It's the point where you're no longer an individual contributor. Running a team and keeping people on target is difficult remotely. Consensus is difficult remotely. Feedback is difficult remotely.

Getting your head down and coding on your personal goal is easy remotely.

I think some ICs like that it's harder for people to say to them that they are driving in the wrong direction, even if it's still true.

I argue against this point. I believe it indicates a skill gap, not a physical law.

If you've played MMOs, been parts of raids, or been active in a guild - you figure out how to solve these problems.

I've been in a community management and moderation role entirely online - those interactions and issues were, by far, the most subjective and complex project discussions I have had to conduct.

I believe that there is an entire generation of workers AND managers, who will be entering the workforce with highly effective remote working habits.

The caveat is, that this applies to work that can be done online, where your product can be examined and verified online.

The MMO generation already entered the workforce a long time ago. Many of them are now middle-aged professionals. But because MMOs have always been a relatively niche hobby, with even the most popular games having only a few million daily players, their impact has not been that significant. They are a small minority in the overall workforce, and while they do have effective remote working habits, they have been self-selected for the ability and interest to form communities online.

I think that was the reminder that I am very much middle aged now.

You are right, however I would say that raids and coordinated e-sports were on the periphery when I was playing. I had to set up my own teams and lan tournaments.

Nice distinction to highlight though, thank you! The skill set would require specific coordination skills, not just being able to play team matches occasionally.

I suppose its proof that the skill exists, just not its distribution in the workforce.

Also, I think you're referencing a skill from something that people want to do — play a video game — to work, where it's something much harder to keep people focused on.

As a manager, with both WFH and in-office employees, the difference is very clear on my end: In-office employees do undeniably better. In my personal experience, of course.

> I think some ICs like that it's harder for people to say to them that they are driving in the wrong direction, even if it's still true.

I think this is extremely cynical. Feedback makes for good organizations, and when I built teams, anyone who doesn't value, actively solicit, and provide good feedback doesn't have a very long tenure.

There are many things which go into building this culture, but I think I've only had one or two cases where this led to negative career impact for individuals. Most people adopt to this very quickly, very well, and work well in high-feedback settings.

I've absolutely never had, nor could imagine having, this problem on teams I've led.

Much more, I find the limitation is on my end. Going for a walk-and-talk is relaxing. A Zoom meeting is tiring. 1-2 Zoom meetings per day is not a problem, but a day of Zoom meetings basically leaves me a zombie. Group meetings are also much more tiring online than 1:1s.

I'm a good in-person manager. I'm also a good remote IC. I not nearly as good with those flipped around.

I also don't find any of these to be the case for me:

> keeping people on target is difficult remotely. Consensus is difficult remotely. Feedback is difficult remotely

I can do all of those individually -- quite well -- remotely. I just can't do those for anywhere close to 8 hours per day.

To be very clear: That's me. I'm not speaking for you or for anyone else, and YMMV. I'd be genuinely interested in hearing other stories or contradictory opinions, and how things work for others.

It was certainly a learning experience to lead a fully remote team having only ever done so in an office, but I’m not convinced it’s explicitly more difficult on the whole.

Most offices I’ve been in have had deficient conference room setups and open floor plans, and I’ve come to enjoy the ease with which private conversations, pairing, and ad hoc meetings can happen without being disruptive to others or booking a room way in advance.

I do think that conversations have higher bandwidth in person, and I’ve really missed having a proper big whiteboard to gather around, but I’ve come to realize that this restriction can be a positive forcing function for organizations to write things out and maintain more organized planning documents, which is a desirable outcome.

I think this is largely it - the whole maker vs. manager thing... when your job relies on focus, being in a situation where you can control distractions is a benefit. But when your job relies on getting others' attention it can clearly be a negative, esp. if the culture is not thoroughly supportive.

It also adds an extra hurdle for those who aren't particularly skilled at management.

This is it. Add to the fact that poor managers don't really understand or know what their staff are doing, it gives them anxiety. If the same poor manager is in an office with them and can see them at their desk then it alleviates that somewhat.

Managing people is really really hard, but we seem to have a managerial class who seem to be getting away with doing it very poorly.

Yep. It's the old "butts in seats" philosophy. The new one is "keep your Slack dot green" (or equivalent.) Many managers were always clueless what their staff are doing at the office. Many still are. It's incredible that we have all these tools (Jira, Asana, Github, Slack...) plus many are forced to give status updates in daily standups and other assorted "agile" nonsense, yet there are still those can't figure out what people are working on.

“Managing people is really really hard”

I like your reply, but for different reasons. I am a middle school teacher, and my day to day is managing people. It is tiring, decidedly so, and yet at the end of the day, management is rewarding for me for because it is relationship building through gaining individual understanding and building classroom consensus.

I love my job and am good at my job. But if I’m to step outside of my classroom your latter quote becomes far too truthful for me:

“we seem to have a managerial class who seem to be getting away with doing it very poorly”

Your quote applies directly to my supposed superiors; assistant principals, principals, and higher ups in the school board. Most of the managerial class outside of a classroom is trash at their jobs. Their management style seems mostly morale busting and ego inflation at day’s end.

I agree with you, just from a different occupational domain.

Seems pretty obvious to me that this has always been the divide

I have a lot of interpersonal work, with people all around the world. Going into the office just to talk on these people on Teams doesn't give a productivity boost. Being able to do this or not is a skill, just like coding is a skill. I try not to bog down my team if I'm deficient in some skill, instead, I work to improve it.

I agree with this