[unityByFreedom]

> a company that hires remotely very likely won't have issues hiring, because they haven't arbitrarily decided that what they do requires everyone to be in the same office.

Right, no issues hiring, but maybe some issues managing, communicating effectively, and completing work. You're potentially trading one set of problems for another.

Perhaps they've tried a bit of remote and it hasn't worked for them. We don't know.

[briandear]

Issues managing and completing work? How does remote make those issues any different? Do we write code on paper? Does a manager need to physically direct us to our keyboard?

When I hear comments like this I roll my eyes because those issues aren’t remote issues, those are incompetent manager issues – issues that don’t get resolved by simply sitting in an office.

Management, communication and productivity are challenges regardless of work location. Why do many remote companies “make it work” while others fail? My theory is it has nothing to do with on-site vs remote. It’s a scapegoat used by insecure or incompetent managers who lead mediocre employees they shouldn’t have hired in the first place.

If your workers can’t perform in a remote environment, then they aren’t going to suddenly get better by virtue of sharing a ping pong table.

[renlo]

I think the big thing is that if you work in an office you can more or less gauge if the person is working by glancing at them. Yes there are better ways to keep track of this, but by simply glancing at the person once every 30 minutes to an hour you can more or less gauge how much they appear to be working.

For remote work a manager has to be more on top of keeping track of his/her employees.

I understand you have strong opinions about this, FWIW I work remotely so yeah I get it.

[unityByFreedom]

> I think the big thing is that if you work in an office you can more or less gauge if the person is working by glancing at them.

It's much more than this for me. Coding still requires teamwork, and, short of everyone being able to execute perfectly without in-person discussion, it's useful to communicate with all human gestures being immediately apparent.

I'm surprised at the level of negativity here against office work. I expected people to argue it as another option- not that it should always be the only option for effective teams. I say this as someone who works remotely, and who prefers office work with the right people and not too long of a commute.

I think the bigger issue is just finding the right people with whom you work effectively, not whether work is done in the office or remotely​.

[unityByFreedom]

> Why do many remote companies “make it work” while others fail? My theory is it has nothing to do with on-site vs remote. It’s a scapegoat used by insecure or incompetent managers who lead mediocre employees they shouldn’t have hired in the first place.

This strikes me as a bit rude and prejudicial. Not all of us are rockstars who can function effectively without social contact. I personally prefer a central meeting point and face to face communication.

All I'm arguing is that in-person work is preferable by some managers and employees. I'm not arguing that it should dogmatically be applied to everyone.

From your hn profile, I gather you understand yourself to be a bit disagreeable,

> I'm opinionated, inconsistent, irrelevant, irreverent and incontrovertible

I don't see that as a problem myself but I wonder, based on this statement, whether or not you've found working in offices to be effective for you. I'd also wonder if you ever admit to being wrong, and how you react under those circumstances. I'm not convinced you could lay any and all disagreement at the feet of insecure managers.

[briandear]

Fair points. I will concede that one size doesn’t fit all.