hiring? :)
Even so, there trouble is in how well these remote teams work together. And what about team cohesion. Dont mind me, I LOVE remote teams and distributed working, but atleast in the early stage i feel that there needs to be a balance between onsite and REMOTE work.
After college I moved back to my hometown that doesn't have much of a tech company presence, something I was only able to do because of my remote job. I have no intention of moving, so I will exclusively look for remote jobs going forward.
Hmmm.. Only top talent wishes to work remotely while the plebes want to drive into work each day and socialize instead of doing the heavy lifting. Going to work each day obviously makes such lack luster behavior easier to get away with.
Agreed. People saying socialization and collaboration is impossible in that context I think just don’t know how to make Slack friends I think.
Even so, some people are just extroverted in a certain way and need that in-person. And, senior leadership often want a footprint to see and sense the troops.
So, the question posed to workers is this:
Because I need to see people in-person for social fulfillment/for understanding the scope of my authority in a clear way/because this is the way things are always done… I want you to sacrifice your family, finances and time.
Now that family and finances are on the bargaining table, and remote companies that “do it right” can seemingly maintain all the necessary revenue generation, I think remote work will win out.
It’s ultimately asking for a subset of someone’s socialization needs to be met in return for sacrificing family. Good luck with that.
Even so, some people are just extroverted in a certain way and need that in-person. And, senior leadership often want a footprint to see and sense the troops.
So, the question posed to workers is this:
Because I need to see people in-person for social fulfillment/for understanding the scope of my authority in a clear way/because this is the way things are always done… I want you to sacrifice your family, finances and time.
Now that family and finances are on the bargaining table, and remote companies that “do it right” can seemingly maintain all the necessary revenue generation, I think remote work will win out.
It’s ultimately asking for a subset of someone’s socialization needs to be met in return for sacrificing family. Good luck with that.
Pretty sure whoever is willing to pay a ton will win the war for Top Talent.
I'm looking to leave my employer at the conclusion of this project (April/May 2023). Full remote ranks first, 4:1 hybrid next, full onsite not even considered.
I imagine this is common across the industry.
I imagine this is common across the industry.
[deleted]
I'm pretty full in on non-remote. I think it's an advantage. Let's see if it plays out. It is true that it's harder to hire but we'll see what the final outcome is.
I love remote work and will never go back to in person work again. But I do see some problems, both immediate and on the horizon.
I look at the people on my social media that I actively follow, and they are in three groups: friends from High School, friends from college, friends from work. None of those groups are growing. The first two for obvious reasons, but last one is the concern. I think back to the last time I worked in an office.
My path to the bathroom happened to go past a bunch of people I never worked with for my job, but I'm still friends with a lot of them a decade later. People who I would just start random conversations with on the way to and from the bathroom. And I'm still friends with a lot of my old coworkers who I last worked with a decade ago (the last time I worked in an office). In part because we hung out a lot outside of work, going to lunch, dinner, bars, shows, etc.
But after that? My rate of making new work friends went way down. The chances for socializing are very small. The closest friends I've made in the last few years are all parents from my kids' schools, because we have constant in person interactions.
My old work friendships are not only important to my psychological well being, but also in finding new work. When I need a new job I go to those friends first. I'm lucky that I already have that network, but people who are new to work life won't have that chance.
Which leads to the other problem I see -- the juniors of today are the seniors of tomorrow. But the juniors of today are losing out on a lot of chances for mentorship with remote work.
Remote work is great for mid to senior level people, who already have some experience and know what they are doing. But it's not great for junior employees. They need those random interactions, randomly overhearing shop talk, being in the hallway and getting pulled into a meeting "because you really should be learning this". All things that happened to me when I was a junior engineer, and helped me immensely.
We try to replicate that with remote work, but it's just not nearly as effective.
So either we'll have a tier of in person companies where all the junior employees will work with the few senior people who like being in the office, or we're going to have a big problem in a few years when there are a bunch of junior people who we can't promote because they didn't get the mentorship they need to move up.
We need to solve the mentorship problem and the (human) network building in a remote world.
I look at the people on my social media that I actively follow, and they are in three groups: friends from High School, friends from college, friends from work. None of those groups are growing. The first two for obvious reasons, but last one is the concern. I think back to the last time I worked in an office.
My path to the bathroom happened to go past a bunch of people I never worked with for my job, but I'm still friends with a lot of them a decade later. People who I would just start random conversations with on the way to and from the bathroom. And I'm still friends with a lot of my old coworkers who I last worked with a decade ago (the last time I worked in an office). In part because we hung out a lot outside of work, going to lunch, dinner, bars, shows, etc.
But after that? My rate of making new work friends went way down. The chances for socializing are very small. The closest friends I've made in the last few years are all parents from my kids' schools, because we have constant in person interactions.
My old work friendships are not only important to my psychological well being, but also in finding new work. When I need a new job I go to those friends first. I'm lucky that I already have that network, but people who are new to work life won't have that chance.
Which leads to the other problem I see -- the juniors of today are the seniors of tomorrow. But the juniors of today are losing out on a lot of chances for mentorship with remote work.
Remote work is great for mid to senior level people, who already have some experience and know what they are doing. But it's not great for junior employees. They need those random interactions, randomly overhearing shop talk, being in the hallway and getting pulled into a meeting "because you really should be learning this". All things that happened to me when I was a junior engineer, and helped me immensely.
We try to replicate that with remote work, but it's just not nearly as effective.
So either we'll have a tier of in person companies where all the junior employees will work with the few senior people who like being in the office, or we're going to have a big problem in a few years when there are a bunch of junior people who we can't promote because they didn't get the mentorship they need to move up.
We need to solve the mentorship problem and the (human) network building in a remote world.
In the 4 quadrants formed by startup/not and remote/not, wouldn’t remote non-startups be where top talent goes?
Weirdly, the article title mentions startups but the article doesn’t.
Weirdly, the article title mentions startups but the article doesn’t.
My first question is does talent matter though?
Most startups aren’t pushing the boundaries of any technology. I’d argue most companies wouldn’t know what to do with real talent.
Most startups aren’t pushing the boundaries of any technology. I’d argue most companies wouldn’t know what to do with real talent.
will they win the war though?
Nope, on average 22 out of 23 startups will dry up into dust, and blow away in the wind. I guess the modern metric of success is how long your team survives. =)
Maybe after generations of learning how to effectively work remotely. Humans and social structures evolved with in person interaction.
Why the focus on Remote Startups tho? There's quite a few of Remote big companies. Or at the very least flexible per team.
What war? 6 months ago maybe there was a war, now layoffs are more common than shortages.
I'd prefer to work at a fully in-person startup next time I join one, personally.
Founder & CEO of a startup supporting remote work posts his pitch.
Nothing to see here.
Nothing to see here.
Who would top talent work for somebody else? It is remote, but you still have to deal with meetings, HR, woke bs, egomaniac visions... And there is always a risk that startup fails...
It is pretty easy to start your own project, with some consulting on a side.
It is pretty easy to start your own project, with some consulting on a side.
Remote only works when everyone in the company are 100% remote
this is false - remote teams are exponentially less productive
maybe linearly less productive if remote from day 1
clever marketing hack for the author's startup though
maybe linearly less productive if remote from day 1
clever marketing hack for the author's startup though
Non-remote simply means asshole bosses.
I used to simply dislike remote. Now I hate it with a deeper passion with every additional day that I do it.
Other things I'm looking for in a job (apart from a convenient office location) - (1) high pay and (2) stability. Startups just can't offer these things, least of all remote startups.
Other things I'm looking for in a job (apart from a convenient office location) - (1) high pay and (2) stability. Startups just can't offer these things, least of all remote startups.
You can find this but the tech isn't always the sexiest. Look for manufacturing or infrastructure companies. Be prepared for legacy systems, dated IT practices, and being your own QA or DevOps.
Edit: if this doesn't sound great to you, look into robotics; a lot of startups are constantly looking for good engineers willing to work in person. Often times they settle for remote, so stress in any interviews that you're willing to be in person.
Edit: if this doesn't sound great to you, look into robotics; a lot of startups are constantly looking for good engineers willing to work in person. Often times they settle for remote, so stress in any interviews that you're willing to be in person.
Why do you think there has to be some kind of tradeoff with regards to technology? Aren't there plenty of large and mid-sized companies with modern tech, more stability than a startup, higher pay and offices?
I made one suggestion.
I'm in the rare camp of those believing the employees will crave back the office at some point.
Maybe not in the crazy expensive cities with long commutes like LA and SF, but everywhere, yes.
Maybe not in the crazy expensive cities with long commutes like LA and SF, but everywhere, yes.
Why do you believe this? I think some workers prefer in-office work. But just as many likely prefer no commute at all. Just like some people love crazy expensive cities, but just as many love cheaper cities and rural areas.
For me, the primary one is that it's _way_ too easy for everyone to get deeply frustrated with each other. Social interactions and chit-chat lead to a better understanding of people and a more accurate mental model of what people actually mean when they say something.
Written text is the majority of remote communication. That's both good and bad. It's a much lower bandwidth form of communication than face-to-face in terms of being able to pick up intent and understand the context of someone's mood/etc in what they're saying. The same goes of communication over webcam. It's higher bandwidth than written text, but still lower than in-person.
When you're fully remote, you'll much more commonly misinterpret folks intent. You'll also more commonly have your intent misinterpreted.
At least in my experience, this tends to lead to a much higher rate of frustration and more frequent extreme misbehavior when everyone is remote.
I don't have an easy solution. Occasional in person meetings help a lot, but they're hard to do well, and easy to do poorly. Having 200 people in the same room for 2 days doesn't really help the situation, as there's zero time to get to know anyone.