Whenever I see this sort of comment I feel bad for the remote workers because it's always an indicator that the company doesn't properly involve or support their remote workforce. If the in-person members are vastly more productive, it's because the team has processes and culture that makes it harder for the remote employees to be productive.
Bingo, but it’s much more that hybrid is REALLY hard to get right. The remote employees are always at a disadvantage.. dealing with this now at my new job, I’m not remote, but my local office is not where most of my specific teammates are.
“Top talent” getting diluted by remote-ness may be not worth it. Hiring local to work in-person may be better if the less talented team can really communicate and get shit done.
Yeah I agree. Hybrid is the hardest version of remote work to do right and unfortunately the one more frequently chosen by orgs that don't want to properly invest in remote but don't want to demand in person, so it's a double whammy.
I do think it's a false dichotomy though to compare "top talent diluted by remote-ness" with "less talented in-person team that can communicate well". I agree with that direct comparison, but it's not the only option. Remote can be done well. With proper investment in remote, a team can have "top talent that can communicate well" instead of picking one of two bad options.
