I wonder why 100% remote positions and companies are still marginal. Software engineering is one of the few industries where remote work is possible, and yet hardly available, despite obvious advantages.
Because remote is hard, if it would be just about typing code then yes you could live in igloo in Greenland.
You need people who are able to work remotely together. It is not only about having really smart devs who can grasp how to do Y with tech Z. It is also about having really smart managers and really smart company owners. Building such a team takes years, it is not like you can hire 10 devs, a manager and dump loads of cash on them to build a product.
First you have to get all those different people to trust each other. Then there are differences in ideas how things should be done, it is hard to solve some of those when people are in the same room. People have different temperaments, they have different ambitions.
We have all the technology to communicate but people have problems with stating their ideas in clear way in writing. Calling might help a bit, but to build trust you have to work with someone face to face and go trough rough times together.
Just because it's hard doesn't mean it's worth trying. For an industry so ostensibly focused on innovation and experimentation, much of tech remains as conservative as any other in terms of trying out new ways of work. Though certainly there are some bright spots opening up to remote:
This is a bit weird argument from my point of view.
I argued about that it is hard to get 100% remote companies with 100% remote positions. Nothing about no one should ever do it. If you have smart people who you trust, you can do it.
You bring up examples of companies that are doing remote work so someone is trying to do that. It works for them. Expecting every company to do it is not the way to go.
Every company should be doing what is best for them, based on people and possibilities they have. Just like Yahoo tried remote work and Merissa Mayer come up with remote work ban, not sure if it was good for company but that was their decision.
The point is that more companies should not fear experimentation, and should try different policies. If it doesn’t improve, don’t use it. If it does, set a new standard. That’s how advancement works.
> Because remote is hard, if it would be just about typing code then yes you could live in igloo in Greenland.
So is writing maintainable code with actual documentation, etc. And I find that there's a lot of overlap between good remote work and that sort of development.
It's a lot hard to slap together undocumented spaghetti and then hand it off to a coworker if you can't bring them over, point at a monitor, and redraw the UML diagram for the eighteenth time with dry erase marker.
Then someone could argue: "but you can put linters, automated checks, robust testing". We all know it is not going to work because you cannot fix people problems with technology. I would say that is main point of my argument, even if you have technology to communicate over distance, it is not going to fix people problems.
In my experience, remote work remains less effective than being physically present. Especially if you are never present. It just makes coordination and socialization so much more difficult.
