Comment by lazide
2 days ago
It’s really hard to see what a team/people on it is actually doing if people are remote.
It’s also much harder in general to communicate less formally and form deep relationships.
For execs and managers, this can be a big problem.
If it isn’t possible to do it the ‘old way’, remote work can and does work (albeit in different ways and with different constraints). But if doing remote work, why not do it somewhere else?
> It’s really hard to see what a team/people on it is actually doing if people are remote.
If you're totally disconnected from the work, sure. But for someone actually paying, it shouldn't be that hard to see whether the list of priorities for this month is actually getting finished or not.
Beyond the most trivial work, that really isn’t simple or straightforward without watching everything like a hawk.
Outsourcing manufacturing had the same problem - people thought they could send drawings to China, and with some straightforward checks, could get what they wanted cheaper. That was not at all the case, however, and there is a LOT of QA, additional checks, additional data leakage and competitive risks, etc.
For instance, if in the US people might actually follow the law around things like NDAs and non-competes most of the time, what about the jurisdiction you’re outsourcing too? How would you even know? How would you enforce consequences? How about data security?
> It’s really hard to see what a team/people on it is actually doing if people are remote.
Only if you are thinking like a McDonald’s shift manager. Measuring software developers by time-in-seat is tacitly acknowledging that your managers aren’t doing their jobs up to the C-suite.
Nothing I said is related to what you’re saying.