Remote work has hit a snag, and platforms like Slack and Zoom may be contributing to the issue.

The aspiration for a fully remote tech industry has dimmed significantly. The pandemic, which once seemed to provide a unique opportunity for this shift, is now a distant memory. Companies are increasingly mandating a return to the office, echoing a sentiment that’s spreading rapidly through the industry.

Notable companies already pushing for return-to-office (RTO) policies include: - Meta - Microsoft - Amazon - Morgan Stanley - Bank of America - Goldman Sachs - JPMorgan Chase - Wells Fargo - John Deere - ... and many others.

The trend is expanding, and “fully remote” may soon revert to being a rare benefit offered by some startups to attract talent, rather than the norm that many envisioned for the post-pandemic future.

What led to this regression?

Various CEOs share similar views on why RTO is advantageous: - It fosters stronger, more meaningful relationships among colleagues. - It enhances mentor-mentee dynamics for those early in their careers. - It encourages spontaneous “hallway conversations” that connect individuals outside their immediate teams. - It improves collaboration, both in immediate brainstorming sessions and through increased time spent working alongside teammates.

But are these assertions accurate?

You might expect me to disagree, yet I actually see merit in each point. The current state of remote work often leaves individuals feeling isolated, disconnected from peers, and lonely.

Statistics illustrate this: “By the numbers: The percentage of U.S. employees who feel they know their coworkers personally has decreased from around 80% in 2019 to about 67% today, according to the WSJ.”

Additionally, a Gallup poll from January 2020 indicated that 47% of American workers felt someone at their workplace cared about them, a figure that has now dropped to 38%.

However, I argue that we haven't conducted a fair evaluation of remote work's potential. We still haven't tapped into the true collaborative capabilities of remote environments, and I believe the tools we use are partly to blame.

Allow me to elaborate:

As a Product Designer who has worked fully remote for several tech firms, I found the remote experience at each to be acceptable. I might have considered it as good as remote could get—if I had no basis for comparison.

But I do have that comparison, and it leaves me frustrated. The potential for virtual collaboration could be vastly improved with just a few modifications to the communication tools we utilize.

Interestingly, there exists a group that has mastered collaborative virtual communication and community building: Gamers.

Consider this: Doesn’t the communication in gaming clips appear more coordinated than that of your latest meeting?

Gamers have been engaging in virtual communication for decades, even before the advent of in-game voice chat, using platforms like Ventrillo, TeamSpeak, and Mumble. Today, Discord stands out as the leading platform in this realm, offering a Slack-like experience independent of any specific game.

While Slack began a year prior to Discord, both have evolved alongside one another, often drawing inspiration from each other in feature development.

Both platforms facilitate persistent text chat channels; however, Discord has enhanced this by incorporating audio chat channels primarily aimed at in-game communication. Users can easily move in and out of these channels, allowing for seamless interaction.

Even while engaged in gameplay, users can view an overlay displaying profile bubbles that indicate who is speaking in real-time:

Initially designed for gaming communities, Discord has evolved into a versatile community tool where individuals can gather to chat, share ideas, coordinate events, and much more.

Various Discord communities focus on local meetups, professional subjects like UX and Web Design, or interests surrounding YouTubers and streamers, with some boasting hundreds of thousands of members.

During the pandemic, Gen Z utilized Discord as a social hub to such an extent that nostalgia has already begun to arise around those experiences.

Discord exemplifies what virtual co-location should ideally be. It excels in almost every area CEOs cite as reasons why remote work falls short compared to in-person interactions. People forge deep connections, share knowledge, and collaboratively tackle complex tasks.

There are numerous lessons to glean from Discord and the communication styles of gamers that remote tool developers should consider. Here are two key points:

1. Audio-Only Communication Trumps Video-Based Interaction

   Remote work tools tend to favor video communication, with Zoom being the primary culprit—just look at its logo.

   When joining a Zoom meeting without a camera, you're immediately spotlighted as the only participant without video, creating an uncomfortable dynamic. Until someone shares their screen, attention is drawn to the video tiles, placing pressure on attendees to activate their cameras.

   Video calls often heighten awareness of personal appearance and surroundings, creating pressure to look presentable. This can detract from one’s ability to engage with others, as many individuals admit to fixating on their self-view, which impedes their focus on participants.

   Research supports these concerns: more on-camera time leads to increased mental fatigue, disproportionately affecting women and those with self-image issues.

   Transitioning to audio-only formats can alleviate mental strain and foster more comfortable discussions. This approach also allows participants to concentrate on actual work—documents, presentations, or coding—rather than the visual aspect of video calls.

2. Persistent Channels are Superior to Discrete Conversations

   If Zoom were to switch to audio-only meetings tomorrow, would that address the issues I’ve outlined?

   Not at all!

   The video versus audio debate is a minor aspect of a larger issue: redefining collaboration beyond the outdated notion of “the meeting.” Virtual meetings are time-bound events with specific agendas.

   What we truly need are spaces for virtual co-location, characterized by persistent channels rather than discrete ones.

   Slack should inherently understand this. Their success stemmed from introducing persistent text channels that revolutionized business communication. Before Slack, most messaging tools treated text communication like meetings or emails: initiating a conversation would end when the topic was exhausted.

   Slack channels, in contrast, exist independently of user status or participation, maintaining context for extended periods, unlike fleeting discussions.

When Slack introduced the “Huddles” feature for audio chats, I was initially thrilled.

Huddles promised Slack-channel linked audio chats, complete with features for screen sharing and annotations. They even start as audio-only, avoiding the large video tile that typically takes center stage.

However, despite the evident effort and creativity behind this feature, it ultimately falls short of its potential.

What Slack achieved with Huddles wasn’t exactly a failure, but rather a missed opportunity. They unearthed valuable features but failed to delve deeper into the true potential available to them.

The problem is that Slack Huddles are not genuine “channels.” They are temporary events initiated within an existing channel. In essence, they resemble meetings.

While they may be smaller, they still function as meetings. A huddle only exists when created, creating a barrier that hampers their ability to foster a sense of co-location.

While Slack may have drawn inspiration from Discord, they may not fully grasp what makes Discord’s audio channels so effective. Their inclination to innovate rather than replicate may have hindered their ability to create the same sense of community.

In a co-location context, users don’t necessarily seek to start a conversation immediately. Instead, they desire a space where they can casually connect. They want to join a room where they can simply exist—interacting when they choose—without the pressure of a scheduled agenda.

However, the Huddle feature fails to capture this concept.

When a Huddle begins, a sound alerts everyone, drawing attention and setting the expectation for immediate interaction. This approach contradicts the desire for a space where one can engage at their own pace.

Consider this analogy: upon arriving at the office, do you take a seat at your desk, signaling openness to conversation, or do you immediately call everyone to a meeting? The former is the preferred choice for casual interactions, while the latter is reserved for specific discussions.

The distinction between meetings and co-location is subtle yet crucial.

My ideal requirements for audio chat channels: - Huddles (or any alternative audio channel) should maintain persistent visual locations, existing even when unoccupied. - Visual indicators should denote when individuals are in a huddle, but audible alerts should be avoided for those outside the huddle, ensuring a seamless experience. - Ideally, Discord-style chat bubbles should appear over other desktop apps, allowing users to engage without having to focus solely on Slack.

These enhancements could significantly improve the user experience, yet we remain constrained by the outdated meeting metaphor. It is particularly unfortunate, given that Slack initially distinguished itself by moving away from these conventional models.

Who will rescue us?

I hope someone will soon, but I remain skeptical. Slack is well-positioned, yet their recent updates to Huddles suggest a continued commitment to a meeting-based approach. While the feature is “good,” it seems unlikely they will reassess their foundational principles to achieve greatness.

Zoom or Google could also pivot toward persistent audio channels instead of video, enhancing Slack’s offerings. I’ve encountered startup founders who nearly launched “Discord for business” ventures, yet none have taken the plunge, likely fearing Slack would react swiftly to eliminate competition.

Perhaps Discord will eventually venture into business applications beyond their gaming roots. Or a new player may emerge to redefine the market. Gather is the only company I’ve encountered discussing co-location meaningfully, but their overly playful approach may hinder their competitiveness.

Regardless, I yearn for someone to crack this code. It’s astonishing that no one has done so, even after the tech industry underwent a year-long remote work transition. There was ample motivation and opportunity, yet it wasn’t enough.

For now, we remain limited by existing tools. Vast potential for productivity and a more engaging remote experience lies just out of reach.

This situation serves as a reminder: great solutions don’t arise simply due to demand. They require dedicated effort, clear thinking, and a commitment to exceed “good enough.” The difference between good and great is significant, and it matters.