This is particularly true when you become more senior and replicating that over Zoom is nearly impossible. There are things you simply don't want to put in writing or say over Zoom which are most certainly monitored by the company. And if there are some colleagues who are in office and some who are remote, the ones in office have a massive advantage when everything else is the same.
Wouldn't this particular scenario be made more effective and efficient with asynchronous communication?
> This is particularly true when you become more senior and replicating that over Zoom is nearly impossible.
Most office jobs are not senior roles. In fact, the more senior a person is, the less office face-time they seem to have.
> There are things you simply don't want to put in writing or say over Zoom which are most certainly monitored by the company.
Phone call? Meet at a cafe?
> And if there are some colleagues who are in office and some who are remote, the ones in office have a massive advantage when everything else is the same.
I think people should be allowed to play the game as they see fit. If my plans involve a lot of office plays and social maneuvering, of course I'd prefer to be at the office, and I should be allowed to do that alongside the other people that want to engage in such activities. If my plans are to be a reliable worker with no desire to shuffle on the ladder, I might as well enjoy a quiet stay-at-home life with occasional office visits when it suits the projects I am working on, my team members and / or myself.
No way. My VP doesn't have time to read and respond to my carefully crafted email. He might be having 1500+ unread emails. Same with DMs.
> In fact, the more senior a person is, the less office face-time they seem to have.
This is so contrary to what I have seen. Most senior people (including ICs) are busier in meetings compared to more junior guys.
> Phone call?
Meh. No body language, no eye contact, less energy in the conversation.
> Meet at a cafe?
Sure. And once you reach middle management, you will have so many of these cafe meetings that going to the office would be scalable, where you meet everyone. Once a few people do that, everyone who needs these cafe meetings will start doing it because the office is where everyone is.
> I think people should be allowed to play the game as they see fit.
I mostly agree on this with one caveat. If your remote employees are going to suffer in their career trajectories because of an apparent disadvantage, a company has to be super careful that it won't become a New York Times front page story. Imagine if Microsoft allowed this and a majority of their remote employees are women and a majority of their remote employees are getting promoted at a slower rate than in-office people. It will be an unnecessary headache. Better to nip the problem in the bud.
There's a million scenarios where understanding body language makes you a more successful line engineer.
I have no idea what they are going to do with said information, and the fact that I'm not already saying whatever it is my body language is communicating means that I would not like to supply it.
Typically, try to make sure that you are comfortable? Humans communicate nonverbally, just like most social animals.
Umm what? Based on my 15+ year experience in tech sector (similar for my partner), my take is that in-person interaction is absolutely necessary for the middle management layer (though certainly not sufficient). They need to interact with both the bosses and the trench soldiers. If everything else is held constant (same org, same talent, same level, same effort), an in-office middle manager will absolutely outperform a similar person in a remote setup.
I'd go even one step further and say that in-person interaction is critical not only for middle managers but also for those individual contributors who want to jump to management or tech-lead positions.
It worked OK, but part of the trick was that I was very senior, and the rest of the team was split across several time zones with me sitting basically in the middle. Another part was everyone knew I was remote because the team was far from where I lived, not because I wanted to WFH per se.
That's also the case with some senior people in adjacent teams: the people who are truly "core" get to live where they want, or at least that's been my experience over the last 20-ish years.
I definitely wouldn't advise it as a career strategy, mostly for the reason you cite.
The other thing I’ve seen that effects the balance is time zones. It’s not as bad as being remote but it factors in to a general availability / can be relied on to be there aspect.
Also things like you have a meeting and someone is late - when everyone is remote, it is very easy to expect and accommodate it. But when most or many are in office and in a room and one person that is remote is late - probably won't be as well received.
The field is levelled.
I should say I was remote for 5 years and the meetings where everyone was remote were much longer, extra overhead, slower responses, and less engagement. They were bad. I’d rather be not an equal participant in a good meeting than fully equal in a bad meeting.
Though to be clear, the question is whether the benefits of treating the entire team uniformly outweigh the disadvantages of imposing telecoms frictions on all members, rather than just a portion.
If sitting on a specific chair is how people know you're a member of the core team, or if people forget you exist because you're not in the office, then your work isn't very high impact or noticeable, and people don't respect your knowledge enough to actively seek your input. That is the problem you need to fix, and it's a very a different problem to whether or not people see your face every day.
When critical mass is in physical proximity, oral communication (fast, enjoyable, efficient - and dangerous) creeps in, and you're left to collect the leftovers of discussions.