I have also worked at companies that were highly successful and followed processes as you say religiously.

I haven't ever worked anywhere with a sizable remote worker employee pool though.

An example: Larry and Sergey deciding to do away with managers back in the early 00's would have decimated a startup that didn't have a burgeoning monopoly. Was barely a bump in the road for Google.

This is actually a big problem in my experience, because remote workers are cut out of the "inner-circle of people" when office politics kick in. Face to face time helps networking a lot and creates much stronger ties than slack chats ever can.

Don’t get emotional, when you get bored and it’s time to move on get a better offer from somewhere and tell them to counter it or you walk, then follow through.

When you’re a remote worker you must learn to not play any sort of games. Say what you mean and mean what you say and you’ll be respected in the industry.

At the end of the day, all that matters is getting paid.

Been there done that left for a higher paying job where other people worked too.

Don’t “hope” for raises or promotions, ask for them. And if they aren’t given, start looking.

This is how you develop a powerful remote career.

That sounds like a strict requirement for remote work to work, and intuitively so. In your experience, how was the training done for less experienced IC ?

Since managers have power, and engineers usually don’t personally know their skip levels, managers can easily replace async documented process with lovely hours-long face-to-face 20-person meetings. And they can silence dissent! They can wreak havoc in a way no IC could ever do.

This has been a particular pain-point for me at times. Example: two meetings with the same team members on two connected subjects of about 45mins to an hour in length, spaced half an hour apart when they could easily be combined. That's just in one day. There are others that have mirrored those throughout a week. The meetings don't need to be as long as they are, but they're scheduled for that long and the rest of the time is often filled with awkward chit-chat. But it fills the manager's calendar slots so that they appear effective, even if a lot of time is being squandered. Add on all the frustration of the back and forth across floors, wandering the halls looking for a meeting room that isn't double-booked or waiting on people to vacate rooms, etc etc.

IC time is more directly controlled this way. Occasionally it makes sense, but the amount of duplication is, at times, staggering and can be frustrating.

Their core business was management consulting.

Has anyone ever promoted a manager because they have so many meetings?

My complaints are probably less about co-located offices and more just corporate cruft.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional-managerial_class

I expect to find useless and inappropriate comments downvoted, but there is no official policy that I remember, so those are only my ideas of how downvoting would help moderate a discussion.

Good processes, specifically those that favor radical transparency, are a good way of getting in front of these types of issues, and are especially important for making remote setups work well.

Is that an adage or it is the literal meaning of the word "headquarters"? The head's quarters - and the premier definition of headquarters if you look it up in Merriam.

You're describing operations in most "agile" companies.

How were those extremely precise measurement obtained?

What's it like moving from a 98% remote company to a 99% remote company, and then back to a 98% remote company?

What in your opinion is holding companies back from getting past 2 9's remote?