Charlie Wood on remoteness
Last Updated on Monday, 9 March 2009 08:10 Written by Steve Monday, 9 March 2009 08:09
Charlie Wood tells of what must have been a very frustrating experience: making the final cut for two awesome high-tech jobs only to learn that the requirements had changed and to get the job he’d have to move to the Bay Area. He turned down both jobs and runs his software business out of Austin with a 100% remote team.
In a post today, he muses on remote teams vs. local teams, and has a really interesting passage about hybrid teams–some local staff and some remote staff:
Finally, I had a great conversation with Clay Spinuzzi, an associate professor at UT who’s writing a book on modern working arrangements. In that conversation, we talked about the awkward dynamic of a team comprised mostly of people working in the same physical space but with one or two members working remotely. We agreed that such an arrangement is problematic, and that the remote workers would no doubt become marginalized. But then it struck me: maybe the fact that a team can’t support remote members effectively is an indication of a problem with the design of the team.
In the same way that on-premise systems that use proprietary protocols and can’t connect to cloud-based systems are problematic for IT managers, a team that relies on “proprietary” communications among its members—that is, informal, social interactions that can’t be replicated online—limits its own potential.
The good news here is that new technologies like Twitter make it possible to translate much of the casual, interpersonal communication that has traditionally happened in an office to online, asynchronous, geographically-distributed teams. In other words, Twitter is the new water cooler—which comes as no surprise to anyone who uses it.
When two machines sit next to each other in a server room it doesn’t really matter what networking technology they use to communicate: AppleTalk, NetBIOS, and Banyan VINES will all get the job done. But TCP/IP will too, and with the added benefit that if you move one of the machines across the world it will “just work”. I suggest that the same is true for intra-team communications.
Teams built to rely on electronic, and more specifically Internet-based, communication channels can include remote members transparently, and can therefore be comprised of not only the best people in town but the best people period.
My team is mostly local, but with one remote person. The same is true of a couple other teams at ONE/Northwest. We hear constantly that the remote team members don’t feel connected to the group. Charlie’s identification of the problem rings very true.
The concept of ditching non-Internet communication in support of the team-dynamic is a very interesting one. It maps very well to the local protocol vs. IP decision–I think that’s an astute and thought provoking comparison. I remember how much I came to loathe NETBIOS when I was in IT. It was great for local communication, but when we added multiple offices connected by the Internet it was clear NETBIOS didn’t scale.
Is it worth ditching voice conversations because they aren’t accessible to remote team members? I’m not sold yet that it’s worth it. Remote teams can do amazing things, that is true. But aren’t local teams better? Communication just seems easier and has so much more density in person. The Internet has made impossible things possible, but I don’t think in my situation it’s worth the trade-off yet.
Thanks, Charlie, for such a great frame in which to think about the problem!
I have been thinking about this for awhile… i chose to go to boulder for the start-up of my position in order to build the kind of trust needed to begin a partnership. now that that is done and online systems are mostly in place i feel comfortable leaving and being part of a virtual team. i think it helps to look at the nature of the relationship and determine what kind of trust and engagement is required and assess where your people are at. There are ways one can bring teams together to build what’s necessary and then send them out to work remotely and rinse and repeat over time as necessary. a key is a collective goals and a shared understanding of the work at hand.
This is an interesting argument, but also a great illustration of the dangers in reasoning by analogy. NetBIOS and IP were indistinguishable to local users — face to face interaction is qualitatively different in so many ways.
What I’ve seen in so many situations (not least of which is my work with the globally-distributed Plone team) is that remote collaboration is only truly effective AFTER you’ve built strong in-person relationships. In other words, “What Jodie said.”
Yes to both of you.
And I think it’s interesting to think about team communication tools to make sure people aren’t left out. I hadn’t taken things to the conclusion that Charlie did. The question for me is this: is it worth losing some of the efficiency of communication in order to ensure all team members get the same experience? Not sure it is in my situation, but I could imagine scenarios where it makes total sense.
to get really granular… i would imagine that the use of *insert name of internal twitter like tool you are using* is an improved experience for remote staff than today messages. gives externals a sense of the pulse and work flow in real time and provides a place for dialog. just my guess.
Vewwwy interesting. We also have a blended model – some staff that works remotely, some staff (our network team) who are with customers at least 4.5 days out of 5, and sub-contractors who are remote.
I DO think that you need to establish a great relationship to make that remote work effective -but I also think that you can do it in lots of different ways, depending on the “who”. Phone calls, visits, Skype or other IM – there are a LOT of ways to foster a relationship. Being in the same spot has some obvious advantages, and I’d opt for a “both/and” option if presented with a choice. But if not – I still think it can work!