At the heart of the issue is collaboration and, by extension, creativity and innovation.
"Collaboration doesn't require co-location. If it did, no company would ever expand beyond a single office site.”
How well can teammates really work together when they're not in the same building? Don't we need that intense level of interaction to spark new ideas? Surely, teams are more effective when they're sitting side by side... aren't they?
This is what we heard from Yahoo and Best Buy when they banned remote work all the way back in 2013.
It's absolutely true bringing people together builds relationships faster and more deeply than distributing team members across locations. It's also right for companies to consider the specific work being done and adopt the best approach to doing it.
There's just one problem: the underlying rationale. Disallowing full-time remote work in the name of collaboration or innovation is fundamentally flawed (if well-intentioned).
People vs proximity
There are perfectly good reasons to keep everyone co-located. But collaboration isn't one of them.
That's because collaboration doesn't require co-location. If it did, no company would ever expand beyond a single office site. But expand we do. And the level of interaction between offices is only increasing. Nor does collaboration require a bunch of fancy tooling (though a bit of the right tech does keep the machine well-oiled).
Given the right environment, remote workers enhance your business rather than tax it. If they're off on their own little islands or generally ineffective, that's a people problem - not a proximity problem. The problem will follow them right back to the corporate office.
Using outputs of effort to measure productivity saps the life right out of your workforce. And telling them how their work should be done throttles their capacity for creative problem-solving.
So here's a radical idea: focusing on open communication, autonomy and building trust makes people more effective - no matter where their desk is.
Instead of fixating on location, companies are better off obsessing over engagement and empowerment. Investing in culture pays off when your entire company sits in one building, when you're collaborating across multiple offices and when some of your staff work from home.
Why, then how
For a distributed team to function, you need to understand why you're distributed in the first place. (Follow-the-sun customer support? Real estate constraints?) The context is important because it informs how your distributed team will work together.
Then sniff out practices that were adopted with co-location in mind, and work with your teams to evolve them.
I'm part of a team comprising people from two office sites, plus one person working remotely. So we're very intentional about sharing updates and ideas online, either through shared docs on our wiki or our messaging app.
For meetings, we use video conferencing. We've even managed some pretty productive brainstorming sessions thanks to group video and a Trello board.
Google, among others, talk about the importance of psychological safety and belonging as part of a healthy team. In other words, relationships are a sound investment.
Building a relationship from scratch with people you never see in person can be done although it takes a long time. And along the way, you can expect a few setbacks due to misunderstandings.
It's best to create relationships in person, then maintain them remotely. That's why companies fly people out for interviews and if they're hired on as a remote worker, bring them back for a week or two of face time at the start.
And if you can get the entire team in one place once or twice a year to "break bread" together it’s even better.
Getting to know each other's quirks, working styles, communication patterns and personalities is a powerful adhesive force for teams. It gives us permission to be our full, authentic selves at work - to suggest a new idea, or speak up when things have gone off-track.