|
Top-level
@carnage4life I liked the interview on decoder and he seems very thoughtful. I did think he glossed over the drawbacks of going fully remote though. I don’t question that they made the right trade off, it seems like they did. It’s just that meeting physically frequently has benefits. These might be outweighed by other factors, but for our SaaS company of 50 people based in Sweden, we found in general that being in the office 2-3 days per week is a good trade off. 2 comments
@gdupont @carnage4life it might very well not, not questioning that. Just that it’s a trade off. I specifically think that you are making culture, onboarding and being junior harder. However you make lots of things easier such as recruiting and of course skipping on commute. I wouldn’t want to work at a company that is fully remote even though I have three kids and lots of logistics, I’d miss the social aspect of the office too much (I know this since we were fully remote for two years…) |
Gregory's Server
@doculmus @carnage4life meeting in person has some benefits. Then one can discuss the frequency and the value of the benefits depending on people and team organisation.
Currently in a company of 70+ people fully remote (incently also a saas originally nased i Sweden). This has been running like a charm for years with one or two in person meeting a year.
It will be very difficult to convince me that going 2/3 days a week in an office would make us more productive...