I don't think there are any good general conclusions about companies that allow or have remote workers. There are so many factors/context to consider that anybody that has a really strong opinion (like not wanting to work for a company that has remote employees, or that remote work is the future that all companies need to embrace) is probably missing a lot of them.
Supporting remote workers is more challenging, but the things you need to do to make it work well are generally things that companies without remote workers should be doing anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if companies that support remote workers well are also generally better places to work at in person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
If you haven't either already worked with or meet with your coworkers on a regular basis, you won't be as productive and any kind of crunch time will turn into a big mess of finger pointing. The human bond has to be there.
Totally agreed. Travelling regularly is key.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
Water cooler talk and overhearing cross-conversations is a very real thing - which there's no way to replicate if most of the team is together, but a few are wfh. I think this matters most in big greenfield projects where there's a lot of flying by the seat of your collective pants. A project on a mature tech stack doesn't produce or need as much crosstalk.
This is becoming less of a thing. Slack (or equivalents) is huge here because a lot of the ad-hoc conversation moves here. Regular standups becoming fairly standard. More online tools (Trello vs post-it notes on the wall). This is also a good example of things that improve the environment for non-remote people too. Knowledge shouldn't require always half-listening to what your co-workers are saying, never being out sick/away, having to socialize with everybody on your team, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
It's impossible to lead a team remotely unless everyone is remote, and even then it's almost impossible. Note: by impossible I mean I don't have the skill to do it. And I'm a people person dammit!
I disagree here. It just requires being a lot more deliberate about a lot of things (like how you track work, check in with people, etc.). Again though, these are things that team leads should be doing anyway - but are often more lax about if the team is all in the same place.
Leading multiple teams (like Director or above) remotely is definitely harder but still doable. It requires a lot more travelling though since you're managing more people and may have little-to-no direct work interactions with a lot of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
WFH very often is like cashing in your chips. You get the sweet non-commute and taking meetings in your underwear. But it's pretty tough to get promoted, especially if you're competing with anyone who's physically onsite.
I think this really depends on the company. If you're at a place with a non-trivial number of remote people or that is already dealing with multiple physical offices or that is growing really fast - there are still lots of ways to get promoted.
If I were interviewing for a remote position or interviewing with a company that had remote workers, the things I'd be looking for / asking about are:
* Do all conference rooms have video chat software already set up and easy to use?
* Are there quiet non-conference room places to go for ad-hoc video chats?
* Is worked tracked online (any sort of work tracking / important documents on the wall would be a red flag)?
* How often do teams get together in the same physical place?
* How does work get planned and status tracked?
* What communication tools do people use?
* What are the time zones involved (since time zones are a very different issue than being remote)?
If a company has good answers to these I think its pretty low risk that being remote or having remote co-workers is going to be a big deal.