Why is the future behind remote work (part 2)

A little less than a year ago, I wrote the first part of this article, promising that the second will be devoted to the consideration of the most frequent objections. Of course, if someone was waiting for the continuation, he probably managed to firmly forget during this time. Consoling myself with the thought that it is better to be late anyway than never, I am going to finally fix the situation. So.

Objection number 1: not any kind of activity can be performed remotely

I start with this objection, because it is the most reasonable. Indeed, the specificity of many activities is such that it does not allow (at least at the current level of technology development) to act remotely. However, if we are talking about the IT industry (and we are still on the IT resource, so we are talking about it first of all), here the percentage of work that could technically be performed remotely is very large. For example, this is all entirely web, mobile and application desktop development.

Objection number 2: not everyone can work remotely

This statement is partly true, but here we must distinguish between two different levels of the problem. The first is that, due to the individual characteristics of the character, some people work in a team more comfortable , while others enjoy working alone. Conventionally, we will call these groups of people “extroverts” and “introverts”, although the line of demarcation does not follow exactly this feature. It’s difficult to argue with such a question, but let's not forget that until recently “introverts” had to work in a team, and in general they somehow got along with this need. That is, it is about convenience, but no more.
')
However, if you are working remotely, it does not necessarily mean that you have to work at home. If the work in a team is comfortable for you personally, coworking centers are at your service, which, I am convinced, will increase with time. I foresee the question: what is the point of working remotely from coworking? Well, for example, coworking center is closer to your home than a company office. Or do you work for a customer from another country / city that offers more favorable terms than what you can find locally.

The second level of the problem lies in the fact that remote work requires a specific discipline from a person, and here we smoothly approach the next point.

Objection number 3: remote work reduces efficiency

At this point I want to dwell in detail and consider it one of the key for understanding the prospects for remote work.

Here is what it is. Remote work requires specific skills and ability to plan time, but do you really know how to work in an office from 9 to 7 from birth? This is a skill that was gradually instilled in you by the institutes of education and socialization (kindergarten -> school -> university), which were formed in a modern form in the industrial era and specifically aimed at forming an employee of a factory / office / office type. And even despite this, your first office job probably required from you a period of adaptation and restructuring.

With remote work, everything is exactly the same way. Everyone faces difficulties at the very beginning, simply because his entire previous experience contrasts strongly with this type of work. But after working a year or two, you can perfectly adapt to such a regime. Unfortunately, now everyone has to do it individually, but such is the fate of all the pioneers. However, if the system of mass education instilled the skills of remote teamwork (and I am sure that sooner or later this will happen), there simply would not be a problem.

This applies both to the effectiveness of direct performance of work, and management efficiency. There are no objective reasons why managing a remote team is more difficult than managing a team working in an office. There is a lack of necessary skills and experience in management, brought up in the office paradigm.

Objection number 4: it is impossible to work without a full experience of communication

From the point of view of the effectiveness (efficiency) of communication, the lack of direct contact does not impose almost any limitations at the current level of development of network technologies. Moreover, in universities, a generation of people is studying right now, for whom communication in social networks, online games and VoIP messengers is as usual (and for someone more) familiar as offline communication. By the way, I am convinced that for them the problem from the previous paragraph will be much less acute from the very beginning.

The only real limitation of network communication is perhaps emotional. Yes, personal contact allows you to achieve a much greater degree of emotional involvement in the workflow, and no technology will most likely not change this (though I will not swear).

However, how often is such involvement really required? Brainstorm? Perhaps, but this is a situation of making key decisions; for the sake of such a case, you can move in a team (or the necessary part of the team) specifically and from different cities. Deadline? Well, it’s better not to bring this up, and it’s not a fact that emotional involvement here will play a plus. An event to strengthen the team spirit (aka corporate)? You can even do this once a year even in different countries (as do 37 Signals, which are now Basecamp), and if the whole team is in one country, it is possible more often; besides, not everyone likes corporate parties.

Objection number 5: for a small team, it can and will do, but definitely not for a large company

In general, this statement is not based on anything (including on practical experience), however, since I hear it periodically, I cannot disregard it. I personally know a large company (several thousand people, 20 years on the market) that started in a fully office format, but now it’s quite loyal to employees who work at home most of the time. Not to mention such examples as IBM, 40% of whose employees are now working remotely .

It is clear that the functioning of a large organization can hardly be based only on remote work (that is, an example can be invented, but it is unlikely to be vital). But here we smoothly approach the latest objection.

Objection number 6: me (as an employee, employer, manager) and so everything suits, why do I need all this?

Perfectly! It is good that there are people in the world who are satisfied with everything in their lives. Or is it not all? Does it not exactly happen in your life days when you do not want to stick your nose out of the house? Or hire for the project a great specialist in your area, living in three time zones from you? Or reduce the cost of an office by 30% in the next crisis?

Remote work is a tool that, like any other, can be used effectively or inefficiently. When I say that the future of the remote work, it only means that it occupies a place in the modern world, strongly inappropriate to its potential, and in the future this place will noticeably change. No one argues that offices are no longer relevant, or you urgently need to transfer all employees to remote mode. But are there any reasons why you cannot let employees work in the office 3 days a week instead of 5 (many will say thank you, seriously)? Or hire the same specialist from another time zone? Or right now start looking for a job that promises three times more income than what you can find in your city?