Hacker News Reader

Comment by frandroid | Hacker News Reader

Y'all missing the most important paragraph in the whole article:

> I spent many years working in a satellite office. A lot of the time when I had some deep technical disagreement about something, I'd fly to the main HQ, and go out for dinner with the other team. I wouldn't even talk about technology, just about random stuff. Once they knew me, and realize I was a human (and not a faceless blob), most technical disagreements tended to go away. People are more likely to assume positive intent and not malice/stupidity/laziness.

Building relationships is important important to get bug fixed/features built. Bug prioritization isn't a just a technical nor a business exercise.

Now, I want to hear which company this is that this guy could just "fly to HQ" (I'm assuming Microsoft Back in the Day) but the geographic gaps aren't always that large... :P

View on HN

This rings true in my experience. When I worked at a FAANG company that needed non-trivial collaboration between offices that were 3 time zones away, I would fly to the other office once every 2-3 months and just spend a week with the other team.

Part of it this was to develop a healthy rapport, to build mutual trust while working on large-scale projects.

But another aspect was productivity; both my team and the other teams had a lot on their plate, and it could be difficult to align incentives such that our shared projects would be completed in a reasonable amount of time. Flying out, finding a desk near the other team, making yourself visible/available, and working directly on the project would get more done in a week than would have happened in 2-3 months of remote collaboration.

Of course, it would be lovely if all companies could get work done remotely (yay Gitlab, Basecamp, etc. etc.), but most companies aren't set up for remote collaboration success, especially across management lines.

I've always believed telecommuting needs the remote equivalent of the golf course. There are certain human elements that cannot be built over a Zoom call, but do not inherently require a physical presence.

I have never started a company and I was hire #76 at my current place, but if I were to start something remote, I would find a game or hobby appreciated by all the founders and make sure that remained a bedrock of our culture.

I see the good intention behind all of these, but also feel there is the other side that is too often overlooked.

Going on golf courses together, dining with the team etc. are the traditional recipes to create trust. But it's walking that fine line between personal and professional life, while also bridging the technical abilities parts and the personal chemistry parts.

I understand we are all human and personal feelings have an impact on work, it can't be extracted up to a point. I'm just not sure we should see it as something that should be perpetuated, moved online or adapted to new environments if those were by default devoid of these elements.

Basically I'd hope we can prioritise other ways to create trust than building personal bonds (TBH, being good at one's job for a decent amount of time seems plenty enough to me)

This traditional method is also what contributes to the "glass ceiling" and the "old boys network". As a hispanic with a non-hispanic name, I've certainly noticed some people react poorly me.

While outright racism is rare, I often see a sort of "you can't be better then me" or maybe a "you think you're better then me" attitude.

Maybe it has more to do with my personality then my looks, but it seems to overlap with in person meeting vs virtual.

"But it's walking that fine line between personal and professional life, while also bridging the technical abilities parts and the personal chemistry parts."

This is called networking and I don't think it's going away anytime soon.

I'm a consultant and I get along very well with the director of engineering where I'm working now. When cuts happen, I won't be the first to go. The first to go will be the people that have no relationship with upper management.

Career advancement isn't all about the job that you do.

"Basically I'd hope we can prioritise other ways to create trust than building personal bonds (TBH, being good at one's job for a decent amount of time seems plenty enough to me)"

Being only good at one's job is a great way to keep your current job and position forever. If that's what you want, it's fine. However, if you want to get into management or advance, you need to get noticed and build relationships so your potential can also be noticed.

> This is called networking and I don't think it's going away anytime soon.

It's never going away. It's human nature to trust and favor the people you know over those you don't.

A friend of mine who was one of the top salesmen in his outfit would eat his lunch at his desk to save money. But he wasn't getting promoted, while others were. He eventually realized the "do lunch" socializing with coworkers was essential to success.

The idea is to adapt to reality, it's far easier than to try to change human nature.

Networking doesn’t need to be personal though.

> The first to go have no relationship with upper management

This also means upper management had no clear oversight on how they were doing, what the value they brought in.

If they did the same as you, being let go while you stay is mostly fair.If they were better at their job than you, I’d wish they find a job where they’ll meet better upper management.

I know it feels overly idealistic or unrealistic to a lot of people who, as you describe, climbed the ladder by sticking with the big boys. Especially for those working in bigger companies where a single employee’s value is heavily diluted and political skills become huge assets.

But companies who care more about your code than where you eat are also growingly common. It’s also so much more comfortable when you can feel that your work output actually matters.

This is a huge opportunity. It would serve a great need to create a structured, low-pressure activity for potential business partners to participate in as they socialize over video chat.

Given the potential to democratize socializing to form business partnerships, it would catch on all on its own as a way to be inclusive during the pandemic in a way that golf never was.

Semi-related, I was reading a sociological research paper by Irving Crespi about playing cards in Endicott, NY and in his conclusion, he speculates that people used the structure of playing bridge or what have you in order to more easily tolerate each other's company. He was trying to explain why most card players weren't gambling seriously and I think he was right about structured activities providing a social lubricant analogous to alcohol.

Perhaps the eu-social aid of structured activity is even stronger than alcohol because we're given a detailed script to play out and distract ourselves instead of simply taking the edge off of our ability to waste energy over analyzing the social situation.

Activities give you an excuse to be together. It reduces the pressure to perform socially and thus lets things happen more naturally.

For example, think about dating. It can be exhausting to just meet somebody new for dinner. You have to keep up an interesting conversation without much help, hoping you'll stumble upon some common interests.

It's generally easier to do an activity where you can focus on the task, talk about how to do it well, have an excuse for lulls in the conversation, etc.

> He was trying to explain why most card players weren't gambling seriously and I think he was right about structured activities providing a social lubricant analogous to alcohol.

I don't have any research to support this but I have come to the same conclusions on my own organizing social events at the workplace. I've found that working on a common goal-oriented task which requires communication is an amazing medium to get people talking. The conversations start around the goal and eventually move outside of the task and into more casual conversation. But having that base that requires communication (think like "pass the ball" in soccer) is required.

It kinda depends. You will create a strong bond in a subgroup, but anyone who doesn't fit in for any reason will feel excluded. It would be very tricky to find a hobby equally liked by all, but the in-group you create will not be overlooked by people only interested in political advancement.

As an example: At the previous company I worked, the CTO and another engineer really liked bouldering. They'd often go out after work to the local climbing gym. Eventually, two other engineers joined that group and went climbing too. Mysteriously, all three climbing engineers got promoted and none of the non-climbing engineers did. Eventually the CTO left for greener pastures and the "new" two engineers (by now team lead and VP) stopped climbing the week after.

I worked for a small, mostly-remote company that had regular DOTA breaks. The boss would be in a heated phone call, then stop mid-sentence and be like "shit, I have to leave for DOTA."

you could have a company minecraft server

Hmm, I think I've seen this happen to us by design.

I worked at a place that hired off shore (European) consultants for a part of our product and my colleagues would constantly complain about the quality of the consultants work and skillset.

I didn't complain[0]

Eventually corporate switched out the current body shop with equally bad off shore one from a different European country, but this time around they'd invite them to our HQ before hand for a week to to have lunch and spend time with before being sent back home to work remotely with us.

This time around no in my team said anything bad about the new group. These consultants weren't better than the previous ones at all, and ended up doing more damage eventually. Hell, some of the mistakes they did, the previous ones would do as well

Granted you could attribute it to "what's the point", but I suspect largely because of what you mentioned, face to face made them mellow... or from my PoV, weaker.

1: The reason I didn't complain is because they weren't any worse than my in house colleagues anyway and I found the irony funny and I was on my way out anyway.

No point in stepping into the fire unless I can control it.

That's a big reason why we have an annual D conference. The D community is distributed world-wide, and it's a huge benefit to simply have a beer with people you'd otherwise only know by their online handle. It's amazing how disagreements just vanish.

What does one do now when we can't fly to the other town and take them out to dinner?

(A wild guess) Maybe he owned a small aircraft which he could pilot himself?

Sure, that's possible, but people at large companies can really "fly to HQ" if they feel like it and they're a manager.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com