Because let’s be honest, the reason most of these folks are doing this is because they don’t give a crap about the specific company or anything like that. They just want to build cool shit that other people spec out. As long as the pay is competitive one day they might be building a healthcare mobile app, another day an online car dealership portal.
Honestly, I think that is where it’s headed. I know if I went back to being a dev who did 95% of my shit remote, I would much rather be a 1099 “arms length” contractor then I’d be W2 “real employee”. If you are going for the flexibility that remote brings, you might as well make it fully flexible and just be a contract developer… after all you already decided you didn’t give a shit about company politics or culture… you just want to write code! So just become a contractor!
Like others in this thread, the reality that work is primarily a simple transaction of time for money, coupled with my experience being a "real" employee, has ingrained in me the understanding that, if you want to protect yourself as a worker, being at "arms length" as you put it is the way. At least for me.
I am a company of one (literally and figuratively). Unfortunately that's the logical endpoint of companies not feeling any loyalty towards their employees. So be it, I embrace it, because what else is there to do?
People should care iff they are given meaningful equity, as in life changing, otherwise they should be professional, like accountants and lawyers, but jump ship whenever it’s convenient.
I've seen people in an office not give a damn (literally doing a phone interview for a position at a different company at his desk), and totally remote people probably care a little too much, and everything in-between.
> Because let’s be honest, the reason most of these folks are doing this is because they don’t give a crap about the specific company or anything like that. They just want to build cool shit that other people spec out.
I do not build cool stuff everyday that other people spec out and wouldn’t consider my job being a developer these days. I would say I very much care and like the company I work for. The people that spec out things can also work remotely.
> As long as the pay is competitive one day they might be building a healthcare mobile app, another day an online car dealership portal.
I work in Cybersecurity and very much have a preference on what I work on and who I work for. I also have a strong preference on working remotely and having employment rights or benefits.
I'm not less dedicated to my current company than before COVID.
Here's the thing; that (a completely transactional relationship between all elements of a team) doesn't actually work well to make good products. Sure, a bunch of companies would probably do it as it's easier to measure worker production that way, but async also requires a different type of management and admin work that has to change as well. A lot of current managers won't be able to hack it, frankly, without the measured 'butts in seats' element.
Personally, I think it should be coupled with an investment in HR to get more qualified and motivated people working on the problem. It's a different concept for business and teams, that's all. Applying the older paradigm is going to be a problem and while a lot of companies will do just that they will also be less successful overall.
Respectfully,you know nothing about what you're talking about.
Async work is already the norm for some companies, even prior to moves to full remote work. I personally know teams in renowned companies which before COVID already split teams working on products between the US, Europe, and India. They stuck with full async because it worked, and worked better than alternatives.
With COVID, the whole world went full remote due to necessity, and I personally know teams whose output improved significantly with the move to full remote to the point where they stuck in remote by default.
> Personally, I think it should be coupled with an investment in HR to get more qualified and motivated people working on the problem.
I disagree. What I'm seeing is a lazy, conservative mindset of people who feel scared and threatened by a reform shaking up the very core of a system they feel benefits them personally.
"make software development purely transactional and performance/pay would be directly tied to metrics."
That's what doesn't work to make good products. A focus on individual metrics to the exclusion of team dynamics doesn't work that well.
"What I'm seeing is a lazy, conservative mindset of people who feel scared and threatened by a reform shaking up the very core of a system they feel benefits them personally. "
I mean that's kinda what I was talking about with a bunch of managers not being able to hack it. I don't think you get what I was saying; if HR doesn't change, you get the same people trying the same model and applying it to a new framework, which will fail. You need a better focus on the people individually and on the systems you build for them to work well together and that requires a "people" or "HR" department that actually functions well and has investment.
This has borne out time and again from artisan shops to factories to software.
I enjoy the human component of work. I don’t like _all_ of my coworkers, but it’s still a net positive to interact with them.
When I think about the ideal software job, a lot of the aspects of day-to-day work informally become async. Especially as you work with people for longer periods of time and gain mutual trust, a good workplace allows both managers and individual contributors to structure their own time.