Running HR for a distributed workforce is mostly ordinary HR done more deliberately, with two genuine differences. Employment law follows the person rather than the company, and everything that used to happen incidentally in an office now has to be designed. The second causes more day to day difficulty than the first.
Law follows the person
Somebody working in another country is usually subject to that country's employment protections whatever the contract says, and you generally need a lawful way to employ them there. Hiring remotely across a border without an entity, a local provider or an employer of record is the most common and most expensive mistake in this area.
What stops happening by itself
Onboarding, informal feedback, noticing that somebody is struggling, and the social contact that makes people stay. In an office these happen incidentally; remotely they happen only if scheduled. The practices that work are unglamorous: a structured first month, regular one to ones that are not about status updates, and written decisions.
Resist the monitoring reflex
Losing visibility of who is at their desk leads some employers to buy activity monitoring, which measures presence rather than contribution, is trivially gamed, and carries regulatory duties. Managing by agreed outcomes is harder and is the only thing that actually works at a distance.
Questions people ask about remote hr
Can we employ somebody in another country directly?
Only with a local entity or an arrangement such as an employer of record. Paying them as a contractor to avoid it is the classic misclassification risk.
Whose employment law applies?
Generally that of the place where the work is performed. Contract terms cannot displace mandatory local protections.
Should remote workers be monitored?
Monitor outcomes rather than activity. Activity monitoring is disproportionate for most roles and damages the trust remote work depends on.