[hmwhy]

For someone who's tried seeking remote work (and kind of failed because most of my colleagues don't work remotely), remote work is all about work-life balance for me, and it signals that my employer intends to be lean and agile (mostly small companies?) and/or values my work-life balance.

If it's done the way it's proposed in the article then I think I'd think twice about working remotely for that company, this part is a particularly huge red flag for me:

> Also, the founders (or management if it’s a bigger company) should signal that this is something good, encourage it.

It also feels a bit odd that a remote team needs to "foster cohesion". Isn't the whole point that remote work is successful for some companies because the people who are involved with it are good at communication, function cohesively, and hyper-focused when it comes to getting stuff done?

Admittedly I have never worked a truly remote role, but the reasons given in the article are all the reasons that I don't want to apply for a particularly remote role.

Edit: typo (remote --> remotely).

[astura]

>It also feels a bit odd that a remote team needs to "foster cohesion".

Some people (in SV?) seem to be unwilling or unable to work on a team where everyone just does their job, they want to be friends with their teammates as well. They justify that with "team chemistry is really important."

I don't really get it myself.