Am I missing something?
The fact is, this entire team is all on Slack and we all have email and we all use zoom. We have internal Wiki's for documentation. We have JIRA. And on and on. The point is, there are plenty of established avenues available for people to dissiminate this sort of information but it doesn't happen. I don't think that I'm asking them to modify their behavior by asking that they include their team members or to remember that they exist when they have those impromptu meetings.
Since you're in the minority, you can't demand the majority change their working style for you. It's up to you to fit in to how the majority works, say by showing up in the office. Or you'll miss out important information, which will be to your detriment, not theirs.
> To do what, exactly?
To communicate with others the way they apparently prefer to communicate — in person.
And to build relationships, which lead to working smoother, and prevent misunderstandings from snowballing. It's easier to get pissed off with someone over email than in person.
There are many advantages to facetime. You can decide to forego those, but you can't tell others to, just because you want to.
The only way to fix this is with some concious effort to reproduce the results of water cooler discussions explictly -- and if you spend that effort anyway, you might just as well do it via Skype or Slack... He doesn't have to be on-site.
And, going to the office, those conversations will only happen to include me if they happen (they're impromptu, somewhat random) and when I'm there for 1 or 2 days at a time. When I go back home and to my co-working space I'll continue missing things. That's the point.
If the project suffers as a result of all of this, which is what is actually starting to happen, then I suppose by what you're saying here I shouldn't actually care? Heaven forbid I ask _individual people_ to keep _the team_ in the loop about the thing we're all trying to _collectively_ build.
Three other people have responded to my last post. Please see those responses, since they address your points.
On another note, having remote employees without supporting that type of working company wide is just silly squandering of resources. Sadly that is fairly common anyways.
No, he was asking that already when he asked if he could work remotely. And the company said yes.
> Since you're in the minority, you can't demand the majority change their working style for you. It's up to you to fit in to how the majority works, say by showing up in the office. Or you'll miss out important information, which will be to your detriment, not theirs.
Then they shouldn't have agreed to let him work remotely. Majority or minority doesn't matter after that decision has already been made.
Maybe they should revisit that agreement if apparently they can't make remote workers fit in the team.
"No, we believe we can't make it fit with the way our teams are currently communicating" (and do not want to change that) is a perfectly legit answer to the question if remote work is an option.
However, once the decision is made, of course effort is required from all sides.
Otherwise, why even bother asking about it.
It's like applying for a job on the condition that you can't work Wednesdays because of allergies. The boss is perfectly fine with this, you can work the other 3.5 days, you're hired. And then it turns out the most important crucial meeting of the week, of which no minutes are kept, is on Wednesday. Now this is your problem, somehow. Who messed up here?
scruple's boss should have told him that right at the interview stage, before a job offer is made. Maybe say that he expects scruple to turn up in the office for a few days every month. Or whenever a major decision needs to be made and scruple is out of the loop. Or have regular one-on-one meetings over video-conference with everyone in the team to remain connected, making up for his physical absence.
Whatever the details are, scruple's boss should have told me he'll need to make an extra effort to make up for his remote work, and both sides can then decide whether to go ahead with the job.
In the absence of that, both sides end up holding the other responsible for the problems, which is a no-win situation.
Well, this is awkward. I don't think you even read my original post. I literally said that I transitioned from on-site to part-time remote to full-time remote. I've been with this company for many years, it's gone exceptionally well until very recently.
> Maybe say that he expects scruple to turn up in the office for a few days every month.
We've had the working agreement ever since I went full-time remote, back when I was on a different team, that I am unequivocally full-time remote with no obligations to turn up in the office. *editing this to add: If that needs to change because of new team dynamics, that's fine, but it's going to be awfully hard on my colleague in Mexico.
> Or whenever a major decision needs to be made and scruple is out of the loop.
Major decisions should NEVER be made in isolation or with team members who aren't even sure what is being tabled. Why do we need to play "catch up the other 3 team members" when we're having a discussion about a major decision? Oh, because another team member keeps having side conversations with product people or customers and not relaying the information back to the rest of their team? Hmm, sounds like a personnel problem to me -- and not with the "out of the loop" team members, either.
> Or have regular one-on-one meetings over video-conference with everyone in the team to remain connected, making up for his physical absence.
Myself, my other full-time remote colleague, and my other 2 team members who are on-site meet every single working day. We scrum, we go our agile rituals, we pair remotely, etc... We meet with our product people over video conference twice a week. We meet with our managers infrequently but I personally talk to my manager over the phone at least once a week.
> Whatever the details are, scruple's boss should have told me he'll need to make an extra effort to make up for his remote work, and both sides can then decide whether to go ahead with the job.
You're totally off base here.
Sorry for getting that detail wrong. I re-read your original post to make sure I didn't miss anything else.
Since you now say that you agreed ahead of time that you had no obligation to turn up in the office (that information wasn't there in the original post), I now agree with you that your manager was wrong. (This is something I've seen happen over and over again with managers — they say yes without thinking things through.)
If people are deliberately withholding information from you, as you said you suspected in your original post, that's obviously a bad thing.
Regarding my suggestion to have regular meetings, you're already doing it, so that's good.
If I say yes, I get skewered later when people on both sides aren't adapting to the new situation.
If I say no, them I'm a do-nothing windbag who can't feel like anything is getting done unless I can physically see the people typing and clicking.
If remote work is the minority situation, you're going to see challenges. Even if it's the norm, there are decisions that are time-sensitive and you're going to sometimes be dropped (same as if you were on PTO that week; you're just more exposed to it as a remote worker in a predominantly co-located team).
I have teams all around the world; even with that, we still bother to move desks to put squads all together in the same location. If you agree with the latter practice, I think you have to give some nod that co-location matters, even if only a little bit.
That way, you're setting clear expectations ahead of time.
Dev's are missing the point of manager. Manager becomes obsolete when the communication channel is just some software medium to share text.