1/ Shopify yesterday announced going permanently remote, for most if not all employees. Twitter has made similar claims. Google, Apple, FB also remote for 2020. I’m still struggling to understand why remote is more efficient in long run. #remote #work #startups #opportunities
2/ I understand that remote could supplement the traditional in-office work. But why should remote be the new default? In what scenarios is remote more efficient? For what job roles has remote proven to be more efficient? What has been the key drivers for trying remote in past?
3/ I can’t imagine remote meetings being more efficient than present in person meetings for collaboration and comm. Whatever was happening digitally or over voice in-office will of course have no impact going remote. But how will remote zoom meetings be more efficient than F2F?
4/ We by definition are social animals having need to see each other, have our small talks, have our water-cooler convos, share our sorrows and happiness with our close colleagues, socialise and know people in other teams etc. How can taking all this away be more efficient?
5/ While I understand each person is different, and some have more of this social need than others. But how can remote be the new default?
6/ Key part of mgmt is to build a connect with the employee, and preempt his state, challenges, anxieties, insecurities etc that come under the way of his happiness and performance. Lot of this is via observation, actions, body language. How will this be more efficient remotely?
7/ Doesn’t your office and the campus aid in building your firm’s culture? Doesn’t it help you express what you stand for? How will building the culture be more efficient remotely?
8/ I also think office helps you demarcate boundaries within your life and helps you focus. 9 to 6 is office. Rest is personal /family space. With remote I also fear these boundaries will get blurred and will need one to multitask more. Why is that efficient?
9/ It’s not that I don't understand the merits of remote. I understand that in certain situations or for certain job roles, remote indeed is more efficient. My problem is when people say remote is the new default or normal.
10/ One argument for remote is that you’re no longer bound by the geographical boundaries, and you can hire top talent from across the world. This is especially true for knowledge workers where the output impact of a top talent is immense.
11/ We’ve all heard of the 10x engineer, 10x designer, 10x product manager, 10x data scientist etc.
12/ This also makes sense for job roles and geographical areas where there is a demand-supply mismatch i.e. demand is much higher than the talent in that region. I believe this is a reason for the trend of US tech companies opening development centres out of India.
13/ I call this a problem of ‘access’. And in such cases to grow - the company has no option but to explore other means like outsourcing or hiring remote workers. Or relocating to the concentrated region or the hub which has talent.
14/ However, I hear the argument that for certain job roles, job creation is happening faster than the talent pool creation and there is no option.
15/ I do agree that rapid growth of new technologies over the last 2 decades has resulted in a need for job roles like software developers, data scientists, product designers, deep tech expertise etc.
16/ Second argument for remote is ‘productivity’. This is esp true for individual contributors whose work needs a lot more focused thinking and problem solving. I believe this is the reason for developers are notorious for wanting to WHF or at nights to avoid distraction.
17/ I understand this argument. However, this might mean providing for more WFH flexibility to existing employees than going completely remote. There are merits of in-office for use cases which involve collaboration, communication and satisfying one’s need for a human connection.
18/ Third argument for remote is ‘cost arbitrage’. Concentration leads to increased cost of living. For eg - SF home prices are 2.5x of US median. This eventually means higher cost for employer. Why not hire an equally bright person from India or SEA for half or 1/3rd the cost?
19/ I’m guessing this argument is true for relatively lesser thinking roles where sensitivity to the end output is not high. I believe this was the driver for rise of KPO /BPO industry in India where functions like customer support, back office ops, inside sales were outsourced.
20/ But to me it looks like owing to the repetitive nature of these job roles, they need discipline and push, and while remote, these have happened in an in-office setting versus a WFH . I don’t know if there’s a large remote WFH army as well. Would love to be enlightened.
21/ While not a non-thinking role, but (relatively low end) software development and services also benefited from this cost arbitrage which resulted in the rise of IT /ITeS industry in India and Philippines, but again in an in-office setting.
22/ I’m still perplexed behind the primary motivation of some of these tech companies to go completely or largely remote. I also wonder what opportunities does this and COVID present to startups in India.
23/ To me it's not very clear and I keep my thinking horses on. Would love to get alternate viewpoints especially contrarian ones, and debate this out.
