- livingthedash.tv

I work for a global corporation with a very distributed workforce.  In an average week, I interact with other employees across the globe:  California, Washington, Idaho, Chicago, New England, India, Singapore, United Kingdom, Australia, Mexico, and various parts of Europe.

It works most of the time.

• Our company can hire the best and the brightest…regardless of location.
• Technology has shrunk the planet.  Email, IM, screen sharing, online shared workspaces, and video conferencing make it relatively easy for people to communicate and collaborate across great distances.
• Diversity of backgrounds and diversity of cultures brings value to the team.
• Our company can save money by utilizing less office space as employees work from home.

Sometimes it doesn’t work.

• No whiteboards.  We lose the power of the whiteboard.
• Less conversation.  Stuff like hearing the story of your son’s little league home run and talking about last night’s episode of The Office and just chatting over lunch do make a difference when it comes to teamwork.
• There is something about having the team together in one room for a brainstorming or problem-solving session.  We can use technology to try and replicate that with a distributed workforce, but it is not quite the same.
• Timezones.  Early morning, lunch time, and late night meetings are just part of the deal when you have to accommodate numerous timezones.

I’m torn on this issue.  I’m a lover of technology and I’m confident that it is going to get even better at eliminating the barriers that geographical distance brings.  But I also miss the days of gathering with teammates face-to-face in front of a whiteboard to tackle a big issue.

Which model do you prefer?  Going global or face-to-face?

No related posts.