My Biggest Takeaway on 37Signals’s New Book on Remote Work

I used to love the idea of working as that story book hacker who can spin out code from a laptop in an RV traveling where ever the wind took me. I work with a guy who literally owns a laptop, a suitcase, and the clothes and toiletries to fill it. Every morning I talk to him he could be in German, Brazil, Japan, or where ever the hell he feels like going. That is awesome, and I highly respect anyone with the spine to live that way, but...

At the same time, I want to be in the fight, shaping people instead of just machines. I want to be able to shake the hands of the people I work with, and look my competitors in the eye. For now anyway, I am sticking to the office and reaping the career rewards of being a central figure to my team.

TLDR: work can be done from anywhere; leadership.. not as clear.

In-person interaction is a hugely valuable thing.

The point for remote work, though, is that some people have a spouse or family or friends in a particular location. That location might not be the same as the job you desire.

So if the tradeoff for many people is: In-person interaction with those folks vs. in-person interaction with co-workers, most people prefer the former.

Even with all of the not-so-nice things about remote work listed in your post, you've still chosen to work remotely -- to avoid upending your family. And I assume you would probably quit if your company were to say 'move to the Bay Area tomorrow, or else,' out of concern for your family.

That's, I think, the key point about remote work. You aren't forced to make that choice.

And that alone tells me it's better for workers (and therefore companies). Particularly if you're the best person the for the job (which I assume you are, since you work there!).

I'm someone who really enjoys and needs discussions with my coworkers about ideas, strategies or tactics. Some people prefer to take a question and mull it over for a while and return with their thoughts. Others, like me, prefer to think out loud and talk it out. The act of having a conversation - in person - is a major factor in that. When I have tasks to get done that require pure execution then working remotely is fine, people put on headphones in the office during this type of work as well. For everything that requires definition and discussion, reading body language, etc - I prefer and believe that I work better with others in person.

Incidentally, here's That Mitchell and Webb Look on working from home: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co_DNpTMKXk

From my perspective it's kinda like a band. Look at the Beatles - they did everything together for almost ten years - and it was that connection with each other that made the band (and as a result, the music) so awesome. The same can be true for business. A team that works together in physical proximity is gonna be so much stronger and have a much better connection with each other.

However, if you're working for a huge multi-national corporation that's so big that you don't know the names of everyone in all the other departments - then you're not gonna get that same connection anyway. In this case, you might as well work in whatever way is more efficient and more comfortable for you. For some people it will be the freedom of working remote - for others it will be the structure of a 9-5 work day.

Some people (mostly gen-y, but not limited to) find the traditional office-culture too stifling. Everyone is putting on their 'professional persona' in the office. Now it's possible to work remotely and instead hang out with 'real' people.

A co-working space could change all that, but i havent really found a good one in my (rather small) german city.

Just from personal experience, I've found a huge difference between the two.

What is it that you do, that a dedicated educated and intelligent resident of Mumbai or Beijing or Bangkok or Kyiv can't do for your employer? You _really_should know that, at least for yourself…

A big part of why a firm might choose a US/Western worker is communication style and understanding of cultural norms, though that is changing too.

If 'outsource' to someone in another part of the world your need for a detailed specification is much higher, your need to mitigate communications risks are much higher. Something I have trouble putting into words but I know from experience is there - when I am working on some process I try to understand it deeply and ask questions that are often more business related than technical. Technology is a means to solving business challenges and you have to be part analyst and part developer to approach problems that way. A coder across the world who needs a very detailed spec will almost never give you that benefit.

That said, cultural differences exist, and coupled with timezone differences, it can get quite tricky. From my experience, at the end of the day, hiring people in the same (or a neighbour) country is cheaper anyway.

So that's one practical reason a US remote worker often still has a job.

2) Bandwidth and latency is a real problem when trying to do video conferencing across continents or do some pair programming.

3) Cultural fit still applies with interpersonal interactions. Being able to identify with coworkers in similar life stages (mid 30s, small kids at home, living in suburbia) makes a huge difference when trying to plan and execute work.

I do contract work, most of it is at home, but most client work I can be on site with enough notice (like... a morning phone call). Same time zone, same language, but can also be on site for f2f meetings.

People promoting a world where telecommuting is widespread better be careful what they wish for.

Financial competition: charge less than 9-to-5ers, but live outside of the western spendzone (ie. Asia, Eastern Europe, etc.). This allows you to take equity-linked packages without sacrificing quality of life (or indeed, with higher net quality of life).

Then, I think anecdotally, quality of work is another perceived advantage for not going with the complete outsourcing route.

You can have a fair-to-middling programmer in the bay area locally, or the best programmer in all of Michigan remotely. What you lose by not having people locally you gain by having better people, in theory.

This applies to any locale as well. If you limit your search to only those people within driving distance of your office, you're almost guaranteed to get a lower caliber dev than if you were able to hire any dev in the world.

What is that, in the context of remote work?

I worked remotely for 3 years at my last job. The lead lived half way across the country from HQ, as did I, and as did the lead QA. More importantly, we regularly traveled for different installations and tests, so today to talk to Joe you were calling Texas, but week he'd be in NM, and so on. Meanwhile you were on your own rotation. I perhaps exaggerate the amount of travel, as there were plenty of times where most people were at HQ except for the permanent remote workers, but the larger point is that it had to work with no core team in one place, because many times during the year there was no such beast.

It works.

I assume remote working will be unbanned in near future if the condition allowed.

The best part about working remote is that it requires good teamwork because nothing will get done without solid communication, whereas colocated teams often skimp on process because they assume they'll make it up via adhoc meetings instead.