The other day, a topic of remote work came up again.
For the record, I do not advocate that fully remote work is the best thing ever for everybody. It’s all about balance, choice and personal responsibility. And of course, some jobs cannot be fully remote. Not until Meta goes full circle and starts building telepresence robots.
But first, as usual, best band ever. Today, it’s Múm. Sweet. Strange. Glitchy. Melodic. From Icelandverse even before it was announced.
(tldr at the bottom)
I just finished the third season of American Gods and learned that the show is cancelled without wrapping up the story (I did read the book). One thing is Ian Banks or Terry Prattchet dying, the other is somebody starting a project and abandoning it after releasing half of it. This lack of long-term thinking is why I don’t think we should be calling ourselves sapient. Do the get-rich-quick people really believe they will get an off-the-planet ticket to Bezos’ space hotel, a bunk in Zuckerberg’s bunker in New Zealand or get a chance to become fertilizer in Musk’s settlement on Mars?
And then there are the supply-chain shortages (and not just microchips).
No wonder, our approach to global warming is “let somebody else fix it“.
From amazing War and Peas.
Remote is hard
It is. But so is, for instance, agile. And many other things. Does it make them outright wrong?
There’s a certain desperation in the way a kettle is placed in hotel rooms. I know this shot’s mood is mainly set by the colour scheme, yet, still, the way the kettle, the giver of comfort, being in a random and visible place, is a message “you’re not home“.
It's true, that when working from home, it takes an extra effort to differentiate the “now I’m at work“ and “now I’m at home“ states of mind without spatially moving. Habits are shortcuts, and once you’re in a groove, it’s hard to get out.
And if one’s solving their issues with home by going to the office, is remote work the problem they need to be solving?
On the other hand, let’s be honest, being in the office, especially in the open space and activity based ones, is not a guarantee for a sustained concentration.
Remote is bad for collaboration
Neither is the office a guarantee for the constant fountain of collaboration. Yes, it’s easy to take off your headphones, turn your head and break the flow of somebody sitting next to you. But is it that much easier than an instant message? With the added advantage of the person receiving your message not being obliged to reply to you immediately? You know, the whole time to restore the concentration or that we do finish interrupted tasks in the same time, it’s just more stressful?
Maybe to establish a pipeline of collaborative brainstorming, one can schedule a periodic free-form chat with colleagues? Talk about the weather, share the news. Let one’s mind wander. Just like we have those brilliant ideas in the shower, when the brain finally is allowed to roam freely.
Try to avoid discussing the usual work topics in those, though.
Again, an extra effort, but maybe effective collaboration has not much to do with colocation?
One could argue that universities, for example, are the fertile grounds for brilliant ideas and collaborations. But universities don’t put brilliant minds in the same room day after day, in hopes that they will come up with the golden eggs. Universities merely connect them. Make brilliant minds team members.
Oh, and working remote doesn’t mean one has to work from home. Remote companies save on office space and expenses, they could, if not should, enable you taking care of that.
Remote will kill local employment
Another popular argument is that companies will never hire locally if they can find somebody else cheaper in another country.
Maybe it’s time we accept that globalisation is already here? This pandemic hasn’t really cared about the so-called borders. The current supply chain crisis is showing how complacent the global economy has become with the idea that everything in China is one short delivery away.
Do we really think that earning a six-digit salary in the US of A is justified for being low income?
So, why not hire somebody who’s good and does the work, without being hypocritical about where they are?
On the other hand, if a company makes hiring decisions based exclusively on the short-term monthly cost — is it really a good idea to work with them? Do they have a future? Or do the employees have a future in such a company?
Furthermore, doing remote exclusively for the sake of saving cost is plain outsourcing. I doubt that companies, seeking to save money on employees, will be investing in building a healthy working culture. Would one rather prefer local but terrible culture, or remote but one that cares?
There’s more to it than just money.
Things are about to go back to normal
There are many questions that are still to be answered about remote work, but the world has already changed. This, here and now, is what’s normal now.
As Ted Chiang eloquently put it:
…traditional “good vs. evil” stories follow a certain pattern: the world starts out as a good place, evil intrudes, good defeats evil, and the world goes back to being a good place. These stories are all about restoring the status quo, so they are implicitly conservative. Real science fiction stories follow a different pattern: the world starts out as a familiar place, a new discovery or invention disrupts everything, and the world is forever changed.
It’s not only science fiction. Things never go back to how they used to be in the “good old days”. Worse, these days were only good for a selected few. For the majority, those days sucked.
Hybrid
My personal experience (and our team entered remote already being split geographically in 2-3 different locations) is that while the lockdown-change to remote was not easy, it equalised the team. Depending on whether they’re colocated, there were different dynamics and communication patterns between different team members. Have you ever been to a meeting with majority in the same room and one-two people joining remotely? It’s plain awkward most of the time.
Hybrid is much harder to implement than full remote. I doubt it’s even worth it.
Future
Don’t get me wrong - having your contact in the same time zone as you is nice.
Sharing a lunch now and then is also nice.
Companies, doing remote, clearly state that it’s crucial to bring your remote team to the same location once or twice a year. One has to know one’s team members in person - we are social, and also out of site - out of mind, species.
Also, it’s still likely cheaper than maintaining a big enough office, located equally inconvenient for most.
Our team had to establish new ways to talk and collaborate. There’s an obvious change in daily interactions, but that made us think about the quality of those. We all confirm now that not having to commute is actually nice. Those enjoying a walk, can make it their choice, not a necessity. We get to spend more time with our families. We get more flexibility about our day.
I do believe we didn’t lose in productivity from the switch. It’s a combination of caring (yes, culture) and said flexibility - one can better optimise their time without sacrificing on either work or life.
Could we have built our team in the same location? I doubt - we’re not in LA, neither are our customers. Could we have moved everybody? Yes, but at what cost?
There’s still a lot for us to learn.
Be kind, rewind and take care.
TLDR
The world has changed and not coming back.
Remote brings challenges but also opportunities.
Collaboration is about communication, not colocation.
Hybrid is even harder, with dubious advantages.
Remote, done exclusively for cost reasons, is outsourcing and implies outsourcing culture too.
It’s only the beginning.