Ask HN: If you don't permit telecommuting, why? • Hacker News Board

Re: Ask HN: If you don't permit telecommuting, why?

#81

Post by up_and_up » Fri, Jul 22, 2016, 5:44 PM UTC

stevecalifornia wrote: post #38

I am a remote worker and if I ever ran a company I wouldn't allow telecommuting. Here is why: When I was at the office for a decade, 90% of the insight and productivity came from informal conversations in the hallway, lunches and things I overheard in passing. As a remote worker, nearly all communication is very deliberate so I am not exposed to those ad-hoc conversations. Everything is very deliberate: I receive an…

This is the problem. I would never work for a company that "Allowed telecommuting". I try to only work for companies that have a "remote first" mentality. Everyone in the entire company should have the ability to work from home or be traveling and working and be able to remain 100% productive.

This is a culture issue at companies that will evolve over time. The focus needs to shift from "good their butts are in their seats" to "good they just delivered X number of features". The focus should be on the results.

Re: Ask HN: If you don't permit telecommuting, why?

#82

Post by up_and_up » Fri, Jul 22, 2016, 5:44 PM UTC

mountaineer22 wrote: post #73

up_and_up wrote: post #71

I have worked for a 100% remote team for 4 years. Most of the concerns I see being posted here, I believe have more to do with the inability to hire well, the inability to efficiently communicate at the inter and intra team level, and the inability to operate as a remote-first company. Below I document how to successfully run a remote company. I work for a successful startup receiving regular accolades for our produc…

What is your team size?

20 people, but the processes we have in place should be scalable to way higher.

Re: Ask HN: If you don't permit telecommuting, why?

#83

Post by kyriakos » Fri, Jul 22, 2016, 5:45 PM UTC

for a purely software based company I think the main reason to require on-site employees is lack of trust. management really wants to see the people they pay walk in in the morning and sit at their desks.

personally I am more productive working remotely. I used to work for many years on-site at the same company and the distractions were unbearable, phones ringing, people walking by who always felt the need to interrupt me about anything (work related or not). and many phone calls about unrelated projects which resulted in context switching.

it turns out working remotely is more efficient because you avoid the random chit-chat, and unrelated calls transformed themselves into emails which I can open and respond to at a more convenient time.

Re: Ask HN: If you don't permit telecommuting, why?

#84

Post by chadscira » Fri, Jul 22, 2016, 5:45 PM UTC

dudul wrote: post #60

jdc0589 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hilariously, some companies with remote workers have "activity monitors" installed that tell coworkers you aren't doing anything if your mouse/keyboard goes inactive for a few minutes.

Is that for real?

If so i bet someone is spending company type coding a bypass, all the while being tracked as being productive.

Re: Ask HN: If you don't permit telecommuting, why?

#85

Post by mtberatwork » Fri, Jul 22, 2016, 5:46 PM UTC

stevecalifornia wrote: post #38

I am a remote worker and if I ever ran a company I wouldn't allow telecommuting. Here is why: When I was at the office for a decade, 90% of the insight and productivity came from informal conversations in the hallway, lunches and things I overheard in passing. As a remote worker, nearly all communication is very deliberate so I am not exposed to those ad-hoc conversations. Everything is very deliberate: I receive an…

> if I ever ran a company I wouldn't allow telecommuting.

Are you saying that you would never allow workers to telecommute even if they lived in the area? Or are you saying that you wouldn't allow for 100% remote positions in which the employee is not capable of easily making it into the office if needed? I think there is a difference between "telecommuting" and "remote working".

Re: Ask HN: If you don't permit telecommuting, why?

#86

Post by doozy » Fri, Jul 22, 2016, 5:46 PM UTC

As someone who has worked 10+ years remotely (based in South America) I think it's a combination of factors:

Supply and demand. Why hire remote when there's plenty of warm bodies locally? Most companies do not need, and cannot afford, top-tier talent. Labor shortages are a myth.

Managerial incompetence. How many of the managers have any experience managing a remote team? Do they know what to do and what not to do?

Remote is frequently seen as synonym with "cheap, sub-par foreign developer" and there are many good reasons companies avoid that.

IMHO, remote-friendly organizations will prevail. The ability to hire from a much larger pool of talent and save on office costs gives them the upper hand.

Re: Ask HN: If you don't permit telecommuting, why?

#87

Post by gresh » Fri, Jul 22, 2016, 5:48 PM UTC

stevecalifornia wrote: post #38

I am a remote worker and if I ever ran a company I wouldn't allow telecommuting. Here is why: When I was at the office for a decade, 90% of the insight and productivity came from informal conversations in the hallway, lunches and things I overheard in passing. As a remote worker, nearly all communication is very deliberate so I am not exposed to those ad-hoc conversations. Everything is very deliberate: I receive an…

I am a hiring manager and the above is why I require my team to come to the office.

Re: Ask HN: If you don't permit telecommuting, why?

#88

Post by basseq » Fri, Jul 22, 2016, 5:48 PM UTC

Broadly, remote workers are only going to be successful in two situations:

1. Remote workers are task-oriented or don't require collaboration. 2. The company is set up to make remote workers equal citizens. ("Remote First")

#1 tend to be the cost play, and leads to outsourcing or offshoring. (Or are things like in-territory sales managers or something.)

#2 is hard unless you're starting from scratch. On top of implementing collaborative technology, improving processes, focusing management practices, and restructuring your organization, you need to change your culture. Employees who sit right next to each other should be chatting in the Slack channel, not face-to-face.

Most companies have other priorities than to tackle this kind of change, and quite frankly, don't need to look outside a 30-mile radius to find qualified candidates.

Hiring remote employees without the organizational foundation to support them is a recipe for disaster.

Having an existing employee "go remote" is easier because they're already ingrained in the culture, and "alternate work schedules" (e.g., not 100% remote) are good in-transition approaches.

Re: Ask HN: If you don't permit telecommuting, why?

#89

Post by jedberg » Fri, Jul 22, 2016, 5:49 PM UTC

edoceo wrote: post #46

jedberg wrote: post #14

Not exactly what you are asking for, but I'll throw it in here: I run a fully remote company, and most of the objections I've heard from others we've found workaround for. The biggest unsolved problem is whiteboarding - there is no good collaborative online whiteboarding solution that doesn't require a lot of expensive equipment to be deployed to everyone.

Discuss.IO has a pretty good whiteboard. (I made it) Edit: I found another called deekit.com

That deekit looks promising, thanks!

Re: Ask HN: If you don't permit telecommuting, why?

#90

Post by r2dnb » Fri, Jul 22, 2016, 5:51 PM UTC

stevecalifornia wrote: post #38

I am a remote worker and if I ever ran a company I wouldn't allow telecommuting. Here is why: When I was at the office for a decade, 90% of the insight and productivity came from informal conversations in the hallway, lunches and things I overheard in passing. As a remote worker, nearly all communication is very deliberate so I am not exposed to those ad-hoc conversations. Everything is very deliberate: I receive an…

>When I was at the office for a decade, 90% of the insight and productivity came from informal conversations in the hallway, lunches and things I overheard in passing

The issue is not remote working, the very thing you wrote is the issue.

Virtually every time, remote working doesn't create new issues but reveals and - embarassingly - exposes existing ones.

You can no longer take a chance by letting things such as hallway affairs become a norm and an invisible force. You need to plan everything(and know what to plan), track everything relevant (and know what's relevant), be in control of the conditions for career and team progression (and therefore know precisely what these conditions are), you need to know your stuff. You can no longer just wait for magic to happen, put people in rooms and cross your fingers. Or send them to restaurant and expect team communication to have improved to the benefit of your KPIs.

The truth is 60-80% of today's companies are terribly run. Management of these companies is playing games without realizing it.

Remote working simply requires real management for it. Real managers quickly love it as remote working basically is : output-as-a-service : no noise, just efficiency and result. But the manager more tham ever needs to know what he is doing, because remote working accelerate the consequences of managerial weaknesses. What would have tanked a company in 5 years can tank it in 5 weeks.

But the positive is that once a remote setup has been successfully established, there is an organization insanely streamlined, efficient and competitive.