I have worked remote for years at a time, and managed people remotely. Both situations ended up the most productive periods for everyone involved. The key is a good process. Daily stand ups (video/voice/email), regular communication, and must be available time windows help to keep everyone engaged and accountable.

I may be the exception though since I was 'trained' in remote work starting with my very first job out of school. Even though I had to go into an office, many people I worked with were somewhere else in the US. The majority of them I never met in person and mostly either emailed or spoke on the phone.

I will say though, the hardest remote work situation to manage is an extreme time difference. Managing people in Asia while living in the US was tough.

Going to have to +1 this. I worked remotely/from home for 6 years, and was extremely productive, and also much less stressed. If I needed to take an hour or two and go to my apartment's pool, then I'd do it...

Now I'm back in an office doing 9-5, and everything is a chore. My stress levels are significantly higher than previously, etc...

With tools like group video calling, conference calls, email, Slack/chat, etc... It's incredibly easy to stay "close" with your team while being remote.

The tools to work remotely can be nice as you put it...

But if you can work remotely from home/desk, so can people who are willing to work for 10% of your salary. In person means "Im on the radar, im there to consider, and there to help". Someone over a chat client doesnt have the same presence.

Now, this might/probably change with the advent of AR and VR workspaces.

> But if you can work remotely from home/desk, so can people who are willing to work for 10% of your salary.

That's just capitalism. Choose a profession where you're not so easily replaced by someone who will take 10% of your salary.

>if you can work remotely from home/desk, so can people who are willing to work for 10% of your salary

If you're so unskilled as to be that replaceable, there's no reason to feel comfortable in a non-remote job, either.

If an employer chooses someone at 10% of your salary, your employer is chooosing someone too stupid to demand 90% of your salary. Do you really want to work for the idiot who's OK with that?

Productive according to what measurement? The problem is that the tech industry is still failing to measure productivity, even when people are onsite. So the lazy fall back is "butts in seats". If I can see you sitting in you're chair, I think you're productive. If I can't, then you are not. So, while you say you were productive while working remotely, there was some manager who thought you were doing nothing at all.

What's an objective measurement for jobs as diverse as software engineer, system administrator, computer technician, and first-tier support? The Tech Industry is made up of these roles and many more.

Just take a software engineer for example. LOC is fallible in too many ways to take seriously. Number of function points coded? Number of bugs fixed? They are all very fallible.

How about mentoring? How about reviewing code? How about documentation? How about professional development?

Depending on the situation, reading a technical article can weigh higher than a support issue. How do you develop the weighting for the different factors? Can it be applied across organizations?

To confound it further, people tend to take on work that doesn't fit their title. The smaller the organization, the larger the diversity of responsibilities.

Then there are soft factors like knowing which issues to address immediately in order to keep them from percolating up to your manager, working well within a team, communicating effectively, etc.

My opinion is that we are unlikely to see objective, effective measurements of productivity for the Tech Industry anytime within my employment life. It's not a failure. The number of factors involved, not to mention the ability to gather the measurements, is staggeringly complex. After all, we're not factory line workers producing pre-defined widgets.

Right, you are speaking from the employee side though. You seemed to have gloss over the "difficulty getting in touch with someone" and "times when you must be available" part.

Depending when you were out at the pool, I can imagine you got a few instant messages from your boss that you didn't reply to.

that could happen in the office as well

> Even though I had to go into an office, many people I worked with were somewhere else in the US.

That's the thing. Over the last 10 years the vast majority of my colleague, client and bosses were in remote countries. I worked with a guy that was the only one in the office for his team. His whole management hierarchy, all his colleagues where in other countries. Still management insisted he needed to come to work, wearing a suit as it was the standard in that office. (note that there were not even anybody to "see" that he was there, I guess the only reason is that remote working for permanent employee is quite difficult in the UK: you need a home office assessment, the company need to provide specific stuff, ...)

I've worked from home in the uk for the past ten years and no one assessed my office and in one company I didn't even get a laptop.

I'm curious what sort of company insisted on that.

None, I have colleagues that received that and that led me to believe companies needed to do that. Not quite sure why they would request a guy to go mindlessly to an office where there is nobody of his management line and no colleague.

To be fair, I worked for a company previously that didn't provide facilities for remote working as a general rule (i.e. access VPN that existed for sales), but I still had 1 colleague in my team that was working from home full time (i.e. using the VPN).

So I guess it must be random.

> Harder to engage a remote employee in company culture and values

I might sound a bit cynical here, but company culture and values (and everything surrounding it) is essentially the glue that sticks the suckers together. Employment is, in the simplest sense, nothing more than an all eggs in one basket business relationship.

You can make friends with certain people while employed, but companies (the entities as a whole) have, almost always, zero loyalty towards their employees. How many companies are touting "we're all in this together, guys!" only to turn around and fire 10% of their staff for whatever reason?

Also, why would one have to share the values/culture of the company you're employed at, if you're getting the work done professionally + at a high standard? Almost always these "values" are used an excuse to abuse the relationship (i.e. free overtime, "cause we're all doing it!", "can't give you a raise, because no one is making more than $XXX,000 per year at this company!")

> companies have, almost always, zero loyalty towards their employees

I think this belief is wrong. There are very few successful companies that don't go to great lengths to minimize employee turnover because it's economically beneficial. Hiring and training new staff is almost always more expensive than retaining someone who delivers good performance.

For a manager one of the biggest benefits of a person who is a "culture fit" is that they tend to be less likely to quit.

Sure people get laid off and fired in the world of business. I have yet to see the mustache-twirling villain who relishes doing this. It's basically the worst part of the job.

The relationship between employee and employer is economic. When either party decides it no longer makes economic sense they can end it. No one should get confused about that, and getting engaged in the company's culture and values doesn't have to contradict that. The ideal is that it equates to having some other reasons for sticking around and enjoying yourself while you're there. If you're a good employee then trust me they want you to stick around (many employees, including myself at past points in my career, think they're good employees but they're not). All this abuse stuff you're talking about certainly happens in some places but I don't think it's the typical case.

>I think this belief is wrong. There are very few successful companies that don't go to great lengths to minimize employee turnover because it's economically beneficial.

That's not loyalty, it's a cost-benefit analysis. If you applied the same logic to your personal relationships, you'd rightly be seen as a psychopath.

> There are very few successful companies that don't go to great lengths to minimize employee turnover because it's economically beneficial.

Loyalty is not minimizing turnover when the times are good. Loyalty is going out of one's way to protect the other side even when something bad happens to either side of the relationship.

> many employees, including myself at past points in my career, think they're good employees but they're not

Any clues on how to test if I'm in that position, or am I actually a good employee? Is there a chart somewhere I could fill and see my actual "employee desirability" score?

My problem is I finally, after many years of battling impostor syndrome, believed that I'm not that bad a programmer. So now I started worrying about this thing you mention...

> My problem is I finally, after many years of battling impostor syndrome, believed that I'm not that bad a programmer. So now I started worrying about this thing you mention...

You mean you've started to get impostor syndrome again?

Well, I'm not sure, but I don't think so. It's probably my normal depression reinforced by a naturally pessimistic outlook on life this time.

Having realized that you're not bad, you overcorrect and start thinking you're good. But when you think you're good, you're not as good as you think you are. And if you really are that good, it's best not to think so (or at least to act like you don't think so).

> Many people don't handle the level of autonomy well, or don't stay motivated in isolation

As I've started being 'in charge' of more people this has been the hardest thing for me to adapt to. I've always operated with a high degree of autonomy. Now that I'm in the position of assigning work to other people it's been a shock to me how much handholding most people need to get something done.

Hence you realise why most companies don't like having remote workers

That's because they are letting people work remote who shouldn't be working remote, either through ignorance or some attempt at "equality".

this is the most insightful comment on remote working that i've read on HN

> Many people don't handle the level of autonomy well, or don't stay motivated in isolation

But just because that is true for a number of people doesn't mean it is true for all.

I don't work from home anymore, but, personally, I always felt happiest when working from home.

I did have a remote job which sucked, and part of it was because it was remote and I didn't have as much familiarity with the code or the company and part of it was that the job just really sucked.

I think though that if you are already familiar with the code, know the people you are working with well, don't have significant problems interpreting what others say via IM/email and need to speak with them in person to get context, and just get a total morale boost when working from home because you are in your own world and can concentrate better, then- please!- work from home!

  Harder to engage a remote employee in company culture and values 

You know, I am not sure it is such a bad idea. A diversity of cultures can make the work a better place. Besides, what is the "company culture and values" anyway? I am, frankly, more suspicious than curious.

This is company culture and values:

http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/08/tripping-through-ibm...

Sorry, having one of those "Beavis and Butthead" snicker moments:

    We don't pretend we're gay.
    We always feel that way,
    Because we're filling the world with sunshine.
    With I.B.M. machines,
    We've got the finest means,
    For brightly painting the clouds with sunshine.

—from "Painting the Clouds with Sunshine"

I believe the proper posture for reciting these is "face down, 9 edge first", but I could be wrong :-)

I do think you raise a good point which is remote work is not for everyone. Some people need others around them to stay motivated and focused, while for others it is the lack of distractions that makes the difference. The only real problem is that many people don’t know which category they fall into.

My problem is I do best with a mix of both: I need to engage with real people, both for empathy and info exchange, but I also need time to be apart and just crank stuff out, whether it is code, documentation or training materials.

Is the dark truth here that "Coordination is Hard"?

I've noticed that when I have worked remotely, that I spent more time anticipating the care and feeding of the management ... interface, where when I'm onsite, I'd just allow normal Brownian motion of humans in the office to take care of it.

Have you given any thought to a "results only" workplace? I have never worked in one but I think I'd thrive in such an environment. Would that solve your concerns about remote work?

The problem is that, unlike exams and stuff, where lots of effort went into studying how long each question should take a 'typical' person, in actual work, the problem hasn't actually been solved before, at least not by the current team, and no-one really knows how long it would take. There's no obvious theoretical objective way of measuring. So, you can waste two thirds of your time on estimating and negotiating times and pays for little micro-projects (which is doable, though at a huge overhead), or simply work normal hours, and check that everyone is approximately working to the best of their ability.

This latter method is by far the easier method, for everyone. I have worked remotely quite a lot, using both methods, and the second method is far more sustainable, in my opinion. (I mean, you just sync your hours with your workmates, and just make sure you're always online in the online chat application; if the company doesnt chat in your absence on online chat, well, it might not be the right company for you; but many do. A lot).

I wonder why time spent is a concern at all. Lets say you hire me to build you a dashboard for your company. You tell me what data you want where and ask me how long I think it would take. I give you that number and you do wage * time to get at the cost of that stage of the project. From time to time we video chat and I demonstrate what I have thus far. If you feel my work is unacceptable you terminate our relationship. Where does hours worked come into play? In the modern workplace I often feel punished for efficiency and relegated to sitting at a desk twiddling my thumbs for that crime.

But you've created a pretty simple project and outcome here where the outcome is measurable and clear. I say build a widget, you build a widget. You're basically a factory worker. (As an aside here, if you've ever worked with a consultant or freelancer, you know that objectives that seem simple and clear to both sides end up not being so clear when the product is delivered and then disagreements ensure).

What if, however, I'm an engineer that's working on a new piece of machinery? This is a project that requires the involvement of many highly skilled workers, electrical engineers, mechanical engineers, computer programmers, etc. I might be responsible for a single system or even component, but my work directly relies on several other's work, and it may change depending on the circumstances (say the mechanical engineer has designed an arm that would damage a critical electrical system). Now you've got a moving target. One day your work was x, now the circumstances shifted and it's y. With potentially hundreds of people involved it would be very difficult to asses what any one person's contribution was based on your standard above. Indeed, if you could asses that from the beginning, you wouldn't need all those engineers to design your machine since you had already done that work.

I see how that can be a problem in that context, NASA might never be a candidate for much remote work beacuse they are working on some of humanity's most complex projects for example. I just dont think a lot of work is that complex. Accounting, sales, insurance adjusters, data entry and many other office tasks are easy to quantify. My point is at the end of the day both parties need to be happy enough to continue the relationship tomorrow, I simply dont think i'd care how many hours you put in only if you generate more value then you consume.

Become a consultant, and you'll be rewarded for results instead of time spent.

That's not necessarily true, though. Consultants often work hourly on contracts, which means that you're typically punished for being efficient as you won't have as many billable hours.

This generally means that you're better off being less efficient while still meeting the deadlines/goals.

Of course, there's a tradeoff since proving yourself to be more efficient than expected could result in more work etc, but it's not as clear cut as being rewarded for efficiency.

I haven't tried it. I think the idea is really interesting but it always seemed to me like it was somewhat in contradiction with why people become employees in the first place. My perception is that people ultimately sort themselves into different roles in the workforce and those who are employees are doing it mostly because they want a consistent income every month, perhaps a social environment to participate in and a fair amount of direction. If you don't want those things you go freelance or become an entrepreneur.

When I look at past and current people I've managed my feeling is maybe 1 in 4 would respond really well to the "results only" workplace and the other 3 might quit.

I think the whole discussion of remote work is colored by the fact that there is a particular personality type - smart, introverted, self-motivated, results-oriented - which operates very well remotely. A lot of these people gravitate toward the tech industry. Some of them get a taste of remote and then they talk it up like it's the future of work for everyone because it is so great for them. I totally get it, I prefer remote myself, and if those people produce then I'm happy to let them be as remote as they want to be forever.

It's just that those people aren't 100% of the workforce (probably not even 30%).

I think what you are describing is exactly that cause of remote work being a hot topic of discussion. It was really aggravated in the 00's with ads like "Mother of 4 makes $5,000 a Day Working from Home!". Now enough of those people found that it was a relative scam, or a niche field that they couldn't cope in.

I believe this has already been done extensively. It is called "outsourcing". For many companies this didn't end well. One of the reasons may be the following:

It is more expensive to control the results than to control the process.

Especially in software development, you need quality assurance throughout the whole process, because checking the results or result modules in a blackbox-fashion may lead to catastrophic results.

I know some programmers who were always able to produce code that fulfils the spec, after a few corrections. But any small change in the spec, and the whole thing falls apart. Show them their own code a few weeks later, and they won't be able to maintain it. Leave them alone a few months with their code, and they will refuse to work on it anymore, because they literally can't make any sense of it anymore.

Amen. E.g. - I had to pick up a project after these 2 guys in the place I was at in the late 90s that solely survived on the skills of the (rather good) QA in the project.

Alas, it was a C program, and any significant change in the (batch) input data would cause the thing to dump core. I'm not blaming the QA for failing to provide all possible variations of the client data (spec???), just the chumps who couldn't do "defensive programming" (e.g. - I/O error or null pointer checks)

Leaving these guys unattended for any length of time would be a disaster.

Very very insightful, can't upvote this enough.

Same experience as an employer. In my experience very few people know how to work remotely, autonomously, and communicate efficiently. So remote working requires a higher than average trust. On the other hand, managers should be conscious about the differences on the work styles.

I also think that remote work practices should be taught and we can't assume because you know how to use Slack, GitHub, Google Docs, and Skype you know how to work remotely.

Yeah, generally speaking most people are not motivated in their jobs and put the minimum effort needed. Many/most people need to be micromanaged. So doing remote where people work the same hours more-or-less lets you haggle people on Slack that aren't getting shit done.

Some types of work that are particularly well suited to remote work. It takes away the friction of a workplace, and instead people live with written messages and deadlines. Provided of course that the people taking part are responsible.