Hacker News Reader

Comment by meritt | Hacker News Reader

At my company, we've been struggling to "make it work" with remote workers for the past few years and it's been really problematic. We've had a lot difficulty getting remote employees to maintain consistent work schedules, provide frequent updates (trello), or simply communicating regularly (hipchat). I don't think it's a lack of tools at all: I think it's hiring the wrong people or having the wrong management (My fault either way. I'm mediocre at hiring and definitely not a good manager). I guess I just assume people will approach work with the same autonomy, motivation, and drive that I do myself. Unfortunately that has not been the case.

Either way, we've decided to scrap the idea of remote workers and are opening an office + hiring local next month to see how that goes. We're in Portland though, not SF, so it's not a ridiculously expensive decision like Reddit is making.

View on HN

I'm sorry it didn't work. I wished you had Asked HN, I suspect a lot of us remote workers could have offered valuable input (if you did that, then I'm sorry for missing it).

At the top of the list, I'd say you were measuring the wrong benchmarks. Consistent work schedules shouldn't be a goal with remote workers: attaining specific, measurable objectives should be.

On the other hand, lack of communication is a problem, as long as you weren't wanting updates 3-4 times a day (once a day at most should be entirely sufficient -- wanting more frequent updates points to trust issues). I'm guessing you either hired people with no remote experience, or you hired lazy people (or both!). However, to be fair to your workers, I should also point out that sufficiently poor management and co-workers can frighten off even the best, most motivated remote workers (and I have no way to tell if your claims of not being a good manager are just false modesty).

For anyone reading who's struggling with remote workers, your top hiring consideration -- right alongside their job expertise -- should be demonstrable experience as a successful remote worker. The more the better. Remote work takes a certain kind of person, and even highly talented people who are primarily motivated by external feedback will struggle at remote work.

Measuring the wrong indicators is the primary reason companies don't like remote work. They measure showing up, not results.

Yes. It's the 'attendance grade' nonsense drilled into us since kindergarten. It's funny how in college I could get nearly perfect scores on exams, yet would get penalized some percentage because of attendance. I don't need to be there to get the job done, but some people seem to think that there's cotton to pick in the office.

I should have clarified that the concern with a routine work schedule and availability only came about after people were consistently not meeting objectives, and dropping the ball without letting anyone know, or spending days toiling away at something without providing adequate updates so we might better manage that project and help with hurdles.

I'm definitely a subpar manager, it's a big area of weakness and it's something I'm actively working to improve upon.

You're absolutely right in regards to tools.

Just as knowing photoshop doesn't make you a solid designer using Slack and Google hangouts doesn't make you a solid remote company.

Remote working is 100% people and culture. If you are having a hard time finding responsible, communicative employees remotely I highly suspect you'll have the same issues hiring locally.

Communication is not only important for remote teams.

Completely agree that it's dependent on the people. Some handle it great - some terribly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com