[ahh]

Humans don't have emotional object permanence.

My ex-girlfriend described herself this way to me once and I thought it was funny, but it's in fact true of people in general: if you're not physically present near them, they will forget that you really exist as a human and a social peer. It's unfortunate but it's true: you are going to naturally think more about and have better feelings about the coworkers you see every day in person. No, VC doesn't count. I think this is pretty much a human universal; the only exceptions I know are quite far on the autism spectrum. (Even I notice myself doing this, and I'm definitely somewhere on that line.)

Given that, I want to be in the room with my coworkers. I want them to unconsciously think of me as part of their tribe, and I want to feel the same way about them; that means we need to be able to perform regular in-person social petting. This is doubly true of my bosses. It sucks, but there's no way around it.

(Also, while this is less universal, there are plenty of extroverts, even on HN. I'm one. It's ironic, in that I also suffer from pretty nasty social anxiety; large rooms of strangers scare me and choke me up. But lock me in a room by myself for a month and I go crazy. I am happier, by far, when I can be in the same room as people I like.)

[MattGaiser]

> This is doubly true of my bosses. It sucks, but there's no way around it.

So many opportunities in my life have come from casual interactions with my bosses, i.e. they spot something in an email and because I am sitting nearby, they propose it to me or they are coming out of a meeting and mention some corporate goal.

Working remotely, I do not even speak to my boss every week now. I am a microservice outputting work.

[moriarty-s3a]

This is completely cultural. I had a manager that I didn't meet in person for over a year and he was constantly sharing stuff like this with me, frequently multiple times a day. As the sibling points out, if you aren't speaking with your manager weekly, or really almost daily, then something is very wrong.

[cl0rkster]

I agree completely. Reading these responses, there's a lot of negativity to communicating with your manager. While I've been in times that I completely understand this, I chose my latest job purely on manager. It pays less and I couldn't be happier. He was innovative in using a shared Google doc that gets updated with tasks, goals, and progress by both of us daily. We meet officially on a schedule once a week, but often chat in the interim. Personally, I use the Google doc as my running, living Todo list. It helps keeps thoughts organized, and my manager sees a lot more than he ever could in a daily stand up. Sometimes, here's even able to proactively assist. Which, if you work hard, is an excellent thing. My manager and I would never hang out as friends, but we're both fascinated by technology and business culture and speak on it often. Worry more about positive relationship than specific method, I'd say. And if you hate your manager, job search on primarily that criteria and take a job your want with enthusiasm even if it pays less. You can't quantify peace in dollars.

[ryanwaggoner]

I know I’m asking a lot, but could you share more about this google doc? How is it organized, do you both edit it, do you use comments, etc?

[antipaul]

Not OP.

I use it with my manager to asynchroneously share updates and todos. It's in reverse chronological order, with a big heading for each weekly 1-1. We both write directly in the doc, and tag each other with comments for updates.

An extreme of this, is that some teams (was it Netflix?) basically use google docs as project trackers. The project is described in the google doc, and you talk about it via comments - whenever you want, and as a replacement for meetings (who doesn't love getting rid of meetings?)

In general, the idea with a gDoc is of a central repository of useful knowledge, an improvment over searching through chat messages and endless meetings.

[ryanwaggoner]

I appreciate it, thanks!

[cl0rkster]

The way I personally use it may differ from my other coworkers, but there's a heading for each day. I start the day by copying everything up from the previous day that wasn't completed, then I prioritize the bullet points and highlight what I hope to finish that day. Each week has an "accomplishments" header that is used at review time. I choose what goes there. My boss rarely adds things other than just prior to our one on one so he doesn't forget. Having a running daily Todo that begins as a copy of yesterday's mind map makes focus so much easier. Then when I have a status update that I don't want to disturb his busy schedule with, I tag him in a document comment or assign a task. I can message or email for urgent needs, but this is a lower percentage occurrence. Hope that gives some insight. Happy to answer any other questions.

[hordeallergy]

Just to provide the opposite perspective, that sounds like my hell. A weekly catch-up, fine, and the rest of the time if I have anything worth chatting about I will. I can't stand the ritual ceremonies.

[ryanwaggoner]

This was helpful, thanks for sharing!

[cosmodisk]

If I need to speak to everyone in my team daily or even weekly,it means the whole thing isn't working and it would fall apart as soon as I walk through the door. I do trust people in what they do and I don't micromanage. I'm always available if anyone needs help or any kind of support or advice,but it doesn't mean I'd walk around daily asking how's work every day. Again, this depends on a role as well,as for instance, I do spend a lot of time discussing technical aspects with the business analyst.

[Edit] The above applies to office environment,where I could see all my team in one place and there were lots of 'hints' that could tell whether I need to have a chst with someone: difficult call, challenging situation, too much work,issues at home and etc.All this is almost invisible when working remotely. Casual calls are necessary to check on people and to make sure they are fine.

[MattGaiser]

Fair, it is going to depend on the boss and how your office interactions were before everything went remote.

> if you aren't speaking with your manager weekly, or really almost daily, then something is very wrong.

I am someone who likes a lot of autonomy.

In-office, beyond my Scrum team, I am otherwise trusted to deliver what I need to deliver. That leads to few check-ins and mostly social banter with my boss as I will be in touch if I require anything. No news means all is well.

It is just that remote removes most of the social banter and problems don't pop up for weeks.

[52-6F-62]

There are alternatives. For instance my smaller team has a very brief daily stand up now in a video call each morning.

Our larger department has a Monday check-in and a Friday check-in wherein our boss's boss speaks to each one of us—checks in with how we're doing, whether we need anything, if we're stuck or whatever, and also raises questions to us that have come up in their own work. That is often mixed with more congenial banter and chats. Sometimes we throw in a game of Jackbox or something.

My own team has taken to at least a round of something like Counter Strike for the last hour of the day each week. Sometimes almost every day depending on our work load.

Combined with Slack my immediate manager and higher-level bosses are as reachable as ever.

I'm sure once things can safely open up again there will almost immediately be some kind of meet up for drinks and whatever because of course that can't quite be replaced, but I don't think being remote most of the time has to be such a social handicap.

[patcon]

This is def speculation on my part, but I've got a hunch that these "good manager" types often learn this wonderful communication style from working with ppl in-person -- high touch communication spaces are where ppl learn and hone those skills that they then bring into digital spaces with such effectiveness

[WWLink]

I don't want my coworkers touching me. :P

[lalos]

When does the line blur and it becomes micro-managing if speaking daily?

[chc]

Micromanagement isn't about frequency of contact so much as the amount of control the worker has over their work. The biggest micromanager I ever worked for would forget I existed for days or a week at a time, only to come in tell me to throw out hours of work and do very specific, arbitrary things instead because he just liked it better a different way. The most hands-off boss I've ever had would drop by for a chat almost every day, but mostly just to get thoughts on overall direction and discuss ideas he was mulling.

[MattGaiser]

We could speak daily and not have it be micromanagement. There is just not anything to speak about most days. We did good morning in the chat for a while, but that just died after the first few weeks.

[cddotdotslash]

"Speaking" doesn't imply "managing" in a negative sense. It's simply a medium to convey information. Is it micro managing to see a direct report in the hallway or at lunch and casually say "Hey, Alice was saying that we could really use a new X, what do you think about that?" That level of discussion would very rarely occur over Slack or during a scheduled 1:1.

[RHSeeger]

> "Hey, Alice was saying that we could really use a new X, what do you think about that?" That level of discussion would very rarely occur over Slack

Out of curiosity, why? I have this kind of discussion in Slack fairly often, sometimes in a (smaller) channel, sometimes in direct messages (occasionally with >2 people in in). A quick conversation about an idea, where people can respond as time permits, seems fairly optimal for Slack.

[ericlewis]

just say good morning?

[woeirua]

Not speaking with your subordinates at least once a week is a pretty solid indication of a shitty manager...

[MattGaiser]

More just a consequence of an project that is generally going well (or at least was) and a lot of prior autonomy. Plenty of weeks there has been nothing to say.

We had a sprint planning (he isn’t on the development team for that), we completed the sprint, we did it again. Nothing to report.

In the office, it is a nice amount of autonomy to not have to provide yet another status update all the time. The project team already has enough Scrum reporting requirements so it works well to keep the admin burden down.

You just have to wonder if you are forgotten when working remotely.

[jeffasinger]

A good manager should be doing a lot more than just asking you for status updates in your 1:1s. At a minimum they should be:

1) Providing updates on things going on with the rest of the organization that may affect you. Technically this doesn't have be in a 1:1, but is often a good venue. 2) Learning more about any problems facing the team, and discussing potential solutions. 3) Giving feedback on both what the employee has been doing well and any areas they could improve. 4) Helping to set goals that will advance the employees career goals.

While you might be able to get everything done well with lots of autonomy, you're probably still leaving value on the table by not meeting more regularly.

[MattGaiser]

That is interesting as I never would have thought those would be in the scope of what managers did (especially the career goals as that means helping people leave).

I was under the impression that the less your manager needs to deal with you, the better you are doing.

> you're probably still leaving value on the table by not meeting more regularly.

Am definitely going to think about this over the next little while. Thanks.

[AlisdairO]

Yeah, to add to this: the best year of my working life, I got an average review. I just happened to be an expert in a bunch of tech that my team had forced on them, ramped them all up, and generally contributed a bunch. And I failed to communicate with my manager - as in, I went three months without meeting him. He had no real idea how much I'd contributed. Now obviously, that's on my manager as well, but ultimately it was me it affected. Since then I've made an effort to own the communication with my manager more, and it's had much better results career-wise.

[golover721]

Ultimately a manager is judged by his/her superiors by their ability to get the most value out of the teams which they are in charge of. So as a report, frequent communication with your manager discussing whats going well, what can be improved, and ideas on how to do it helps them meet their goals as well as making your life easier. It also is likely a primary factor that will help you with your career progression.

From what I have seen over the years theres the top performers who communicate a lot with the manager in the way described above. Also bottom performers communicate frequently with their manager, but for negative reasons. The middle performers often hardly communicate with the manager, and they are likely not going anywhere (which is fine too, if thats what they want).

[woeirua]

At the end of the day, a good manager wants to see their reports progress professionally and personally. They should be helping you get to the next level, regardless of what that is for you. Sometimes that means saying goodbye to really talented employees, knowing that they're moving on to bigger and better things than you can provide for them.

[markkanof]

I think some of the replies to your comment and surrounding comments are missing an important point, which I'm going to assume you were making. In a remote work situation, managers need to check in for more than just directly work related conversations.

The comment that started this thread was making the claim that people have difficulty comprehending others as people that they don't directly see in person. So managers (everyone really) should be checking in at least once a day, even if it's just to ask "how's it going" (generally, not a work status report), have a conversation about something non-work related, crack some jokes, whatever. Basically, maintaining that human connection sometimes needs to be forced a little bit, because it's so important and leads to a tighter knit team.

[binarymax]

Calling your employees "subordinates" is also a solid indication of the same.

[Aeolun]

How would you then call people below you in the org tree? I’m struggling to think of a clearer term.

[jes]

With no snark intended, I simply call them my colleagues. If there is a question about whether they report to me or not, I'm happy to clarify.

[PeterisP]

Colleagues does strongly imply an equal level and similar duties, a teamlead's colleagues are other teamleads and not the individual developers whom they're managing (who do a different job) and not their managers who are also doing a quite different job.

[exolymph]

"Direct reports" is the default euphemism.

[artificial]

Child processes, managed processes, automatons, acolytes, minions... villagers? No, too RTS ;)

[winkeltripel]

units?

[dagnabbit]

'my org', 'my team' or 'my reports' for all below; 'my direct reports' for those immediately below.

[throwaway3563]

Underlings... minions... henchmen...

[newtoday]

Team members?

[Xelbair]

Coffee fueled logic generators?

[rdiddly]

It's not like "employees" is the greatest. Those who are employed, i.e. used.

[krzyk]

It depends. I don't want to speak to my manager to often, I prefer to do my work without distractions.

And I must say I'm loving this whole pandemic forced WFH on everyone - it means all of us are on the same level, no more speaking with managers/directors over a cigarette or at lunch/coffee. A great equalizer of opportunities and pure work :)

[watwut]

Depends how many people work in the team. But really, most of time you dont need to work with manager and frequent communication typically means the manager is dealing with some problem with you or near you.

[JamesBarney]

One thing bosses are looking for in subordinates isn't necessarily excellence but understanding. Do I know what choice they'd make and would they make the same choice I would when confronted with the same problem.

And the best way to figure that out is to get to know someone.

A lot of my promotions have been good reviews but some have been grabbing beers with the boss.

[sokoloff]

I see it slightly differently. In my subordinates, I want confidence that they'll consistently make decisions that they believe are in the best long-term interests of the company. If they consistently do that, I can work on anything else (including making sure I help them better understand the long-term interests as I understand them).

That will often mean "would make the same choice I would", but I'm happy if they merely use the same rubric.

[JamesBarney]

Say you're a consultant and you thought the best way to make a client happy was delivering a great product even if it's late and over budget.

If your subordinate thinks the best way to make a client happy is to always deliver on time and budget even if they have to cut a bunch of corners and deliver a buggy product, are you still going to be happy about that?

Are you going to stil be happy with his decision when you have to justify to the client and your boss why it was a good decision to release a buggy version early than a more polished version late? Despite the fact that if you were put in that exact same situation you would have made the opposite choice.

There are plenty of other examples too. You both believe that company goals are driven by great effective teams. You believe effective teams are born out of great morale and shared goal. He believes effective teams are the sum of their parts. There is someone that isn't pulling their weight. You would mentor them because they're always upbeat and positive and it'd be crushing to morale to fire this person. Your subordinate fires them because he believes he's slowing down the team.

[sokoloff]

In the short run, I may very well be unhappy in those examples, but only if the client ended up unhappy or if the team performance took a sustained dip. Some clients care greatly about budget. Some team’s morale improves when poor performers leave. The people closest to the client/team probably can make a better decision than I can. IOW, maybe my approach would be the wrong one.

I’m also confident that I can work with those hypothetical leaders because they share a common foundational compass.

I can talk about the trade offs of time/budget. I can talk about the trade offs of morale vs peak individual performance. Most importantly, I can be sure they have a guiding framework that pulls us in the same direction, even if the near-term paths are different.

I have two leaders working for me today (one of whom may well read this) who make markedly different decisions than I would. We talk openly about it; they get great results for the company via a different route to the same destination and I don’t try to make them into mini-mes. (I lead quite differently than my own boss as well.)

There are many paths to Rome.

[tylerjwilk00]

Sounds specific to your boss.

My team and I are mostly remote, doubly so since pandemic, we are all chatting and vidconfing with our boss and each other daily. It's a nice well connected environment.

[cosmodisk]

But then what's stopping you from picking up the phone and giving him a call? What I noticed was the opposite: instead of having some rare encounters with our CEO( I report directly to him but we are in different buildings so we mainly meet in meetings only) and ending up doing something 'urgent' or distracting, I now have less of these. However, having said that, it's harder to pull out the information I want when on the phone versus when face to face.

[MattGaiser]

> But then what's stopping you from picking up the phone and giving him a call?

Inherently nothing. I could call him, but I have little reason to beyond a social chat as there is nothing to report, so it would be a "hey boss, how is the new baby doing?"

I haven't given much thought to the career implications of remote as I expect it to be relatively temporary in my case so I do not feel pressured to solve the problem.

> However, having said that, it's harder to pull out the information I want when on the phone versus when face to face.

I don't envy our business analyst.

[cosmodisk]

>I don't envy our business analyst.

This can actually be a blessing in disguise for him as long as he sticks to 'put it in writing'. Here's what will happen: some won't write and won't ask again because they have no clue how to put what they want in writing.Some will write some incomprehensible thing and it will require 20 more emails to find out that all they want is Comic Sans in Word and etc. Also it will tame some 'motivated ones',who could go on for hours about what they would want.

[philliphaydon]

> Working remotely, I do not even speak to my boss every week now. I am a microservice outputting work.

I've spent this past week rubber ducking with my boss. I think we've spoken MORE since we both started WFH because he's got less distractions now he isn't in the office.

[gofreddygo]

Most 'opportunities' presented to me by my higher ups in casual interactions are just them trying to get more unofficial work done without being called out for it.

No thanks.

[learc83]

I don't think that's true at all. I've worked remotely for years and my coworkers and I get along great. We are just as close as work friends I've physically worked with.

My fiancee is an MD, so she has tons of very close friends all over the country from college, med school, residency, and fellowship that she only interacts with remotely. She's just as close with many of them as she is with friends who live in town.

Neither of us are autistic or on the spectrum.

[arkades]

> My fiancee is an MD, so she has tons of very close friends all over the country from college, med school, residency, and fellowship that she only interacts with remotely.

So she remains close with people she underwent difficult, life-changing, character-forming periods with, who at the time, she was with for quite a few hours a day?

I mean, med school and fellowship people stay with you forever, even if you don't particularly like them. And residency? You're blood-bound, like it or not.

[learc83]

The argument is that without regular in person contact people will forget you exist as a human, this wasn't a more nuanced argument that physical proximity is one factor of many.

> if you're not physically present near them, they will forget that you really exist as a human and a social peer.

[arkades]

Tell me honestly: do you really interpret OP as stating that, if you're not physically around someone, they (restating a little bit to make clear how much this is unlikely to have been meant literally) will not remember that you are a real person that exists? That they will come to think of you as an imaginary thing?

Maybe just give them the benefit of the doubt and engage with what they were actually trying to say. If they meant something more extreme, they'll have every chance to double down on it, but no conversation is enriched by shooting down the least charitable interpretation of what folks are saying. Especially when "least charitable interpretation" means "I will take all hyperbolic and/or figurative language and read it literally." It's boring to read language written like legalese, and it's boring to see people getting criticised for not writing in legalese.

[learc83]

Tell me honestly: do really think that I thought the OP's argument was that people will literally think of you as imaginary.

Of course I don't.

What you've done is to take the least charitable interpretation of my argument by believing that I was using the OP's language of "real human" literally.

The OP's argument is that "if you're not physically present near them, they will forget that you really exist as a human and a social peer."

My interpretation of that is that they won't see you as a real person with whom they can have a real relationship with, and that you can't you can't maintain a social peer relationship without physical contact.

To best way to describe what I, (and I'm 99% sure the OP) mean when they say real person: You read in the newspaper that a man was shot. You know he exists and you may know something about him, but he doesn't feel like a real person to you. His death doesn't cause you grief the same way the death of a friend or neighbor would.

[joncrane]

I think there's a lot of nuance.

I am more toward your situation (grew up in multiple countries and, as things evolve over time, my closest friend group is a group of guys who used to skateboard together on the streets of San Jose Costa Rica) and remain excellent friends with many people from my past, and some I have not seen in person in many years. Maybe I'm fooling myself.

However, I feel like most people aren't like that, and if I care about advancing my career, I have to think more like OP and less like you and me.

[nogabebop23]

How can this be? The bandwidth and sheer volume of face-to-face time co-located people share just dwarfs the potential of remote. Are you saying that you still do fine remotely or that remote works better than colocated?

I'd also bet your MD does most of her doctoring that depends on deep trust and emotional connection in-person; remote just fails at this in comparison

[learc83]

>I'd also bet your MD does most of her doctoring that depends on deep trust and emotional connection in-person; remote just fails at this in comparison

She does, but it probably has less to do with needing an emotional connection than b/c she needs to physically do procedures.

>Are you saying that you still do fine remotely or that remote works better than colocated?

I'm have closer friends at my current workplace than I did at my last physical workplace. However, there are too many variables for me to say whether remote is actually better in that regard.

I doubt it is, but my anecdote was a counterpoint to the argument that humans require physical contact to maintain relationships. Not an argument that physical contact can in some cases be beneficial.

[monadic2]

> The bandwidth and sheer volume of face-to-face time co-located people share just dwarfs the potential of remote.

How do you figure?

Anyway you’re pumping out HTML, not making works of art. Most days don’t require an emotional connection to get anything done, and it just takes a little more effort on both to talk on video and get that connection. Anyway, it’s much easier and healthier to view coworkers like future friends than current friends, especially your manager.

You better double my pay to waste my time in person.

[thaumasiotes]

> Anyway you’re pumping out HTML, not making works of art.

I'm pretty sure most artists do their work remotely, not in the office of whoever's buying the artwork.

[AsyncAwait]

I personally appreciate the people I work with remotely now more than when I was in the office as I don't need to engage in needless chit chat and so every meeting is much more productive.

[jupiter90000]

I think this depends, for me at least. I've had jobs where my coworkers and I aren't that close at all even working together in an office setting. We had little attachment to each other during and after the shared job experience was over.

Then, I have had jobs where we worked in office and for extended periods remote and I feel closer and actually have more of a relationship with them, sometimes for many years down the road when we don't even live near each other anymore. I still see them when I visit town and we talk on the phone.

I work remote with some folks in another project and I honestly feel closer to some of them than some on-site groups I have worked with. I guess everyone is a little different in this.

I have some non-work relationships that operate more like you describe and also ones that don't.

It is a little offensive to hear assignment of people who don't operate the same way as described as being far on the autism spectrum.

[Buttons840]

I'm not sure I agree. I have many fond memories of friends I have played video games with, even though I have never met them in person. I don't even know what they look like, but there are some I still empathize with even 10 years later, and wonder how they're doing with the few personal problems they had which I was aware of.

That said, I can imagine negative relationships developing in many (or most) work cultures, since it's very easy for every interaction to be adversarial.

Since I enjoy video games, I've before wished to play team building video games with co-workers. Perhaps doing so would be worth while?

[ahh]

Don't get me wrong, I have internet friends. It's just hard to treat them as first-class people compared to those I know in person. It was way easier as a teenager--I didn't have in-real-life friends! Sigh. If you were going to maintain primary internet relationships, close-knit as can be, I can imagine worse ways to do that regular team gaming.

I don't think that all in-person relationships are better. There are people I see in person ~regularly I loathe. (Obviously, most such people I try not to see anymore, but you can't always control your friends' friends, or your coworkers, or who goes to your gym, or...) But they're all more real.

[StavrosK]

I have the opposite experience; Most of my close friends are online friends whom I met twenty years ago playing online games. It was decades until I saw them for the first time IRL, yet I consider them my closest friends. The only difference between my online best friends and my IRL best friends is that I mostly chat all day with the former, but chat in one long session with the latter (when we go out for drinks).

[MattGaiser]

The more significant question is how these online friends compare in your priority to in person life friends.

I’ve had some great online friendships as well but they always fade when in person life friends start using more of my time.

The key question for work is less whether you boss will value you and more whether if you can effectively compete with Joe Office who goes in every day for space in his mind.

[war1025]

> Humans don't have emotional object permanence.

Absolutely. This is a great way to think of it.

A perhaps more techie way of thinking of it is our relationships are in a mostly-LRU cache. The people we have interacted with most recently are the ones that matter most to us. If you aren't regularly resetting your place within that cache, you get bumped.

What that often means is there are people that you see a couple times and you think you are going to end up being significant in each other's lives, but then in a month or so they fall out of the cache and are effectively dead to you.

A thing I've noticed is we have a few friends that like to get right up to the point where I'm about to write them out of my life, and then they always find time for us and pop back in. Mildly infuriating, but I guess I'm glad to have them around either way.

Out of sight, out of mind is one of the key aspects of human relationships.

[higeorge13]

The LRU cache analogy might be one of the best comments i have ever read.

[Hoasi]

> Humans don't have emotional object permanence.

> if you're not physically present near them, they will forget that you really exist as a human and a social peer.

You nailed it. I usually work remotely, but always try meeting people physically at the start of a project. There is something uniquely uplifting about being in the same location to create something. That's when ideas congregate. When people meet in the same place, you can feel the energy. Physical meetings create synergies impossible to replicate when you only meet online.

[monkeydust]

I may get shot down but I was experimenting with VR meetings, avatars created using facial images. We did a team meeting using this tech for fun but it felt much more like being in same room than a video conference call. Not same as in person but a step closer.

[plutonorm]

If people didn't have a weird aversion to VR and headsets were way more comfortable this would totally be the solution. Once we get comfortable AR glasses with decent resolution, software for remote teams is going to be a huge business.

[Zanneth]

There is also a shared commitment to a project that you get working in close physical proximity. Your colleagues are more likely to be motivated to help you or achieve something difficult when everyone is working on a project together.

[tsumnia]

Agreed, I think it is also one of the principles that leads to more success in education. MOOCs notoriously have high drop off rates despite offering all the components we ascribe to positive learning experiences. I think the human component gives students a community of peers that are equally struggling in the course, even if they are explicitly not invested in a peer's progress.

[mech422]

I keep hearing doom and gloom about remote work from people that have been doing it less then 3 years...

After 20 years remote (try getting remote work in 2000ish!), I have had any of the awful downsides people keep _predicting_.

If you're interested in remote work, give it time, get used to the differences between on-site and remote, and plan accordingly...

For instance, if you got opportunities because you sat next to the boss or were the first person he saw coming out of a meeting - 'ping' him with a status update email on something when he gets out of 'the big meeting' - this way, you're the first 'virtual' person they 'see'

[bobbiechen]

That's an interesting strategy, I imagine it takes a lot more dedicated effort than noticing the person sitting next to you returning to a meeting. How do you know when these meetings are happening, a shared calendar?

[mech422]

It was just an idea, each situation will be different...For instance, I normally know about meetings cuz the boss has me do the prep work for them :-P

[DevKoala]

This is very true. The proof is in the pudding. If someone messages you or calls you, you might dismiss them easily, but if someone stands next to you and asks you “do you have a moment?” Will you dismiss them as easily?

PS: Working with a largely distributed team, I trained myself to treat all of these requests the same. Even if someone walked from the other side of the building to ask me something. The priority assessment before I consider shifting my focus should be the same.

[rodiger]

If there was no way to hang up the phone you wouldn't dismiss them as easily. I think this is likely a feature of ease of dismissal rather than one of remote vs local connections

[DevKoala]

There is also an easy way to not prioritize people at the office. You tell them in a polite manner that what you are doing is a bigger priority and requires your attention. Over time people learn to coordinate discussions when you are free to talk. It is part of learning to say “No”.

[iateanapple]

> Working with a largely distributed team, I trained myself to treat all of these requests the same.

Why?

[ryukafalz]

If you prioritize the local coworker over your remote coworkers simply because they're nearby, that contributes to the idea that remote coworkers are less effective, because you're making them less effective.

[iateanapple]

> If you prioritize the local coworker over your remote coworkers simply because they're nearby

So the right answer is to answer calls etc from remote colleagues promptly - not to ignore local coworkers who walk over.

It’s not to make local communication less effective to prop up remote work.

[DevKoala]

You don’t ignore people who come to talk to you. You tell them politely that you are focused on a task, and to wait until you are free. Over time people learn to send you a message first to coordinate when you are free to talk.

At the company I work for, the norm at the office is to always ask first “is this a good time to discuss X?”. Not even the CTO gets a free pass to interrupt engineers. Actually he was one of the people who coached me to prioritize my focus first and to learn to say “No”.

[iateanapple]

> You tell them politely that you are focused on a task, and to wait until you are free.

If I’m coming to talk to you then I think it’s important enough to interrupt you.

You are in effect gimping local communication.

[anonytrary]

This 100%. Most startups that are getting on the remote-only bandwagon are gonna be in for a big surprise when they start seeing their culture dry up into a crusty spot of resin. Half of the value of working at a modern company is being in the same room as the talented people you work with. I love everyone I work with, and going into the office and seeing them gives me a huge amount of motivation to do good work.

Purely remote work can't possibly be the future for creative fields. Humans are inherently social, and I say this as someone who has crippling social anxiety. All of my salary expectations took this into account. If proximity to talent is being taken away from me, why not just look for a new company? I didn't come to the bay area to not be around smart and talented people.

I imagine if grade-school became fully-remote, that generation would just be much more lonely and have fewer friends than ever. People are meant to be together, work together, and do things together.

[WalterBright]

Just the daily ritual of going out to lunch with your coworkers is immensely valuable for your work and career.

[havelhovel]

How? My performance reviews never cover my lunchtime activities. I don't need my peers to recommend me based on the strength of my small talk.

[WalterBright]

Bonding over a meal is an ancient human activity.

[vlunkr]

> have better feelings about the coworkers you see every day in person.

I honestly don't know if this is true. There are coworkers that I really like to work with, but I'm also happy to not have to spend 8 hours a day in the same room engaging in small talk, smelling their reheated leftovers, etc.

[snarf21]

I'd say it slightly differently. The thing I've observed is that the physical closeness creates a bias. You are more likely to give someone you "know" the benefit of the doubt. Someone who is remote is more likely to be seen as clueless or "them not us" even if you'd agree with someone local on the same idea. We as humans long to belong. It is hard to separate them from the rest of the experience. I think the other fact is the hallway and elevator are great opportunities to "get to know" someone when in reality it is just knowing more about someone not necessarily really knowing them as a person. But those are the things that create the familiarity and benefit of the doubt later.

[foolinaround]

Consider the relationships we feel to folks we play games with in virtual forums over the years.

Years pass without you never seeing them, yet a lot of time spent in virtual proximity makes kindred spirits.

[empath75]

Going out drinking with managers is probably the second most important thing for your career after being good at your job, and might be number 1, in certain companies

[thrownaway954]

this is true about anyone. given enough time and distance, your own mother will become "just another person you know". if you aren't physically interacting with people, you are soon forgotten.

[runawaybottle]

I used to believe in out of sight out of mind until I had my first break up.

Out of sight out of mind is a function that takes a parameter that is not a Boolean. If the person was important enough to you they won’t leave your mind easily.

If anything, the adage exposes the strength of your relationships. In the business case, it will expose the value of physical coordination vs virtual coordination. It’s not going to be clear cut.

But you are probably right in a business context, where the number that’s going to get passed into the out of sight out of mind function will definitely be low enough to return true for just about all of us.

It’s not exactly the world anyone wants to live in, but what are you gonna do.

[thrownaway954]

which is why i said "given enough time and distance".

[nickthemagicman]

I live across the country from my dad and miss him quite a bit even though we havent seen each other in a long time. We chat weekly or so.

[gowld]

"out of sight, out of mind" is the classic formulation.

[vhiremath4]

I hope people view this video, but I'm a founder + the CTO at Loom. I use video all the time to solve exactly this problem: maintaining an emotional connection with my peers in a remote context asynchronously. It's not 100% - you still need synchronous time, but it helps a lot.

I don't care if you use Loom, but, if you're on a team that is any % remote, do this for yourself + your fellow remote teammates. It goes a long way.

https://www.loom.com/share/81433d34e7584353921aae8e12b40844

[somacore]

Funny how you describe yourself as an extrovert and I've always said I'm an introvert - but we identify the same.

Dislikes, anxiety around large groups of (mostly unknown) people, preference for people we know like work colleagues and family.

To your main point, I think it depends on the previous relationship. Most of these folks had months or years to form bonds with coworkers such that I don't think it'll be so easy to reduce them to the concept of a human just from a few months or a year apart.

[ahh]

Consider the hypothesis you have an anxiety disorder, not introversion. I said I was an introvert for years until repeated evidence (and everyone I know pointing out to me) convinced me that I am just happier, healthier, and have more energy if I'm around other people. That doesn't imply that I (or you!) am _good_ at being around other people, especially strangers.

It's hard!

[cheschire]

I've taken several personality tests that identify me as an extrovert / leader, and it's true, I tend to lead well as defined by my subordinates over years.

But it's exhausting. Groups larger than a few can only be handled in deep conversation for an hour or two tops. Also I get crippling anxiety before entering certain social situations, especially phone calls to support lines or in foreign countries where the cultural taboos are potentially around every corner.

Leave me with one person though, especially one I know well, and I can talk for hours and hours at full speed.

[plutonorm]

I have this too. I'm 40 now and over the years I have come to understand it not as anxiety per se. But more as sensitivity. I am extremely sensitive to body language, emotional content, background noises... Details... When I'm in a large group of people there's so much information coming in that it quickly becomes exhausting. If I've slept well and am generally looking after myself I can do large groups for hours at a time. But if I'm tired, it quickly leads to exhaustion which then leads to confusion and anxiety. I also get classified as extrovert in psych tests. And I do love people, it's just they are generally too intense for my poor overly tuned nervous system. I often think I'd do well with a mood stabilizer/anti epileptic.

[nvarsj]

I believe this is what's considered as a "highly sensitive person". There's some scientific evidence showing that you can identify even babies based on how they react to external stimuli. Basically your brain is hardwired to react more strongly than others - this makes social interactions with strangers quite exhausting, for example. And there is nothing you can do about it - it's just some evolutionary development that occurs in a portion of the population. I recommend looking into it more if you're interested - there is also the book Quiet by Susan Cain.

[uxp100]

Yes, this feels very familiar. I find myself energized, outgoing, dynamic, etc around strangers, and then reliving the conversations over and over in my head days later when the energy is gone. I've got one or two great friends who I feel truly comfortable with, and so I have to rely a lot on them for my "extroversion."

[somacore]

After spending a few years being a solo freelancer and then going back to a j-o-b, my wife has commented that I seem more content, happier.

I chalked it up to the stress relief that consistent paychecks can provide, but perhaps I am anxiety-disordered.

Others have mentioned similar traits: being a leader or mentor, doing thing on your own, tackling new projects...y'all have turned on a lightbulb for sure.

agreed - it is hard.

[LockAndLol]

> Humans don't have emotional object permanence.

I think you should correct that to "the humans I hang around with / have met". There is a large online community that you may not be a part of and they are quite emotional about each other. Just go on twitch and have a look at how bent up or bent over people get about each other.

Your comment is made from a place of personal experience that isn't equal to that of others, and you generalize it to seem as if it were equal.

[oblio]

Those people are a minority.

[e40]

I think that's true in the pre-Zoom world. About a year ago I started using Zoom for my remote team. It dramatically improved the effect you described, for all of us.

I run a small company and for the non-technical folks we have lunches twice a week via Zoom. It has worked wonders.

Other than the medical and economic catastrophe that is this pandemic, it has been absolutely wonderful for my company. Hopefully we'll exist as a company in a year from now.

[gerdesj]

I wish you all the best mate. I too run a small company. The details don't really matter, we probably have a lot in common and a lot disparate.

Take care. Some random bloke off of the UK worries about you and your firm, for a while 8)

[e40]

Thanks. I've become closer to my dentist since the pandemic. We've talked about business issues, even though software and dentistry are very different, there are definitely common issues.

The things we share are definitely many and another good thing is getting people to talk that wouldn't normally do that.

So, take care yourself, and thanks for the kind words.

[FpUser]

I have friends and we see each other. As for work related socializing: I work from home for last 20 year running my own business making my own products and doing the same for other companies. Sometimes I go to business meetings (not since COVID) but not at any point do I feel that I am missing something. It is totally opposite. I am happy like a clam. I have some people working for me but all remote as well.

[dorkwood]

This can be a good thing, too. If you're prone to anxiety, you might find that people you once had a tense relationship with are now much easier to get along with. Since their presence is not persistent, their ability to cause you anxiety is greatly diminished.

[ikeyany]

But they lose their power over you.

[nogabebop23]

Everyone countering your argument is basically saying "no, this isn't true; my remote relationships are great". No one is really arguing what your saying about co-located, in-person working better for emotional connection and tribal culture building.

[learc83]

That's because people are countering this argument,

>if you're not physically present near them, they will forget that you really exist as a human and a social peer. It's unfortunate but it's true

and the assertion that if you are different you must be autistic.

The much less inflammatory argument that all else being equal, you are more likely to bond with someone with whom you share physical proximity is probably not worth arguing against.

[duiker101]

this is a complete lie.

if this were true, I wouldn't have formed long lasting friendships with people I played videogames online. Long distance relationships would suck a lot more and everyone in the office would be happy.

we just need to accept that different people like different things for whatever reason.

I have never been close to any co-workers. I am friendly, I meet outside work et all, but they are co-workers first.

I love remote work. But I realise that in reality, full time remote would work only for like maybe 20% of the population.

[patpatpat]

We predominantly pair and mob in our team, if anything I feel closer during WFH as we actually mob more as we no longer have to find suitable mobbing or pairing spaces.

[jefflombardjr]

> Humans don't have emotional object permanence.

Given that, I don't want to be in the room with my coworkers. There's more to life than work.

[focus2020]

More importantly remote work tremendously helps overcome bias against age. Everything else trumps in comparison of not having a job due to age bias.

[Havoc]

>if you're not physically present near them, they will forget that you really exist as a human and a social peer.

Great insight. Depressing AF but good anyway

[Polylactic_acid]

I can relate to this pretty well. I spend a lot of time on IM group chats and people naturally come and go. I often don't even notice when someone leaves and when they come back a year later I remember the profile pic and remember that we were talking in the same group for years but I don't remember a single thing about them or anything we said. I usually only remember someone if they were particularly stand out or we spent extensive time in private messages.

[novok]

Introversion doesn't mean you'll be mentally fine as a human being in solitary confinement for 1 month and a pile of TV shows & books.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

So this interesting. Is it also true for low performers? As in, do you think your reputation resets after certain amount of time being remote?

[foobiekr]

I am not an extrovert and I found this post to put into words the way I've been thinking about the impact of remote work.

[neilwilson]

That's one of the reason why for remote to work properly everybody has to be remote.

Then it has a chance of working.

[WWLink]

"I think this is pretty much a human universal; the only exceptions I know are quite far on the autism spectrum."

So, you're a psychiatrist? How fascinating! I don't know any programmers who hold a psychiatry degree.

[troughway]

>It's unfortunate but it's true: you are going to naturally think more about and have better feelings about the coworkers you see every day in person.

The people who are overjoyed at the prospect of WFH, thinking they are in the right, are a loud minority. Most people, being well-adjusted social creatures, would feel very alienated if they are not in close physical proximity with the people they work with and depend on for their livelihood.

There has been a massive uptick of WFH articles and how it will be the new norm in the future. I think Dang called it a "cliche". The tabloids are writing cheques basic human needs cannot cash.

This might be flippant to say but I wouldn't be surprised if people who espouse remote work/WFH have a very real lack of leadership skills, because you're cutting your own ability to influence those around and underneath you when you cannot look them in the eyes properly.

This won't sit well with HNers, and I get it, since one of the catch phrases around here is that "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Sometimes, its not others who have a hard time understanding - its us.

The remote work group is very niche. People cannot wait to get the hell out of their houses, get back to what they want to do, and work with their colleagues.

>the only exceptions I know are quite far on the autism spectrum.

Too right mate.

[learc83]

Perhaps we need to rethink work life balance if we need work to fulfill our social needs.

During the lockdown, I couldn't wait to get the hell out of my house, but it was because I wanted go hiking, out to eat, to a ballgame, or just to visit friends and family.

[troughway]

I agree, but eating, sleeping, working, these kinds of things don't happen every other sunday. It's every single day. Any "work life balance" you bring to this, assuming you're in the 40+ hour/week rat race, will have to revolve around those three things, and not the other way around.

The mistake people make is thinking they can make their work life revolve around their life life. As George Carlin quipped "The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it."

So you're there, working remotely by yourself, 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. It takes a special kind of left-field to equate this to being in an environment where you're surrounded by people of "your tribe", as the OP put it.

[learc83]

>8 hours a day, 5 days a week

That's the thing, I'm not. Almost no one who is doing knowledge work is getting 8 hours a day of work done. Instead of driving to the office to get 4-5 hours of work in and goof off the rest of the time with a forced group of people, I get 4-5 hours of work done at home and goof off with whomever I choose.

I work a few hours in the morning. Leave in the middle of the day to walk the dog to the park, have a long lunch with my fiancee, or run errands. Come home do a few more hours of work. Or I work early and take the afternoon off to go hiking etc...

>by people of "your tribe", as the OP put it.

I don't won't my workmates to be the people of my tribe. I work to live, I don't live to work. Our economic system isn't set up to allow everyone to do this, but most of us on HN could if we wanted to.

I've done this for about 5 years now btw. I don't make quite as much as I could if I worked for a FAANG, but I live in a low cost of living area in a medium sized city near plenty of mountains. I highly recommend it over the rat race.

[troughway]

I agree with you again, and yet your statements are bringing up even more uncomfortable questions.

Ever since the "lockdown" started, a lot of people have found they have ample time, and so the thing that has been done en masse is to double down on work. This is mentally and physically (sitting on your ass the whole day) draining, and will lead to a huge burn out in a relatively short amount of time.

Your work schedule is atypical, and in most work environments would lead to eyebrows being raised from management down to your peers.

There is an unwritten rule that you are allowed to work some N number of hours every day that is less than the number of hours you're paid for. But you are there, within the ear shot of most people who depend on you, and if you step out for something they know you will be back relatively quickly in case the world around them starts to burn down.

With this kind of a "I set my own schedule" approach, people would have a hard time trusting you and depending on you. And if you think it's a good career move to let them know that hey I'll be taking a long lunch (every day), well, I've already addressed that.

As MattGaiser put it, it's as if he's a microservice outputting work. That's pretty much what remote contractors are. Nobody _really_ gives a shit about them. It's a hard truth to take in.

I get that there's a huge swath of people who mindlessly browse facebook or twitter or reddit or their favorite ethnic news site at the office, completely not caring about the work because they're mentally drained and it's not 5 o'clock yet, but they are there all the same.

>I've done this for about 5 years now btw. I don't make quite as much as I could if I worked for a FAANG, but I live in a low cost of living area in a medium sized city near plenty of mountains. I highly recommend it over the rat race.

Same, although don't think that it's somehow normal or that because everyone is forcibly remote-working, that it will become the new normal.

[learc83]

>Your work schedule is atypical, and in most work environments would lead to eyebrows being raised from management down to your peers.

At every company I've worked for no one has ever cared. At all. I'm around to answer questions and attend meetings.

>in case the world around them starts to burn down.

I could be back home in 30 minutes if things really got that bad. But since I'm the principal engineer, it's really my job to make sure things don't ever get that bad, and it's pretty rare that they do. I also make sure that I'm not irreplaceable, so that if things go wrong I'm not the only one who can fix them.

>With this kind of a "I set my own schedule" approach, people would have a hard time trusting you and depending on you

Why? I can answer questions from my phone. What's the practical difference between our CEO regularly being out of communication because he's in a meeting that can't be interrupted and me being a 20 minute drive from my computer?

>And if you think it's a good career move to let them know that hey I'll be taking a long lunch (every day), well, I've already addressed that.

Again I'm not optimizing my life for work. It may not be the absolute optimum career strategy but after 5 years it feels like the optimum life strategy. I make plenty of money--several multiples of the median income. Could I be making another $50k a year if I worked 2x as much in an office? Probably, but that's not my goal.

>As MattGaiser put it, it's as if he's a microservice outputting work. That's pretty much what remote contractors are. Nobody _really_ gives a shit about them. It's a hard truth to take in.

I'm not a remote contractor, I manage the technology for the entire company, mentor developers, develop and design projects on my own, meet with leadership about product direction etc... If MattGaiser were working at my company, he'd be talking to me regularly. It sounds like he just has a shitty boss.

But since you bring up remote contracting, I did that for a while and I had even more freedom. I never worked for fewer than 3 companies at a time, so I never had one boss that was absolutely critical that I keep happy. It was great.

[watwut]

> Most people, being well-adjusted social creatures, would feel very alienated if they are not in close physical proximity with the people they work with and depend on for their livelihood.

I would expect well adjusted people to have family and friends out of work and alto to work well with people who are not in close social proximity. The customers or other team are often in another country or at least city. I would not expect well adjusted people to be "very alienated" in work setup that is not exactly just right amount of social for themselves, I would expect them to be adjustable to both work at distance and in person.

Moreover, if someones ability to convince people stands on him being flippant and implying that those who disagree are inferior, it is really preferable to deal with them on distance.

Well adjusted people dont rely on implied insults to make the point.

--------------------------

Well adjusted people also have responsibilities and duties out of work or hobbies. They need to help to aging parents or their children or tend to garden. Well adjusted people around me like the saved time from traveling to work and back, like more time with the family or fixed stuff in houses they had no time to fix before.

Preference for work from home does not mean asocial, it may just mean opposite - the work is not that persons sole social/emotional outlet.

[matwood]

Wow, where to start. To summarize you said I'm poorly socially adjusted and a bad leader. Solid conversation starter ;)

I agree that humans are social, but I'm not sure why you think we all need to get our primary social interactions at work. Even then, there is work social interaction literally all day long on Slack and other tools.

I think it is healthier for people to have their primary social interactions not tied to work. If a persons primary social ties are all work related it makes it harder if they are laid off or move to a better opportunity. I also find that looser work social interactions make it much easier to keep things completely professional. I shouldn't have to like to Joe in order to work with Joe and accomplish our goal.

I can't wait to get out of my house either, but it's certainly not to head back to an office after many years of being remote. I miss seeing friends, going to dinner with my wife, and rolling in Jiu-Jitsu.

As far as leadership goes, I don't subscribe to the dominate method of leading. If I have to stare someone down to get them to do something we have already gone off the rails somewhere along the way.

[havelhovel]

> Most people, being well-adjusted social creatures, would feel very alienated if they are not in close physical proximity with the people they work with

Most people, being well-adjusted creatures, do not rely on their workplace for their social needs, nor burden their coworkers with that expectation.

See, it's easy to say whatever you want when it's based on nothing.

[silveroriole]

As one of those who don’t have the leadership skills, as you put it: we couldn’t wait to get as far away as possible from those of you who feel some need to be influencing, leading, and unnecessarily bothering us because you want to “look us in the eyes”! Remote work is indeed going great for us.