Yes but that's none of my business, I'm not here to be your social circle at work, I have other things to do
I will value positions that fit my needs, and you are free to do the same.
When hiring, I will select employees that meet the onsite requirements and fit the culture.
But the notion that people cant convey ideas while remote shows you either havent worked with experienced people or are inexperienced yourself.
I would never personally advocate for full on-site and I am actually a supporter of full remote work. I just don't pretend it's already perfect and that we can function by just purely conversing about work like we are JIRA ticket machines.
Also, geographically distributed companies will still tend to have the majority of people in a team or sub-team in one area but nothing is 100%. Different geographies usually have different responsibilities. Companies will also do all kinds of other methods of team building that is mostly social to compensate like flying everyone to a singe location occasionally or remote activities.
I might blow your mind but there is a whole spectrum between being stuck with colleagues in an office 2000 hours a year and being an anonymous working bee
And the implication obviously is that socialization works better in person, but I didn't say it was exclusive to that. The person I responded to did say something about on-site requirements but it was vague.
In my my experience it is a trade off. I find most full time remote employees not to be very productive. I would rather pay more to hire local in office.
In some instances it is so bad that I would rather pay more to hire a local novice and train to the role.
The main challenges are onboarding and building an internal networking so that they can get the information they need.
Things you would ask a coworker in 5 minutes take months to figure out.
Some of this is obviously company specific, but 20 new hires in a room learn 20x as fast as one alone.
But there is nuance to everything and varying levels of complexity, however people maintain kernels such as linux or operating systems such as freebsd or other massively complex and successful open or commercial products without ever meeting face to face.
Many years ago when i heard people talking about remote i simply couldnt get my head around it. I wanted buts in the seats and people in front of whiteboards. I just couldnt comprehend how entire companies operate without even having an office and they weren’t mom and pop size. Until it clicked. If a company can have offices spread across continents, let alone remote customers, then it surely can hire remote employees.
I would take everything you listed above as signs that things need to improve. Remote is not the issue here.
Also if you dump me in a room with 20 people just to get your code up an running i might think i am at a highschool not a proper workplace. Similarly if i need to jump through hoops to get things done then thats not a desirable place to work at regardless of pay or remote work.
I work in biotech and of my projects has probably 200 engineers and scientists working on interdependent tasks, and 10 years of accumulated knowledge. Requirement and knowledge management can only go so far, so networking becomes critical to find subject matter experts, or someone can point you to one when you need answers.
I think there is some threshold of work scale or interdependence where remote work breaks down. That is to say, any productivity benefits from remote work scale linearly and communication challenges scale exponentially. This of course assumes that there is some communication friction for remote relative to in person.
Anyone who claims that everything can be work from home or everything must be in office is missing the big picture.