Lessons Learned from the Book “Effective Remote Work”(phauer.com)
phauer.com
Lessons Learned from the Book “Effective Remote Work”
https://phauer.com/2022/book-remote-work-lessons-learned/
103 comments
I feel insane when I read stuff like this.
If you work in a team in any capacity then you need to have a strong baseline of trust in order to work effectively.
Trust is the building block that all effective team performance stacks on top of (see 5 dysfunctions of a team).
You don't just get trust for free, you have to build it by creating moments like this where people can demonstrate vulnerability around each other.
If you work in a team in any capacity then you need to have a strong baseline of trust in order to work effectively.
Trust is the building block that all effective team performance stacks on top of (see 5 dysfunctions of a team).
You don't just get trust for free, you have to build it by creating moments like this where people can demonstrate vulnerability around each other.
> You don't just get trust for free, you have to build it by creating moments like this where people can demonstrate vulnerability around each other.
This is bullshit. I trust my accountant because he's competent and honest, not because he's been vulnerable in my presence. What you're describing is unprofessional.
The last thing I want to know about (or experience from) my co-workers is anything personal or intimate, unless it's relevant to the job.
If I want to know my coworker better that's my choice, but otherwise it's somewhere between irrelevant and unwanted.
This is bullshit. I trust my accountant because he's competent and honest, not because he's been vulnerable in my presence. What you're describing is unprofessional.
The last thing I want to know about (or experience from) my co-workers is anything personal or intimate, unless it's relevant to the job.
If I want to know my coworker better that's my choice, but otherwise it's somewhere between irrelevant and unwanted.
There are two types of trust.
1. Will I trust this person to do their job competently?
2. Would I trust this person not to defect in a prisoners dilemma situation?
The second is what you need the personal connection for. There are two ways to work on a project, to make sure it has the highest chance of success, or to make sure when it fails you don't look like your to blame.
#2 is needed so that both parties take a chance on each other and don't optimize for throwing the other under the bus.
1. Will I trust this person to do their job competently?
2. Would I trust this person not to defect in a prisoners dilemma situation?
The second is what you need the personal connection for. There are two ways to work on a project, to make sure it has the highest chance of success, or to make sure when it fails you don't look like your to blame.
#2 is needed so that both parties take a chance on each other and don't optimize for throwing the other under the bus.
Hum... People should not have to face prisoners dilemma situations against their coworkers. And there is an entire profession called "management" in charge of making sure of that.
People should be able to trust their coworkers on ways that the GP didn't capture. But those do not include adversarial situations. (And honestly, "Hey, how was your weekend?" can as easily add or remove all kinds of trust. None of this is simple.)
People should be able to trust their coworkers on ways that the GP didn't capture. But those do not include adversarial situations. (And honestly, "Hey, how was your weekend?" can as easily add or remove all kinds of trust. None of this is simple.)
> People should not have to face prisoners dilemma situations against their coworkers. And there is an entire profession called "management" in charge of making sure of that.
It depends on the company. Quiet a few have this inverted (management is there to cause them). Basically every company that lays off workers that underperform according to KPI cause them by design, which is almost every multinational company.
It depends on the company. Quiet a few have this inverted (management is there to cause them). Basically every company that lays off workers that underperform according to KPI cause them by design, which is almost every multinational company.
I don't know what should means, but I've never worked anywhere where at one point a coworker doesn't subtly throw another one under the bus. "I would have gotten that done but I didn't get needed data until Friday". "John told me this was a higher priority." "Zach told me he'd have that done by Tuesday"
Many of the managers I've worked with spend as much if not more time thinking about CYA/metrics/etc... than accomplishing the tasks they're given. And the ones that don't spend a lot of time developing relationships instead.
Many of the managers I've worked with spend as much if not more time thinking about CYA/metrics/etc... than accomplishing the tasks they're given. And the ones that don't spend a lot of time developing relationships instead.
... Failing to obstruct a post-mortem counts as throwing people under the bus?
I feel like thinking you have to take measures to prevent future potential betrayals by your colleagues demonstrates a profound LACK of trust in them.
Software projects fail in ways both big and small every day. By being over time or budget, to not accomplishing what it set out to do, to not being able to be sold.
When those products/projects inevitably don't deliver on some expectation, someone is going to ask why? It is pretty important when that happens the answer isn't "jamesbarney is an idiot".
Here's a subtle betrayal that can happen, it comes raise time, you've been busting your ass on something that is really beneficial for the project but doesn't help any of your KPIs. Is your boss going to go to bat for you pr are they just going to tell you how important your KPIs are and wish you better the luck next year.
When those products/projects inevitably don't deliver on some expectation, someone is going to ask why? It is pretty important when that happens the answer isn't "jamesbarney is an idiot".
Here's a subtle betrayal that can happen, it comes raise time, you've been busting your ass on something that is really beneficial for the project but doesn't help any of your KPIs. Is your boss going to go to bat for you pr are they just going to tell you how important your KPIs are and wish you better the luck next year.
I mean, can’t you make your own case by your own technical excellence and if they don’t like it, you just go somewhere else? Even if that’s not true for you, I think many would prefer that than putting themselves in better positions for who’s-fault-is-it game.
Most companies only care about technical excellence as a means to an end. Given two otherwise identified people they'd love to hire the more technically excellent one. Given two employees they prefer results.
That sounds more like the need for standard office brown-nosing than building trust with your colleagues. Note here that your boss is not your colleague, no matter what they may encourage you to think.
Your boss is absolutely your colleague. And many times you work more closely with them than the your peers.
No, your boss is your boss. Work closely or not, be friendly or not, you are never on the same level. Forgetting that is what leads to “betrayals”.
> Would I trust this person not to defect in a prisoners dilemma situation?
Do you work for the mob?
Do you work for the mob?
No, but I work with people, who are strangely tribal at every level and company ive ever worked at
The difficulties arise when trust is single dimensional and the problems are multidimensional. If you trust someone professionally, but not personally, and there are personal conflicts or misunderstandings, you have no where to go.
Trust can be built by working. Do you meet deadlines, not require me to rewrite your code on review and know your stuff? Great, we'll have a strong working relationship after a month of that. Conversely, you can be the best Among Us player in the company and I'll still hate you if you keep Slacking basic questions and submit non functioning code on review.
I see your point - but rather than hate your colleague for not doing their job well, why not find a way to give them feedback? "Trust" is obviously not a substitute for performance management - but having high psychological safety/trust makes it 10x easier to have a conversation with a colleague to say "Hey I noticed you asked this question in slack - we've actually got this in a wiki over here" or "hey, I noticed you keep submitting non functioning code - why is this?". This sounds like you are describing a junior engineer - perhaps you will learn something along the way - perhaps their local dev environment is broken meaning they can't run the tests without pushing to GitHub actions, and they don't know how to fix it, but they're in a low psychological safety culture that makes them afraid of asking "basic questions" (as you put it) in Slack.
What's your philosophy on developing people in teams? I'm sure it's not just to 'hate' people into good performance. If you take a long view on people, you have to create a space where people are comfortable admitting their shortcomings.
What's your philosophy on developing people in teams? I'm sure it's not just to 'hate' people into good performance. If you take a long view on people, you have to create a space where people are comfortable admitting their shortcomings.
FWIW I don't mind being asked questions. As I have grown I've tended towards being a technical specialist over a manager and part of that is being a resource. I'm also very good with Git, GDB and Linux so I end up as the go-to guy for a lot of things (I've trained several teams on Git with a lot of success).
I've never had to build/maintain a team from a management perspective. But from my own experiences the people I've learned the most from were competent themselves, good teachers (IE they explain their reasoning and ask leading questions to help understanding) and approachable. So if I was asking too much or stuff I needed to do myself, instead of dressing my down in front of the team they'd privately say "I know we're throwing a lot at you, but time is becoming an issue on our end. I'd recommend talking to [manager] and asking for a some time to research this subject with a wiki page as a deliverable." (this is a non-hypothetical form when I was a newbie). Semi-compulsory social interactions were never a factor.
Also the person I had in mind when writing my post was actually very experienced. Affable, but totally incompetent with no interest in learning.
My expectations are relative to experience.
- Juniors need a lot of help and won't be independently solving complex problems. Every review they submit will need some guidance and it will probably be about basic things like "this function does 3 things and over uses global variables." If they're learning then they're doing it right.
- Mid level developers should be independent contributors for everything except higher level design or very technical work. Mistakes will be present but more rarely and relating to harder subjects. Mistakes I'd expect from a mid level dev would be more along the lines of not knowing that signed integer overflow is undefined in C, passing a pointer in a not quite safe way, ect.
- Senior level developers should need little technical guidance and their reviews should be almost all QA. Since they have a deep understanding of their field they can refer to documentation and datasheets more readily and when they need help they usually know what to ask. In general they should be answering a lot more than they're asking.
I've never had to build/maintain a team from a management perspective. But from my own experiences the people I've learned the most from were competent themselves, good teachers (IE they explain their reasoning and ask leading questions to help understanding) and approachable. So if I was asking too much or stuff I needed to do myself, instead of dressing my down in front of the team they'd privately say "I know we're throwing a lot at you, but time is becoming an issue on our end. I'd recommend talking to [manager] and asking for a some time to research this subject with a wiki page as a deliverable." (this is a non-hypothetical form when I was a newbie). Semi-compulsory social interactions were never a factor.
Also the person I had in mind when writing my post was actually very experienced. Affable, but totally incompetent with no interest in learning.
My expectations are relative to experience.
- Juniors need a lot of help and won't be independently solving complex problems. Every review they submit will need some guidance and it will probably be about basic things like "this function does 3 things and over uses global variables." If they're learning then they're doing it right.
- Mid level developers should be independent contributors for everything except higher level design or very technical work. Mistakes will be present but more rarely and relating to harder subjects. Mistakes I'd expect from a mid level dev would be more along the lines of not knowing that signed integer overflow is undefined in C, passing a pointer in a not quite safe way, ect.
- Senior level developers should need little technical guidance and their reviews should be almost all QA. Since they have a deep understanding of their field they can refer to documentation and datasheets more readily and when they need help they usually know what to ask. In general they should be answering a lot more than they're asking.
It’s a weird balance. Being in a meeting where the manager is basically forcing people to volunteer for the fun committee makes me cringe, but then I enjoy the results of the fun committee. I greatly enjoyed Wolfram’s take on video calls. They’re essential for social aspects like building trust. When it comes time to put your nose to the grindstone and debug something together, the video is a distraction that should be eliminated.
No. Absolutely not. Trust is built up over a significant period of time through… work. When I see your work is good and you are putting in the effort, it builds trust in you. I will never come to trust you over a game of kahoots.
I'm talking about trust in a slightly different sense.
I'm talking about trust in a sense of - if I give you some feedback on something e.g.
"Hey I noticed that in our Zoom meetings you've had your camera off recently - we have a team working agreement that we try to keep cameras on in meetings to make remote work more tolerable. It makes me worried that you're checked out"
If there is a baseline level of trust in the relationship, that means the recipient trusts that I have their best interests at heart, and I am trying to help them through feedback, not attack them. The giver of the feedback trusts that the message will be well received.
Having this kind of trust encourages feedback, which leads growth. If you don't have this trust, everyone follows the path of least resistance of not giving feedback.
I think that especially in remote work, peer to peer feedback is such an important avenue for professional growth. Especially when a manager has 8 reports and doesn't really know what's going on.
Perhaps you disagree on the importance of feedback. But if not, then perhaps you disagree on the importance of trust in giving feedback. If so I'm curious as to whether you always find it easy to give and receive it regardless of who you're talking to?
I'm talking about trust in a sense of - if I give you some feedback on something e.g.
"Hey I noticed that in our Zoom meetings you've had your camera off recently - we have a team working agreement that we try to keep cameras on in meetings to make remote work more tolerable. It makes me worried that you're checked out"
If there is a baseline level of trust in the relationship, that means the recipient trusts that I have their best interests at heart, and I am trying to help them through feedback, not attack them. The giver of the feedback trusts that the message will be well received.
Having this kind of trust encourages feedback, which leads growth. If you don't have this trust, everyone follows the path of least resistance of not giving feedback.
I think that especially in remote work, peer to peer feedback is such an important avenue for professional growth. Especially when a manager has 8 reports and doesn't really know what's going on.
Perhaps you disagree on the importance of feedback. But if not, then perhaps you disagree on the importance of trust in giving feedback. If so I'm curious as to whether you always find it easy to give and receive it regardless of who you're talking to?
> "Hey I noticed that in our Zoom meetings you've had your camera off recently - we have a team working agreement that we try to keep cameras on in meetings to make remote work more tolerable. It makes me worried that you're checked out"
I'm having a horrible period in my home life. My wife and I are getting ready for a divorce, my mother is sick, my child can't stand his own father. The house is always a mess and so am I. I can barely look at myself in the mirror without crying so I can't stand the idea of colleagues looking at me in a webcam.
This is hyperbole. But how would you respond in a 'trusting' environment to this?
I'm having a horrible period in my home life. My wife and I are getting ready for a divorce, my mother is sick, my child can't stand his own father. The house is always a mess and so am I. I can barely look at myself in the mirror without crying so I can't stand the idea of colleagues looking at me in a webcam.
This is hyperbole. But how would you respond in a 'trusting' environment to this?
So here's the counterfactual - If there's no conversation about it, what happens? If that is the reality of that person's situation what are the outcomes if it goes unaddressed? I guess either it blows over and the person happens to pull through, or it builds up to an intolerable point and then suddenly without explanation there are 2 weeks of sick leave while the person has a breakdown?
I've had periods of my own life where I've been through tough stuff that has affected my ability to do my job - I guess I feel lucky to have had managers and colleagues who I've been able to talk to fairly candidly in these situations. In all cases I've had signal that they were grateful I shared.
In answer to your question - I would imagine a more realistic conversation might go:
"Hey I noticed X thing, what's up?" "Yeah, I'm having some trouble in my personal life I haven't been myself" "Anything you want to talk about?" "It's complicated to be honest" "Ok well take the time you need and let me know if you need anything".
That's from manager->report. Between colleagues at the same level I guess this scenario could be a bit more complex to navigate. One trivial example I can think of though is in the company I worked at during the pandemic - many moments on team meetings or 1:1 calls where people opened up about their experience of lockdown and how painful it was to be stuck inside in a shoebox of a flat in London. These moments bring people together
I also recognise that peoples' feelings on these matters are hugely cultural - I think huge chunks of the dialogue that happens in the HN comments is just people with different cultural frames of reference talking at cross purposes, but the anonymous feel of the comments section blurs this and makes it feel like everyone works at a FAANG in silicon valley.
I've had periods of my own life where I've been through tough stuff that has affected my ability to do my job - I guess I feel lucky to have had managers and colleagues who I've been able to talk to fairly candidly in these situations. In all cases I've had signal that they were grateful I shared.
In answer to your question - I would imagine a more realistic conversation might go:
"Hey I noticed X thing, what's up?" "Yeah, I'm having some trouble in my personal life I haven't been myself" "Anything you want to talk about?" "It's complicated to be honest" "Ok well take the time you need and let me know if you need anything".
That's from manager->report. Between colleagues at the same level I guess this scenario could be a bit more complex to navigate. One trivial example I can think of though is in the company I worked at during the pandemic - many moments on team meetings or 1:1 calls where people opened up about their experience of lockdown and how painful it was to be stuck inside in a shoebox of a flat in London. These moments bring people together
I also recognise that peoples' feelings on these matters are hugely cultural - I think huge chunks of the dialogue that happens in the HN comments is just people with different cultural frames of reference talking at cross purposes, but the anonymous feel of the comments section blurs this and makes it feel like everyone works at a FAANG in silicon valley.
> I would imagine a more realistic conversation might go:
Thanks for the answer. There’s two points this realistic conversation make me think of: one would be that this would put a little crosshair on me (or larger depending on the socio-cultural aspect you mentioned) and ultimately it would end up in the same counterfactual scenario you proposed. I can’t realistically take as much time as I need to fix the situation and will end up ultimately passing it or breaking down.
Thanks again for answering, but I’m still struggling to understand bringing personal baggage in a work scenario where deep friendship is not involved.
Thanks for the answer. There’s two points this realistic conversation make me think of: one would be that this would put a little crosshair on me (or larger depending on the socio-cultural aspect you mentioned) and ultimately it would end up in the same counterfactual scenario you proposed. I can’t realistically take as much time as I need to fix the situation and will end up ultimately passing it or breaking down.
Thanks again for answering, but I’m still struggling to understand bringing personal baggage in a work scenario where deep friendship is not involved.
I'm glad you raised this -- as a person who tends to isolate when things get hard, this pretend conversation reads as fairly manipulative (the agreement and such)
That's likely not even the intention... but, something well meaning can go wildly wrong - particularly when someone is stressed
Confusing care for supervision in a way, interesting internalized response I'm chewing on
That's likely not even the intention... but, something well meaning can go wildly wrong - particularly when someone is stressed
Confusing care for supervision in a way, interesting internalized response I'm chewing on
> You don't just get trust for free, you have to build it by creating moments like this where people can demonstrate vulnerability around each other
Not every company is an ideal organization where demonstrating vulnerability is going to lead to a positive outcome. Fast growing orgs are often stuck with bad actors because hiring a replacement is difficult, in some cases virtually impossible. You will be stuck in a political game before you are even aware of it and forced to work with people who hate you because you worked for a FAANG or whatever tickles them.
Not every company is an ideal organization where demonstrating vulnerability is going to lead to a positive outcome. Fast growing orgs are often stuck with bad actors because hiring a replacement is difficult, in some cases virtually impossible. You will be stuck in a political game before you are even aware of it and forced to work with people who hate you because you worked for a FAANG or whatever tickles them.
Fair point. I'm someone who's been lucky to work in high-trust low-ego teams at quite a formative stage in my career - and for this reason I try and work for companies that have values oriented around this. My current gig adheres strongly to an "idea meritocracy", and so far I have observed this to hold true. You can tell the founder his ideas suck and that's fine (if you do so in good faith). Perhaps I'm naive and my eyes will be opened to the politics later on, but I don't think so.
A lot of my colleagues in other industries often complain about the political nature of their work, and the impossibility of giving feedback to certain people in certain positions. I always assumed this was a tech/non-tech divide - or a small/large company divide. I still think those are good heuristics to be honest, but you're right about the "bad actor" dimension. I think that's why it's so important to have a well-embedded company culture, it functions as an immune system against bad actors and trust/feedback are huge parts of that immune system.
A lot of my colleagues in other industries often complain about the political nature of their work, and the impossibility of giving feedback to certain people in certain positions. I always assumed this was a tech/non-tech divide - or a small/large company divide. I still think those are good heuristics to be honest, but you're right about the "bad actor" dimension. I think that's why it's so important to have a well-embedded company culture, it functions as an immune system against bad actors and trust/feedback are huge parts of that immune system.
My personal take on this is I don't like it when fun team building and important work meetings are mixed together. Usually this takes the form of the first 5-10 minutes of a meeting being used by the same couple people sharing mundane details from their personal life and then the meeting going over the allotted time because it started 10 minutes late. This is just bad meeting etiquette. Create separate times for this type of "fun" chat and make it completely optional to attend.
Sure but that doesn't happen by getting everyone in a Zoom call and going around the room asking "Tell us a about time you felt vulnerable"
Fair point. I have found building deep trust a lot harder remotely. Thinking it through, perhaps its easier to do this 1:1 with everyone in your team, even though it's o(n^2)
Doing it on purpose is the part that feels sociopathic (because it is). Working together 40 hours a week for years at a time should provide plenty of opportunity to become intimate with your coworkers. We don't need a line item in the department budget that says "fun/friendship".
This, working in big tech I've found that the activities are also incredibly infantile and marketed as such.
Yes I work with software, no I don't expect everything to be a computer game or "cute".
Yes I work with software, no I don't expect everything to be a computer game or "cute".
It's doubly infantilizing: First, management assumes that their pet programmers are little babies that need play dates with the other office furniture (to mix several metaphors). Second, they assume that the only way to help us is to let us expense a round of laser tag.
That’s because it’s incredibly safe to go into Disney mode. I hate it too as it makes me feel like they’re treating me like a fragile 12 year old.
>Working together 40 hours a week for years at a time should provide plenty of opportunity
Yeah, but when starting a new project affords almost none. Should it remain like that for years?
I hate the "corporate fun" exercises as much as the next guy but without something to build trust most teams flounder.
Japananese/South Korean salaryman drinking culture (or any after work drinks culture) works well at this coz alcohol naturally makes people vulnerable. It obviously has its own problems.
Yeah, but when starting a new project affords almost none. Should it remain like that for years?
I hate the "corporate fun" exercises as much as the next guy but without something to build trust most teams flounder.
Japananese/South Korean salaryman drinking culture (or any after work drinks culture) works well at this coz alcohol naturally makes people vulnerable. It obviously has its own problems.
Work build trust. Trust is built as I see your work output and the effort you are putting in. I’ve never developer trust in anyone through an activity outside of work. I have come away with a worse opinion of some people as I see how they behave outside of work.
Exactly. Just because it would be convenient for management if $200 worth of Dave & Busters could turn a group of strangers into a well-functioning team does not make it so. Sure, you can try it, but it won't work. What will work? Not doing anything at all beyond paying people fairly, letting people have adequate time off, setting realistic expectations and deadlines, and not constantly shuffling your organization around like it's a fantasy football team.
Even if you could somehow sprinkle social fertilizer on your team and make them all besties with a sick ropes course in Provo, it is immoral to expect it. Your employees' relationships are their business, not yours.
Even if you could somehow sprinkle social fertilizer on your team and make them all besties with a sick ropes course in Provo, it is immoral to expect it. Your employees' relationships are their business, not yours.
[deleted]
I can live without a lot of the forced fun/team building exercises. As you say, a lot of this happens fairly naturally at least in person. (Certainly, less so remotely.)
On the other hand, I've heard remote/distributed people very vocally object to being asked to travel to a team meeting once or twice a year on the grounds that they work 9-5 (or whatever) and that's it.
On the other hand, I've heard remote/distributed people very vocally object to being asked to travel to a team meeting once or twice a year on the grounds that they work 9-5 (or whatever) and that's it.
Have you ever had surgery? Did you go out for drinks first?
My surgeon is not on my team.
To take your analogy further - perhaps I would go out for drinks with my family/friends afterwards.
Intra-team relationships are different to inter-team relationships.
Intra-team relationships are different to inter-team relationships.
Team members shouldn’t be required to be friends though. The reason is you can choose your friends, but you can’t usually choose who’s on your team. Socializing with someone needs to be an individual choice and not a prescription.
>You don't just get trust for free, you have to build it by creating moments like this where people can demonstrate vulnerability around each other.
This point is so important and so commonly missed in the context of remote (or indeed, any) work.
This point is so important and so commonly missed in the context of remote (or indeed, any) work.
If you for instance work with software developers, true vulnerability shows at a code review not at a occasional game of soccer or similar. Few software developers identify themselves as great soccer players so it's not a threat to their identity to be perceived as bad at it.
Unfortunately, "work is other people". At least I think that's the quote. Definitely something along those lines.
Less glib: I've always found the technical part of work to be by far the easiest part of my job. The computers do what they're told and when they argue with me, it's deterministic, unambiguous and consistent (at least from its perspective anyway).
People are a lot more complicated, and they seldom know what they want, what to build, whether they know enough to recognize what to build, whether they know they know enough to recognize what to build, etc. they have feelings that can be hurt, friends who they want to defend, opponents they want to see suppressed. I could go on.
Maybe I've somehow only worked in dreadful, dramatic hellscapes, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you? But also I think politics is what happens when more than 3 people want to work together, and so it's an inherent aspect of work.
Sorry, this has been a bit rambling. My point is that, while sure you don't need to do bowling night every week, I do find that a zoom call with your teammates every other week with no agenda other than to chat is ridiculously effective.
And sometimes your best work can happen after you both accidentally give and receive therapy while at work. Everyone is the main character of their own story and knowing how even the work part of all those individual main stories connect can be really useful insight.
Less glib: I've always found the technical part of work to be by far the easiest part of my job. The computers do what they're told and when they argue with me, it's deterministic, unambiguous and consistent (at least from its perspective anyway).
People are a lot more complicated, and they seldom know what they want, what to build, whether they know enough to recognize what to build, whether they know they know enough to recognize what to build, etc. they have feelings that can be hurt, friends who they want to defend, opponents they want to see suppressed. I could go on.
Maybe I've somehow only worked in dreadful, dramatic hellscapes, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you? But also I think politics is what happens when more than 3 people want to work together, and so it's an inherent aspect of work.
Sorry, this has been a bit rambling. My point is that, while sure you don't need to do bowling night every week, I do find that a zoom call with your teammates every other week with no agenda other than to chat is ridiculously effective.
And sometimes your best work can happen after you both accidentally give and receive therapy while at work. Everyone is the main character of their own story and knowing how even the work part of all those individual main stories connect can be really useful insight.
<< Maybe I've somehow only worked in dreadful, dramatic hellscapes, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you? But also I think politics is what happens when more than 3 people want to work together, and so it's an inherent aspect of work.
Not at all. If anything, you are being very stoic about it from my perspective, but then maybe I only had my initial share of hellscapes ( and each new one is getting worse ). Things are getting more complicated in systems and company hierarchy. It is not always understood ( or well documented ) how those systems interact ( or even supposed to interact in theory ). Without careful navigation it is easy to miss something important, because of office politics.
edit: adding missing not
Not at all. If anything, you are being very stoic about it from my perspective, but then maybe I only had my initial share of hellscapes ( and each new one is getting worse ). Things are getting more complicated in systems and company hierarchy. It is not always understood ( or well documented ) how those systems interact ( or even supposed to interact in theory ). Without careful navigation it is easy to miss something important, because of office politics.
edit: adding missing not
I have a very busy social life (so this isn't me being a introvert) and hate forced recreation with coworkers. I don't hate them, but we're not friends either and I have stuff to do.
My guess is that management pushes this for loyalty. If all you do is work and get paid you're likely to exit the first year they don't give you a competitive raise. If you're part of a family then you'll stay and even trust the ceo when he says that no layoffs are coming.
My guess is that management pushes this for loyalty. If all you do is work and get paid you're likely to exit the first year they don't give you a competitive raise. If you're part of a family then you'll stay and even trust the ceo when he says that no layoffs are coming.
I'm honestly confused what's the use of flagging in Hackernews. You're being flagged, even though you're making some interesting observations that aren't derailing the thread. Is it because the flaggers disagree with your opinions?
I also don't like forced socialization but like the possibility of socialization being there, as a way to build team cohesion, disengage from work, etc.
I also don't like forced socialization but like the possibility of socialization being there, as a way to build team cohesion, disengage from work, etc.
One should downvote to disagree. One should flag comments that are against community guidelines (trolling, unnecessary rudeness...)
This, however, doesn't mean that everyone uses these features correctly.
This, however, doesn't mean that everyone uses these features correctly.
My understanding is that downvotes should be used for comments that don't add to the discussion. Thoughtful disagreement is surely the lifeblood of a good discussion.
I feel like most downvotes are used to simply disagree though.
I feel like most downvotes are used to simply disagree though.
pg said this 13yrs ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=658691
Sure, communities change, but it seems whenever I try to get folks onboard with "don't downvote to disagree" I get pushback from some admin, founder, senior community member that downvoting to disagree is Just Fine.
Edit: my preference is that, as you say, downvoting should be used for comments that don't add to the discussion.
Sure, communities change, but it seems whenever I try to get folks onboard with "don't downvote to disagree" I get pushback from some admin, founder, senior community member that downvoting to disagree is Just Fine.
Edit: my preference is that, as you say, downvoting should be used for comments that don't add to the discussion.
I would prefer if users didn't use downvotes if they merely disagree. Disagreement doesn't make something not worth reading - actually, it's the opposite.
I see a lot of honest opinions and questions downvoted, and this turns threads into echo chambers.
I see a lot of honest opinions and questions downvoted, and this turns threads into echo chambers.
Downvoting for disagreement is not my cup of coffee either, but I can understand why people do that. I've never understood why questions are downvoted, though. I'm not talking about “Google it you moron” types of questions. I've seen even simple questions of further inquiry get downvotes. Perhaps there are people offended by questions. I'm genuinely curious.
Here's an example from today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34216557
I can't imagine why this could possibly get downvoted.
I can't imagine why this could possibly get downvoted.
How do you know it was downvoted? I don’t see a way to tell what kind of votes a comment got.
Text of downvoted comments appear in lighter shades. The more the downvotes the lighter the text. Does the linked comment [0] appear in light gray as opposed to its replies which are darker?
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34216557
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34216557
At the time it was grayed out.
Give that the score is called “karma,” it seems very odd for downvotes to occur for disagreement .
>One should downvote to disagree. One should flag comments that are against community guidelines (trolling, unnecessary rudeness...)
Interesting! I didn't know there was both flagging and downvoting. I'd assume flagging works like reporting on Reddit.
Interesting! I didn't know there was both flagging and downvoting. I'd assume flagging works like reporting on Reddit.
At my work, we have a so-called "social daily": every day from 16:00-16:30 people can join the call for some lighthearted banter. Attendance is optional, and I rarely join myself. But I value a lot that it exists.
I think this separation is important. A meeting should either be work or social, but it shouldn't be both. Participation at the daily is mandatory. I'm there to report my progress and hear about everybody else's progress. I don't want to socialize with anybody at 9am, I just want to figure out my workday and get that started. At some point I do want to socialize, and then it's helpful if there are opportunities for that, but it should never be forced and I shouldn't be tricked into it.
If I'm at some meeting about an architectural decision, I don't want to socialize, I want us to get to the point. If people want to hang out after that, that's fine. But that's not what that meeting is for.
If I'm at some meeting about an architectural decision, I don't want to socialize, I want us to get to the point. If people want to hang out after that, that's fine. But that's not what that meeting is for.
I'm kind like you, but the people are different and many of them really like this interactions. I just think the manager needs to understand those differences and not force the socialization for everyone. Sometimes the manager even embarrasses the people on the team that not are really into participate of some of this socializations.
I wonder if it's an age or stage of life thing. When I was younger and single I enjoyed these interactions more than I do now that I have a family and kid. I think the need for extra socializing isn't quite there anymore.
If you have a full time job with good work/life balance, chances are that a third of your awake time is spent working, it is probably more than half for many people.
That's so much of you life that you may as well try to make it fun. How you make it fun depends from person to person, but socializing with coworkers is definitely on the list for many people (especially extroverts). Introverts may have other ideas, like learning new exciting stuff, but IMHO, if all you think of work is "get it done quickly so I can do something else", I think you are missing something. It doesn't mean you should live for work, but if it takes, say, 20% of your "good time off" to improve 80% of your time at work, I think it is definitely worth it.
That's so much of you life that you may as well try to make it fun. How you make it fun depends from person to person, but socializing with coworkers is definitely on the list for many people (especially extroverts). Introverts may have other ideas, like learning new exciting stuff, but IMHO, if all you think of work is "get it done quickly so I can do something else", I think you are missing something. It doesn't mean you should live for work, but if it takes, say, 20% of your "good time off" to improve 80% of your time at work, I think it is definitely worth it.
I value the occasional to the office, on my schedule (take vacation from vacation and stop in the office for an afternoon), to meet the people I work with regularly.
Beyond the occasional stop-through if I'm in the area, I don't derive much value from being there in person. I submit that sharing your desktop and talking into someone's headset is actually more intimate than sitting around the conference table or viewing a screen in a cubicle.
Beyond the occasional stop-through if I'm in the area, I don't derive much value from being there in person. I submit that sharing your desktop and talking into someone's headset is actually more intimate than sitting around the conference table or viewing a screen in a cubicle.
But it doesn't have to be forced, simply provide the signal that it's ok.
Where I work currently there's 99.9% emphasis on output, and .1% on conversation. As a result, I have zero sense of team, zero sense of trust.
That's fine when working on small things by yourself, but it doesn't scale. Teams are necessary to solve larger more complex problems. I suppose it all depends on your career aspirations.
Where I work currently there's 99.9% emphasis on output, and .1% on conversation. As a result, I have zero sense of team, zero sense of trust.
That's fine when working on small things by yourself, but it doesn't scale. Teams are necessary to solve larger more complex problems. I suppose it all depends on your career aspirations.
I run a remote team and it’s impossible to get anyone to commit to getting together socially. Best we managed was last year when someone left and he lived locally enough for a leaving do.
Most of the team just don’t want the hassle of leaving the house.
Most of the team just don’t want the hassle of leaving the house.
"forced" or more charitably "intentional" socialization when in-person goes a long way towards building a multi-faceted relationship. When remote it feels like you're attending an AA meeting.
Not something mentioned in the article, but something I've found super useful at my current (fully remote) job is the concept of "office hours". Where I am, each team has a hour or two each week where folks are "available". For some teams, like mine, most folks show up for the video meeting and we go over whatever short topics we've accumulated over the last few days with whomever, or just work muted if it's not something relevant to us. Very casual. Other teams are generally offline, but if you tag them in their team's slack channel, they'll pop on their video meeting link and you can go over whatever you need to. Nice.
It's not a solution to all problems, but ends up being a nice 'hallway conversation' substitute where you don't _quite_ know who you need, or just need to ask some questions and don't want to go to the trouble of scheduling a meeting just for that.
And since the whole thing is informal, it doesn't feel like a time waste, even if you're not 'involved' in what's going on. YMMV, of course, but it seems to work for us.
I propose office hours in every single retrospective we do and it never gets any traction. I've tried proposing "office hours". I've tried proposing them with a bit of an explanation as to why I think they're a good idea. I've tried proposing them with a lengthy explanation as to why I think they're a good idea.
My conclusion is that people don't want to engage with retrospective items that aren't first-order helpful. "Doing X solves problem Y for person ME right now" type things. Office hours smooth communication, but that in and of itself doesn't fix a problem -- it paves the road to fix other problems.
My conclusion is that people don't want to engage with retrospective items that aren't first-order helpful. "Doing X solves problem Y for person ME right now" type things. Office hours smooth communication, but that in and of itself doesn't fix a problem -- it paves the road to fix other problems.
I haven't read the book, but I think that if he added one sentence to point 1 in his summary, the first three points are really everything you need to know to make remote work effective. Point 1 (treat everyone as remote) is the most critical, but his elaboration on "tools, meeting setup, information exchange, communication, documentation, and opportunities" should be extended further with "Provide all employees with guidance and training on how to work remotely. In particular, people need to understand that working meetings held remotely often bring out the worst in people on opposite ends of the communication spectrum (those who monopolize the floor, and those who are reluctant to participate). A meeting facilitator should explicitly facilitate participation, so that everyone who has something to contribute, does, and no one prevails simply with volume.
On point 2, about use of asynchronous communications - it probably is implied, but one key part of this is making sure that everyone in the team understands and observes the rule that you are expected to be asynchronously available most of the time, and should go dark only when it's absolutely necessary for your work. One thing I found helpful with distributed teams is making a status available on asynchronous channels called "Ping me on the hour" which is a way of saying, "I'm heads down, don't interrupt unless the world is ending, but I surface if necessary every top of hour."
On point 2, about use of asynchronous communications - it probably is implied, but one key part of this is making sure that everyone in the team understands and observes the rule that you are expected to be asynchronously available most of the time, and should go dark only when it's absolutely necessary for your work. One thing I found helpful with distributed teams is making a status available on asynchronous channels called "Ping me on the hour" which is a way of saying, "I'm heads down, don't interrupt unless the world is ending, but I surface if necessary every top of hour."
> expected to be asynchronously available most of the time
"during core working hours".
See other point about establishing boundaries between work and personal life.
It is helpful to establish expected contact/response timings, such as:
"during core working hours".
See other point about establishing boundaries between work and personal life.
It is helpful to establish expected contact/response timings, such as:
- email - async. checked a few times/day. turn off notifications
- slack/chat - async. notify of direct messages & high priority channels, other items checked periodically
- phone/voice/video calls - synchronous. only for things that justify immediate interruption. Will respond with at least a "What's up?/In a meeting/etc." unless completely unavailable.A phenomenon that unites these points is the result of extended COVID WFH: in the aggregate, to some significant degree, remote work habits seem to be persisting in in-person work environments. It’s a double-edged sword: You’re pinging the guru down the aisle for advice rather than walking over to her. So no one gets to overhear the guidance, but then again, she can triage your request with her Slack usage.
As a result, our in-person work situations have never been so quiet (outside of lockdowns). The value of in-person is thereby seemingly perceptibly lessened. Are we losing or recouping the value of that serendipitous spark of collaboration that executives wax poetic over? (Was it ever a thing?)
As a result, our in-person work situations have never been so quiet (outside of lockdowns). The value of in-person is thereby seemingly perceptibly lessened. Are we losing or recouping the value of that serendipitous spark of collaboration that executives wax poetic over? (Was it ever a thing?)
I've worked jobs that pre-covid that were exactly what you describe, where 80% of the time we'd just ping one another without getting up. You never knew if you were ruining someone's concentration, so pinging over slack let them shift gears when it was best for them.
It's why I'm a large proponent of remote work - outside of lunch and meetings, my work experience compared to one of those (IMO bleak) environments is largely unchanged.
Working in an exciting and lively office is the ideal in my opinion, but it's hard to stumble into those - I feel like these days by definition the people who make an office a great place are the same people with the ability to control their experience i.e. choose remote work. The ones who make offices bleak are the same people who force others/ must be forced to go in to be productive haha
It's why I'm a large proponent of remote work - outside of lunch and meetings, my work experience compared to one of those (IMO bleak) environments is largely unchanged.
Working in an exciting and lively office is the ideal in my opinion, but it's hard to stumble into those - I feel like these days by definition the people who make an office a great place are the same people with the ability to control their experience i.e. choose remote work. The ones who make offices bleak are the same people who force others/ must be forced to go in to be productive haha
I've worked that way for 20 years. The product group I lead, e.g., from 2006 through 2014 was a total of 150 or so people, located in 4 up to 8 campus facilities on 3 different continents, and at least 40 or so individuals whose only office was at home. If you looked at all the individual "deliverable" teams in that group, I don't think there were any that didn't have key contributors who were not co-located. So they all functioned essentially as everyone remote, all the time.
(The downside to that arrangement for me, since I was responsible for the entire group, was that a work day spanned the entirety of the hours I was will to be awake. One soon learned to be brutal about blocking out non-work hours during your local usual business hours so you could accomodate the 5 and 6:00 AM calls that required people from Eastern and Western Europe, and the 8 and 9:00PM calls that got Asia, Singapore and Australia on board. We tried to keep individual teams from being constituted from more than 2 continents just to keep some sanity in people's lives).
(The downside to that arrangement for me, since I was responsible for the entire group, was that a work day spanned the entirety of the hours I was will to be awake. One soon learned to be brutal about blocking out non-work hours during your local usual business hours so you could accomodate the 5 and 6:00 AM calls that required people from Eastern and Western Europe, and the 8 and 9:00PM calls that got Asia, Singapore and Australia on board. We tried to keep individual teams from being constituted from more than 2 continents just to keep some sanity in people's lives).
My preferred mode of work is to spread information asynchronously but to discuss it synchronously.
Remote work has finally made it possible for me to be better at synchronous collaboration with others (edit: changed from "pair program"). Rather than being forced to work in a distracting open office, I finally have a private office.
In the past, conversations about code tended to only happen asynchronously during code review, but now we are having them while work is in progress and for code review and it is a lot more productive for us than asynchronous. When you do a synchronous code review, you still need to put in review comments so that others can understand what is going on asynchronously. These comments won't be the full conversation- instead they will be a summary- sometimes you will end up omitting useful details, but it reduces the text overload of asynchronous.
In the past being in an open office environment meant that collaborating with someone always risked being rude- disrupting others with our conversation. This would sometimes be handled by using a meeting room, but this still isn’t as good as just both of us communicating from our offices.
For synchronous remote work It’s crucial to still work with people in similar time zones.
Remote work has finally made it possible for me to be better at synchronous collaboration with others (edit: changed from "pair program"). Rather than being forced to work in a distracting open office, I finally have a private office.
In the past, conversations about code tended to only happen asynchronously during code review, but now we are having them while work is in progress and for code review and it is a lot more productive for us than asynchronous. When you do a synchronous code review, you still need to put in review comments so that others can understand what is going on asynchronously. These comments won't be the full conversation- instead they will be a summary- sometimes you will end up omitting useful details, but it reduces the text overload of asynchronous.
In the past being in an open office environment meant that collaborating with someone always risked being rude- disrupting others with our conversation. This would sometimes be handled by using a meeting room, but this still isn’t as good as just both of us communicating from our offices.
For synchronous remote work It’s crucial to still work with people in similar time zones.
I find that pair programming requires a high degree of psychological safety for people to try it and an even higher level for people to actually enjoy it.
I'm pretty sure that by default remote work with a low level of face time leads to lower levels of psychological safety.
I'm pretty sure that by default remote work with a low level of face time leads to lower levels of psychological safety.
I have seen pair programming in actual use exactly once. And it was a pair of dudes who had known each other since kindergarten and were roommates. They basically shared a brain.
I've tried it a few times and it's like trying to read the same physical book at the same time with someone who's a lot slower or faster reader.
I've tried it a few times and it's like trying to read the same physical book at the same time with someone who's a lot slower or faster reader.
[deleted]
This is indeed a beautiful book and especially useful for those who are new to the industry. I have a nit to pick about one of the points listed in the article...
> Every meeting should create an artifact (ideally, a shared document or at least a record).
I have come across this sentiment often but there is no point in creating new artifacts just to record a meeting. What if the meeting was useless and nothing came out of it? Please do not create a document for this meeting. Such records only create an illusion that you are not leaving out those who could not attend the meeting, but creates mountains of documents or records which would be impossible to navigate in order to draw any conclusion later on.
> Every meeting should create an artifact (ideally, a shared document or at least a record).
I have come across this sentiment often but there is no point in creating new artifacts just to record a meeting. What if the meeting was useless and nothing came out of it? Please do not create a document for this meeting. Such records only create an illusion that you are not leaving out those who could not attend the meeting, but creates mountains of documents or records which would be impossible to navigate in order to draw any conclusion later on.
You can do it in a lightweight way.
When you schedule a meeting, you create a wiki page named like "2023-01-02 Fooproj UX Meeting with Marketing", and include the URL in the calendar invite.
If there's a written agenda, it goes into the wiki page, in whatever state it's in. If someone is typing notes during the meeting, it goes into the wiki page, in whatever state it's in. Someone might screenshare the wiki page during all or part of the meeting. If there's a meeting video recording or videoconf/calendar SaaS page, the URL gets put in the wiki page. Anything bout that meeting that does get captured somewhere, can be gotten to from that one wiki page, so info not lost.
If no info at all ends up being captured around the meeting, then the wiki page might only ever be a title. But even then, it's still something to wikilink to (like `[2023-01-02 Fooproj UX Meeting with Marketing]`), when referring to the meeting, such as citations in design documents and project plans.
(Note: This works if you have a policy of "everything goes into the code repo or the wiki". But if you're thinking of the wiki as yet another of countless SaaSes where people are dumping write-only stuff that no one will ever find, then adding to that mess won't seem useful.)
When you schedule a meeting, you create a wiki page named like "2023-01-02 Fooproj UX Meeting with Marketing", and include the URL in the calendar invite.
If there's a written agenda, it goes into the wiki page, in whatever state it's in. If someone is typing notes during the meeting, it goes into the wiki page, in whatever state it's in. Someone might screenshare the wiki page during all or part of the meeting. If there's a meeting video recording or videoconf/calendar SaaS page, the URL gets put in the wiki page. Anything bout that meeting that does get captured somewhere, can be gotten to from that one wiki page, so info not lost.
If no info at all ends up being captured around the meeting, then the wiki page might only ever be a title. But even then, it's still something to wikilink to (like `[2023-01-02 Fooproj UX Meeting with Marketing]`), when referring to the meeting, such as citations in design documents and project plans.
(Note: This works if you have a policy of "everything goes into the code repo or the wiki". But if you're thinking of the wiki as yet another of countless SaaSes where people are dumping write-only stuff that no one will ever find, then adding to that mess won't seem useful.)
>When you schedule a meeting, you create a wiki page named like "2023-01-02 Fooproj UX Meeting with Marketing"
These are the kinds of wiki pages I come across when I'm searching for docs that are actually useful. I dont think anybody reads them.
These are the kinds of wiki pages I come across when I'm searching for docs that are actually useful. I dont think anybody reads them.
Nobody reads them, is it because they aren't useful? Maintaining wikis is a culture thing. If most of your employees don't use the wiki it's basically useless since it'll be falling out of date.
No, they aren't. IME meeting notes are useful only for people who missed the meeting and wanted to be there.
That isn't to say that there aren't other documentation artefacts that should be created as a result of the meeting (JIRA tickets, a wiki page explaining a particular feature), but they shouldn't ever take the form of "2021 June 23 meeting with marketing".
That isn't to say that there aren't other documentation artefacts that should be created as a result of the meeting (JIRA tickets, a wiki page explaining a particular feature), but they shouldn't ever take the form of "2021 June 23 meeting with marketing".
Where does the docs/info you need end up being?
Usually in someone's head.
Yeah, ideally all that information would be captured, but it never can be. So there's also a role for a wiki to capture information about who to talk to about a particular topic.
It's one of the first things that I put up on our wiki: a referral list indicating who to ask for questions about which domain. Actually, there's two columns: the first is the operational lead(s), or "who should I ask questions about X"; the second column is the tactical/architecture lead, or "if we disagree on a solution for X, who has the deciding vote?"
The latter has avoided countless hours of bikeshedding, or so I'd like to believe.
The latter has avoided countless hours of bikeshedding, or so I'd like to believe.
> I have come across this sentiment often but there is no point in creating new artifacts just to record a meeting. What if the meeting was useless and nothing came out of it?
I might be a huge cynic, but that seems to me to be the #1 reason to create a post-mortem document to explore how to avoid another meeting that was a waste of time like that.
If the meeting was useless because the participants weren't prepared, make a note to hand out preparatory notes beforehand. If the meeting was useless because everybody shouted over each other, make a note for more moderation. If the meeting was useless because no one had political power to follow up on any decisions, cancel the meeting altogether.
Having a meeting that goes nowhere and then taking no time to publicly settle on actions as a consequence seems incredibly neglectful to me.
I might be a huge cynic, but that seems to me to be the #1 reason to create a post-mortem document to explore how to avoid another meeting that was a waste of time like that.
If the meeting was useless because the participants weren't prepared, make a note to hand out preparatory notes beforehand. If the meeting was useless because everybody shouted over each other, make a note for more moderation. If the meeting was useless because no one had political power to follow up on any decisions, cancel the meeting altogether.
Having a meeting that goes nowhere and then taking no time to publicly settle on actions as a consequence seems incredibly neglectful to me.
Why are you having meetings that are useless? I can't imagine not having a meeting without some resulting document. Even the poorest meetings I've had have resulted in documents changing to reflect the shitshow.
edit: I don't think every meeting needs its own document though. If there's a meeting, it needs to be associated with some document(s) in some way which will change as a result. If it isn't, it should be cancelled, imo.
edit: I don't think every meeting needs its own document though. If there's a meeting, it needs to be associated with some document(s) in some way which will change as a result. If it isn't, it should be cancelled, imo.
"Mountains of documents" is not a new problem, you just need to organise them properly.
But if you have a meeting and nothing about it was written down, who knows what was decided if it's not written down?
1) Every meeting must have an agenda and any material linked must be read before attending. You're wasting everyone's time by reading the material during the meeting.
2) Every meeting must create an artefact, otherwise you're just chatting with coworkers.
But if you have a meeting and nothing about it was written down, who knows what was decided if it's not written down?
1) Every meeting must have an agenda and any material linked must be read before attending. You're wasting everyone's time by reading the material during the meeting.
2) Every meeting must create an artefact, otherwise you're just chatting with coworkers.
Sounds like labeling, tags, or some token in the filename could be used to distinguish this. The purpose of always creating an artefact is that it'll become habitual and then it is less likely that the meeting that halfway through becomes interesting has meeting notes.
The artifact we often use is “zoom recording of the meeting.” Which is less than useful.
For non-sensitive meetings, we record to otter and then edit the transcript using highlights, marking to dos, etc. We’ve got an otter folder structure that mimics our other folder structures. We most commonly do this for document review meetings (I work for an NGO. We write a lot of grants.) This takes time but it creates good notes, allows everyone to be a participant in the meeting.
We have other meetings — like weekly target review meetings — that use Asana as the basis for capturing notes. This works well for things that are really tactical.
For non-sensitive meetings, we record to otter and then edit the transcript using highlights, marking to dos, etc. We’ve got an otter folder structure that mimics our other folder structures. We most commonly do this for document review meetings (I work for an NGO. We write a lot of grants.) This takes time but it creates good notes, allows everyone to be a participant in the meeting.
We have other meetings — like weekly target review meetings — that use Asana as the basis for capturing notes. This works well for things that are really tactical.
Every meeting should have an agenda. No agenda = cancel meeting.
I read it and it was a really bad book. I didn’t learn much. I felt like I learned more about remote working reading the 4 hours work week.
COVID allowed my company to put everyone on the same level. It was wonderful while it lasted.
Unfortunately, the drive to "collaboration" has sprung up again in our senior ranks, who I think felt uncomfortable not being able to lay eyes on heads. Once again the remote folks are peripheral, literally. A lot of time and bandwidth is now wasted on arguing why it's necessary to arbitrarily be in the office one or three days per week, especially for people working independently on projects. Almost every leadership town hall has employees questioning why they agian have t sit in traffic and hunt for workspace while the closest colleague—the one they do real collaboration with—is actually a thousand miles away.
Unfortunately, the drive to "collaboration" has sprung up again in our senior ranks, who I think felt uncomfortable not being able to lay eyes on heads. Once again the remote folks are peripheral, literally. A lot of time and bandwidth is now wasted on arguing why it's necessary to arbitrarily be in the office one or three days per week, especially for people working independently on projects. Almost every leadership town hall has employees questioning why they agian have t sit in traffic and hunt for workspace while the closest colleague—the one they do real collaboration with—is actually a thousand miles away.
regarding social interaction, I am running a hybrid US (3 people) - China (4 people) team. My teammates in China just don't usually in meetings / "coffee hours" (mostly due to language and cultural barriers). So any type of cross border team building and social bantering just fall flat. Does anyone have any similar experience and how they address this?
> And a little ‘How are you feeling?' goes a long way.
> “When leaders make time for fun, it gives permission for others too”
Is it just me, or are others also annoyed when work is mixed with forced socialization? I don't need to have fun or get personal therapy at work. It's just work. I would rather get it done quickly and efficiently and then have more time to have fun with my family or non-work friends.