Hacker News Reader

Comment by balloot | Hacker News Reader

I disagree with a fundamental assertion you make here. I think a software engineer has a very low ceiling when working remotely. Engineers that I consider "good" or better not only must be on site most of the time, but they WANT to be on site most of the time. It's the only way to maximally impact whatever it is you're working on, and any good engineer wants that.

Also, many of the things you are talking about are red flags that would cause me not to hire an engineer (FWIW I'm a lead engineer). If I'm paying you a good salary to be on my team, I don't want to structure our work arrangement around letting you work on various side projects. We pay well, we expect a lot, and you should deliver as such. And I have consistently found the only way to make that happen is to enforce physically spending the majority of your time with the rest of the team.

View on HN

why would I want to be on site most of the time if it is not necessary? So I can be more involved in company politics ? If I deliver all you wanted what is a problem where I was when things were done ?

Your last sentence actually might indicate that your team is maybe not so high quality like you think ? High quality developers are sufficiently self motivated that they don't really need to be forced to produce results.

concise: remote/untethered people can deliver great work and as long as you're happy with it thats what matters. also, alot of people find they are happier not being tethered to a Dilbert-like existance. some of those folks are highly and broadly talented who have lots and lots of paying alternative opportunities, so you as an employer will be competing against them whether you like it or not.

> Engineers that I consider "good" or better not only must be on site most of the time, but they WANT to be on site most of the time. It's the only way to maximally impact whatever it is you're working on, and any good engineer wants that.

I know a lot of excellent programmers and have never heard anything expressed other than the precise opposite of this sentiment. None of them want to be on site if it can be helped, and they pretty much universally believe that physically transporting one's self to a real office on a daily basis is an outmoded practice.

I don't doubt that there are good people out there who like coming in to work in an office, but in my experience there are a lot who do not.

You say that you've been unable to get consistent high output without forcing people to be on site. I've seen lots of people produce consistently over a period of years without ever once setting foot in any office (frequently when there is no office to set foot in at all). Perhaps the problem there is not with remote work in general....

You seem to know a totally different set of engineers than I do. I work in Silicon Valley, and the vast majority of jobs here require on site presence. This is the case for a very specific reason - the most productive engineers work best when they can quickly and easily share ideas with others. You would be wasting a significant amount of their ability by not having them around in person.

The proof is in the pudding - every highly successful, well admired web company you can think of employs the vast majority of its engineers onsite, and those that are offsite are not core contributors. To claim that working in an office is "outmoded" is ludicrous when there has yet to be a successful case that succeeded with a team that is mostly remote. And no, 37signals and its dozen employees don't count as a successful case of remote teams. I'm talking about a venture funded company with dozens/hundreds of engineers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com