chronofar's comment isn't incompatible with that.

I don't think a remote-first approach inherently takes more time and effort, but it requires a culture change.

If you alone are trying to adopt a remote-first strategy I definitely think it will take more of your time and effort, but if your company culture is remote-first I don't think it should.

> I don't think a remote-first approach inherently takes more time and effort, but it requires a culture change.

Culture change requires time and effort.

And without structured guidance shaping the change, progress will not be evenly distributed.

I think the harsh reality is that remote-first does inherently take more time and effort, even if some of that is a one time investment.

The trouble is that this one time investment is difficult to quantify.

I worked remotely for many years prior to the pandemic so I’m not against remote work. But I don’t think it’s fair to claim that it comes at no cost. I did find it incredibly important to still get to the office periodically for team bonding and to catch up on the 100 little hallway conversations that can’t happen remotely.

Cmon dude, you're twisting words.

I agree culture change requires time and effort, but "upfront investment" is not the same as "inherently takes more time and effort".

I even said it takes more time and effort if you are adopting it when other people aren't (I.e. unevenly distributed progress like you mention).

Not trying to twist your words, but to point out that remote-first really does require inherently more time investment.

I think you’re underselling the impact of the prerequisite culture change, because very few companies are remote-first or even know what a good remote-first strategy looks like.

If a company already has a solid and effective remote culture, great! But this is pretty rare, and can’t be considered a general case. Those companies are also made of people who fit the mold of that remote culture, and I question the merit of generalizing their success to a broader workforce made up of people who weren’t pre-selected for their compatibility.

And to be clear, I’m not saying I don’t think the investment is worthwhile; just necessary and not trivial.

> "upfront investment" is not the same as "inherently takes more time and effort".

We can agree to disagree here, but I just find this to be a rather odd conclusion. I’m not trying to split hairs, but think that “just change the culture” hand waves away a massive undertaking for most orgs, and it’s better to address this head-on than pretend it doesn’t exist.

That sounds a bit like "I don't want to adapt to this new work environment, please everyone, back to working like it works for me."

I don't know if that's fair. Consultants were flying "on site" for meetings at expense to clients for decades (for hotels, meals, etc) and the money was worth it, because being in person is, for some people, is more efficient for some forms of collaboration. I feel like we're having battles about the "best" way when they are just different - and the market will show the results.

I don't think referencing the value of consultants is going to help your argument lol.

Fair. I was one of those consultants (experts in software being implemented by the local team), though, and - specifically with teams that needed more help and interventions - going onsite was hugely valuable. I'm not saying remote is impossible, but I got much more done when I could sit with people 1-on-1 and build relationships/see what they didn't know to show me.

I've been consulting for well over a decade. I used to fly to visit my clients. During the pandemic they all learned to work remotely and I haven't made a trip since. We actually communicate more than we did before, and it feels like overall everyone is better at communication.

It's more like "we have to put in 2x more work for half the benefit" which kinda supports the idea that remote is less efficient (in some ways)

Who is "we"? It sounds like it's just him, and everyone else benefits.

You're exaggerating.

Requesting for people to communicate more in group chats instead of direct messages takes 5 seconds.

Scheduling regular 1:1s with juniors keeps a tight feedback loop. Schedule it once every x weeks and there you go.

>Requesting for people to communicate more in group chats instead of direct messages takes 5 seconds.

i just did that to my team and not only our productivity got better, but now everyone knows what everybody is doing (my team is brand new, and the company has this culture where everything is DMd instead of being sent into channels).

> Requesting for people to communicate more in group chats instead of direct messages takes 5 seconds.

Requesting something and something actually happening are two very different things.

There is also a meaningful difference between an in-person group chat and a group chat that will remain visible to the whole team for months or years to come.

This request becomes far more than just changing the medium, and requires everyone involved to adjust to the idea that everything they ask can be later analyzed without the context of the moment, and this has a chilling effect on the kinds of things that people are willing to ask. This in turn fundamentally changes the dynamic into something that doesn’t really replace the original junior/senior relationship effectively.

Accomplishing what the parent comment is talking about requires far more than “please use the group chat”.

> Requesting something and something actually happening are two very different things.

i.e., I don't have the respect of the people that are working for me.

I never had issues with people making sure chat remained in public channels.

> There is also a meaningful difference between an in-person group chat and a group chat that will remain visible to the whole team for months or years to come.

One can be referenced later with a simple text search.

The other could have been an email. And will probably end up with people forgetting what exactly was said.

> requires everyone involved to adjust to the idea that everything they ask can be later analyzed without the context of the moment, and this has a chilling effect on the kinds of things that people are willing to ask.

i.e., I work at a toxic company with toxic management.

Because those same people were speaking up regularly during in-person meetings and weren't being judged there.

Also, let's forget about video/audio.

> Accomplishing what the parent comment is talking about requires far more than “please use the group chat.”

Sure. It requires effort. No more so than what was required before. The difference? We blindly accepted what came before as the way things were.

>i.e., I work at a toxic company with toxic management. >Because those same people were speaking up regularly during in-person meetings and weren't being judged there.

Since there's far less lawyers on this site than devs (naturally), I'll chime in with my .02c. Face to face is king. Don't say anything you wouldn't want your mom, dog, or the news saying when you wake up tomorrow morning. And you'd be surprised the stuff that people will put into writing, even after repeated notice. Ever work in healthcare and have to deal with HIPAA? It's insane how flippantly I've seen patient info shared, like it's not the first thing drilled into you. It doesn't matter if you are Jesus reincarnate, I'm sure you have said some things you wouldn't want to be read out in court.

Part of the problem is that the tools we have are awful. Using a group chat on teams feels less like a casual chat with the people around you, and more like ringing a bell in the office to give a formal announcement.