When Remote Work Doesn't Work

Remote work: time to enter the fray.

Knowing this topic is controversial, I’ve consciously stayed out of it. But eh, what the hell. Let's stir things up.

Not every “office” job can be done just as well remotely. 

There. I said it.

I don't just mean doing specific job tasks. An individual may be able to conduct most of their functions listed on their Job Description away from other people. But running a business is not just running a bunch of siloed individuals; it's a team. Teams require more than just what benefits each individual.

It takes a very unique kind of company, and special leadership skills, to foster quality culture and rich mentoring relationships in a fully remote setting. Most of which companies and leaders are not equipped with. And generally, all other factors being equal, an in-person setting will foster those more naturally.

I’m not saying that by default every office situation is better culturally or has better mentorship. There are always bad bosses and cultures. I’m saying that the way humans have interacted for millennia has programmed us to more naturally build quality cultures and leaders in person, and that to do so remotely always requires an additional, special effort, more so than companies have by default. Sometimes that's worth it. Sometimes not.

And in some cases, it won’t ever be the same, even with those great cultures and bosses. 

As an aside, I’m tired of reading about remote work as if it’s an "all yes" or "all no." Or Elon Musk’s talking about how it’s morally wrong. That’s just dumb. If you choose to be a neurosurgeon and therefore need to be in person, that doesn’t equate you to a customer service rep who doesn’t need to be. Choices have consequence, and that includes the career path we take. Careers have pros and cons. You can't consider the inherent differences as moral inequivalences. 

But back to the point.

I’m an Industrial Design and physical Product Development professional. In my past role, I ran all 3 types of setups people talk about, at different points within the span of a few years. Mostly same teams, mostly same people. 

- Fully in person

- Fully remote

- Hybrid (some full remote, some in office 3 days a week). 

I dealt with onboarding, downsizing, layoffs, training, mentoring, concept reviews, collaboration, review cycles, and everything else in all 3 formats. Here’s what I observed.

When you make "things", you just can't compare to the immediacy, nuance and richness of feedback, and spontaneous, quality collaboration that you get in person. Slack does not equal turning around, tapping your colleague on the shoulder, and saying "hey, how does this look to you?"

It cannot replace the quick huddle around someone's screen, or group-together and visit the boss' desk to problem solve or advocate. When you make "things," being able to look together, point together, spin a sample around in 3D space together, is better in person. 100% of the time. It's likely why nearly every job I see in the (physical) Product Development world is in person or hybrid. Even at Executive levels. And yes, most of these roles are sitting at a computer all day. For those that make prototypes, it's even more of a no-brainer.

I always had some team members that were remote. And while you can get samples sent to those members and review in unison over a Google Meet, you insert more variables into the timeline, risk samples being inconsistent, and lack the ability for looking at items in macro together. Webcams just ain't that great yet. Are any of those big deals when looked at alone? No. But add them up, and multiply them by the number of projects you have running at any given time (I had as many as 50), and they add up.

While you can always be just a Zoom meeting or Slack away, that also means every other distraction is just as accessible. In the fight to vie for attention, it's hard to beat the focus that being physically next to a person commands. Side-Slacking is a culture, focus, and collaboration killer. I've seen it first hand. I've witinessed leaders who specifically would pull apart individuals from group Slacks and message them individually to assert their weighted opinion and pressure others to fold. It's harder for that to happen in person.

Full remote also means that nearly every interaction is scheduled. "Let's set up a meeting to discuss." Far less likely just to grab everyone and pull them together really quickly. "Hey, can you hop on the phone for a minute?" Most interaction require permission to interact first when remote. Less so in person. I can say that even as a manager who availed himself pretty easily, I would nearly always make time for the person in the doorway, whereas the Slack message may have to wait a bit.

Leading individuals, building trust, fostering development, and coaching a team is simply more impactful in person.

Saying "you got a minute?" while standing in your managers doorway is going to elicit a different response than a Slack saying the same thing. When I can see your posture, the look on your face, and the tone of voice in that question, I not only hear your question, but feel it. And I am more likely to respond appropriately, as the situation calls for.

I had zero turnover both in person and remotely, but I still consider the 1:1's I had in person and the days I was physically present to collaborate and answer questions more productive for myself, and my team.

On top of that, it was monumentally easier to build and maintain a great team culture in person. And while that may seem to only benefit the "leaders" and not the "individual contributors" at face value, that's not true. If I don't need to invest as much energy just to maintain the culture and team nature, I can do more, ya know, work. I can put more time and energy into supporting, mentoring and training the team. I can make their jobs easier too.

On the note of tone, we as people communicate through so much more than consonants and vowels. It's part of why Zoom Fatigue is a thing. Those hurdles all but disappear in person. Tone is so easy to misread when typed. Everyone who has reported to anyone knows the instant panic attack following a message from the boss reading "hey, can you talk for a minute?" The anxiety of assuming the worst in a typed message is very real.

Having problem-solving, contentious meetings just isn't the same when you're not in person. Some might prefer that. In some regards, it levels the playing field. It's harder to command a presence in a room or assert yourself relying on your voice and presence. But it's also harder to have live, animated discussion. I can't grab a marker, walk to the whiteboard, and gesticulate. Having passionate, heated discussions are bumpier, always peppered with "oh, sorry, you go first" or "sorry, I couldn't hear you, something was going on in the background" or "sorry, my connection is spotty." It can make it harder for a SME to present their case and expertise to leadership whom may be unreasonably skeptical by default.

Are there roles, teams, or even full companies that can be fully remote? Sure. Are there situations where the pros of being remote outweight the cons? Definitley. But to say that full-remote is the only future, or that any "office" job where one sits at a computer all day can be done just as effectively remotely, or yield the same company goals, is patently false. There is no one-size-fits-all solution. So let's spend less time on arguing which is the way to go, and more time figuring out what balance is right for our own teams and companies.

And with that, I'll duck back into the bushes, and await your angry comments.