What are the pros/cons of local vs. remote employees?

Question

This is specifically focused on a startup hiring its first employee, but also applies more generally.

37Signals says remote works well, but other people say only hire locally.

This seems like a related question but is not exactly the same.

Answer 1

the key is finding the right people, not their location.

that said, there are certain advantages to each.

local

• can get together easily
• you should work the same hours

remote

• you may not work the same hours (s/he picks up where you left off, increased support hours)
• keeps expenses down (no office)

Answer 2

I don't think local vs. remote makes much difference. You can slack just as easily at work as you can at home (slacking at work is actually worse, because it tends to infect others). It's even easier to slack at a startup, because no one really knows what not-slacking (aka "work") is yet, anyway.

Focus on hiring good people. Where they are is less important.

Answer 3

Not working the same hours (usually from time zone mismatch) is a double edged sword. Sure, more support hours, but it can be a pain to schedule other stuff like a simple meeting that really need to happen now. On balance I would avoid it if possible based on experience of working with folks in far off places like India and California :-). Remote is fine, just not too remote.

Answer 4

In a lot of cases, agility. You don't have to work together all the time as long as you can meet regularly. Communication is king - especially in the early stages of a startup. It also allows you to build a bond and develop a shared vision.

Having worked at startups in the early stages, I prefer onsite working together as a team. It always seemed like the remote person was harder to communicate with.

The right employee with the right skill sets are vital, though. If you find the perfect person, but they aren't willing to move, don't discount them just because of that. But be prepared for a little more lag in communication and more documentation and work to communicate ideas back and forth.

Answer 5

I think local vs. remote depends mostly on the diligence of the people in question, but to answer you question I tend to believe that nothing can replace the dynamics of people being in physical proximity to one another.

In terms of local workers, you're able to communicate quickly, keep track of what they're up to a bit easier, and if one gets stuck, its a little less frustrating to be able to turn to your side and say "hey, I need some help," rather than have to google it and possibly drive yourself crazy trying to find a solution when it could have been sitting there next to you. However, at times local guys can get caught up in these impromptu meetings to the point where its counterproductive, so there's some balance to be attained there.

As far as remote goes, you never quite know what the person's work ethic is until the assignment has been completed. That being said, some jobs simply don't require a person to be "in the office;" graphic design, code-monkeying, etc etc are all activities that can be performed just about anywhere. I have a hard time believing, though, that there could be much benefit in have a team of purely remote workers when you're developing a new-cutting edge piece of software; I know where I work, when I have a new idea for a project, I'm able to bounce it off one of my cube neighbors quickly and get some valuable feedback within seconds.

Answer 6

I currently have some people working remotely and some on site (all in the same time zone though). I have had mixed results with it but that mainly has come down to the person. I have found if I have remote people that I need to specify goals a bit clearer.

OnSite
+Easier to communicate with people
+Get a "pulse" of projects and problems in the office
+Much easier to pair on problems or else bounce ideas off others
+Easier to keep an eye on your staff

-It is easy for people to interrupt you / pull you off to other problems

Remote
+You can find people in cheaper markets
+Lower cost (no office, computer, etc.)
+Developers are usually happier

-Harder to monitor progress
-Harder to communicate/train people

If you have a project that requires only 1 developer than I would remote it but for more of a team project I would try for local people. Again there are many great remote developers that can do this but there is more risk to it.

Answer 7

In the past I've worked extended periods - one or two years at a time - remotely.

I have found it to be much more productive. So that is a data-point for you.

In a startup, hiring your first employee, you need to find the right person. The person who is smart and gets things done.

Find the right person, pay them cheap on account of it being a startup and promising them shares, and let them work whereever and whenever they are most productive!

If they are the kind of programmer you need to sit over every day, they're not the right kind of programmer for a startup anyway!