The benefits of a more asynchronous workplace • Hacker News Board

Re: The benefits of a more asynchronous workplace

#201

Post by Rapzid » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 7:08 PM UTC

JDiculous wrote: post #199

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #2

I tried sharing these studies at my ex employers in Europe hoping they'd spare me the hellish 40 minute commute in stop/start traffic and they weren't interested at all. Management there only values "butt time in seats" and the ability to come over and interrupt you by tapping you on the shoulder whenever they need something. As one of my ex CEOs put it: "If I don't see my employees stressing out at thier desks I get…

If there's anything I've learned working office jobs at corporations, it's that you can't change the culture around "butt in seats" management because it's almost like one of the core identities of the leadership. There's always a non-technical C-level executive at the top who values "butt in seats" management, and remote work isn't one of those things that anybody will speak out to defend, particularly against the s…

It takes a LOT of influence to directly affect culture at a company. If you don't have the amount of influence the best you can hope to do is spread and promote the ideas; just like in society. Except, it's a bit easier to change jobs than to change the society you live in :)

Re: The benefits of a more asynchronous workplace

#202

Post by JDiculous » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 7:13 PM UTC

yodsanklai wrote: post #55

I work remotely. I've noticed that one thing that make me work harder than in an office, is that I feel that I need to earn the trust that my employer gives me. In an office, sometimes I feel that just being there is enough to justify my salary, even if I'm just chatting with colleagues or browsing the web. I discipline myself better when I work remotely. Another thing that makes a difference for me: I suffer from ba…

Yea, I've also noticed that I'm actually way more responsive working remotely because I overcompensate to signal that I'm available and working (or at least not slacking off). The fact that I'm in a totally opposite timezone makes me further want to ensure the high degree of trust. I'll immediately respond to Slack messages I get even at 2am if I still happen to be awake.

Meanwhile when I was working in an office, I felt that Slack messages were often a distraction that pulled me out of my flow state. I felt that if it were really that important or urgent (it rarely is), then they'd just come to my desk and tap me on the shoulder.

Re: The benefits of a more asynchronous workplace

#203

Post by watwut » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 7:15 PM UTC

VonGuard wrote: post #186

fizx wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who has gone to the dark side, there's an interesting tradeoff here. There's basically three scenarios: (1) all employees are trusted and unmeasured, but you have to tap people on the shoulder every once in a while to confirm that they're on track. Naturally, this is easier if everyone is on-site. (2) everyone is accountable for producing of tickets, and you can check that everyone is at least doing some w…

Reminds me of an old adage about tech work and other skilled labors: If you give me a task that takes a normal perosn 8 hours, and I finish it in 30 minutes, you're paying me for the skill, knowledge and experience that allows me to do it in 30 minutes. I do not owe you another 7.5 hours of work. I owe you the job being done, not the hours it should take to do it.

I would find it unethical, including in team where I am fastest.

Re: The benefits of a more asynchronous workplace

#204

Post by malvosenior » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 7:15 PM UTC

fizx wrote: post #144

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #2

I tried sharing these studies at my ex employers in Europe hoping they'd spare me the hellish 40 minute commute in stop/start traffic and they weren't interested at all. Management there only values "butt time in seats" and the ability to come over and interrupt you by tapping you on the shoulder whenever they need something. As one of my ex CEOs put it: "If I don't see my employees stressing out at thier desks I get…

As someone who has gone to the dark side, there's an interesting tradeoff here. There's basically three scenarios: (1) all employees are trusted and unmeasured, but you have to tap people on the shoulder every once in a while to confirm that they're on track. Naturally, this is easier if everyone is on-site. (2) everyone is accountable for producing of tickets, and you can check that everyone is at least doing some w…

Why can they not be trusted and measured? I trust my employees and encourage them to be creative and autonomous. I also expect people to ship their progress regularly and work in strategic alignment as helped by the direction I provide in our regular meeting cadence.

It's a weak manager that's constantly concerned about their reports not being productive. Nothing in the world is easier to spot than someone who doesn't produce. You don't need to optimize for that, when it happens, deal with it. Optimize toward keeping your team motivated.

Re: The benefits of a more asynchronous workplace

#205

Post by malvosenior » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 7:17 PM UTC

watwut wrote: post #203

VonGuard wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me of an old adage about tech work and other skilled labors: If you give me a task that takes a normal perosn 8 hours, and I finish it in 30 minutes, you're paying me for the skill, knowledge and experience that allows me to do it in 30 minutes. I do not owe you another 7.5 hours of work. I owe you the job being done, not the hours it should take to do it.

I would find it unethical, including in team where I am fastest.

What's unethical about it? If someone produces what needs to be done, then does it matter how they do it?

Re: The benefits of a more asynchronous workplace

#206

Post by davidjnelson » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 7:19 PM UTC

ergothus wrote: post #164

fizx wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who has gone to the dark side, there's an interesting tradeoff here. There's basically three scenarios: (1) all employees are trusted and unmeasured, but you have to tap people on the shoulder every once in a while to confirm that they're on track. Naturally, this is easier if everyone is on-site. (2) everyone is accountable for producing of tickets, and you can check that everyone is at least doing some w…

> (1) all employees are trusted and unmeasured, but you have to tap people on the shoulder every once in a while to confirm that they're on track. Naturally, this is easier if everyone is on-site. I don't get it - shouldn't one-on-ones and regular progress check-ins (be those standups, metrics (This is your #2), whatever) give you that information? None of those are easier when on-site. In fact, given today's move to…

It really depends on the communication styles of people. I had a manager I loved that would drop by every few days and just ask “how’s it going”? Then I’d fill him in. It was fun and low key and highly productive.

Also had managers that were basically invisible but kept a great crap umbrella for us. Loved them too. Ended up working a ton and getting enormous amounts of work done because trust and autonomy are huge.

I think the worst situations are when managers are too insecure to be honest with direct reports. That’s decidedly uncool and super ineffective.

Also, it seems managers get so overloaded that 1 on 1s and stand ups end up being mostly a waste of time because it’s too hard to remember all the little details.

So remote or in office isn’t really the issue. In my view, remote is superior due to productivity, flexibility and happiness, but it does require everyone to do regular video chats and pair programming.

Ironically, the in office folks have the hardest time with this because they feel they need to get up from their desk and find an overly booked conference room as you mentioned.

Simple solutions are context dependent, but could be along the lines of a) work remote if you have the discipline, b) asynchronous slack based standups, c) report status as you go in your tickets, d) every day or two peers and managers sync up 1 on 1 or in person depending on their preference, e) have clear goals as a company and a team, f) have good technical product people writing 1-3 day user story tickets including completed designs if it’s ui work, g) have good tech leads writing 1-3 day technical improvement task tickets, h) vote as a team on contentious technical decisions, then disagree and commit, i) generally chill out a bit and let work be enjoyable.

At least that’s a start...

Re: The benefits of a more asynchronous workplace

#207

Post by malvosenior » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 7:20 PM UTC

umvi wrote: post #190

VonGuard wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me of an old adage about tech work and other skilled labors: If you give me a task that takes a normal perosn 8 hours, and I finish it in 30 minutes, you're paying me for the skill, knowledge and experience that allows me to do it in 30 minutes. I do not owe you another 7.5 hours of work. I owe you the job being done, not the hours it should take to do it.

> I do not owe you another 7.5 hours of work. Only if you are a contractor and you've fulfilled your contract. If you are a salaried employee I expect you to keep your hopper of tasks full so you aren't sitting around idle 95% of the day waiting for me to feed you 30 minute taskers

Judge people by their output. If someone is performing well and shipping, then it doesn't matter if that takes 10 minutes or 8 hours. Many people work better with a lot of space. If you fill someone's hopper so they're forced to work 8 hours a day, then you'll quickly find the tasks that used to take them 10 minutes to complete now take multiple hours due to: burn out, stress, context switching and most likely bad management.

Re: The benefits of a more asynchronous workplace

#208

Post by justbaker » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 7:23 PM UTC

malvosenior wrote: post #204

fizx wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who has gone to the dark side, there's an interesting tradeoff here. There's basically three scenarios: (1) all employees are trusted and unmeasured, but you have to tap people on the shoulder every once in a while to confirm that they're on track. Naturally, this is easier if everyone is on-site. (2) everyone is accountable for producing of tickets, and you can check that everyone is at least doing some w…

Why can they not be trusted and measured? I trust my employees and encourage them to be creative and autonomous. I also expect people to ship their progress regularly and work in strategic alignment as helped by the direction I provide in our regular meeting cadence. It's a weak manager that's constantly concerned about their reports not being productive. Nothing in the world is easier to spot than someone who doesn'…

Does the employee deliver? That should be a yes/no answer. Micromanging employees minutes is an ineffective distraction to reaching that goal of delivery. The more autonomous each is while still moving in the direction of the common goal of the team, the more trusted they can be.

Re: The benefits of a more asynchronous workplace

#209

Post by ergothus » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 7:23 PM UTC

hobofromabroad wrote: post #184

ergothus wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (1) all employees are trusted and unmeasured, but you have to tap people on the shoulder every once in a while to confirm that they're on track. Naturally, this is easier if everyone is on-site. I don't get it - shouldn't one-on-ones and regular progress check-ins (be those standups, metrics (This is your #2), whatever) give you that information? None of those are easier when on-site. In fact, given today's move to…

> > (1) all employees are trusted and unmeasured, but you have to tap people on the shoulder every once in a while to confirm that they're on track. Naturally, this is easier if everyone is on-site. > I don't get it - shouldn't one-on-ones and regular progress check-ins (be those standups, metrics (This is your #2), whatever) give you that information? None of those are easier when on-site. In fact, given today's mov…

> But I actually like that different teams can mix a lot easier.

I've heard this claim for open offices a lot. I never understand it. It's not like I'm AGAINST easy collaboration. But I spend (or try to spend) more time on my own, and everyone "collaborating" around me and expecting that I can turn off my peripheral vision and hearing with a brain that is hardwired to NOT ignore those things just makes the majority of my time worse.

Plus, in the last 20 years and 5 companies (spanning 8 offices if you count office moves) I've never had adequate meeting room space (defined as: We need a space to spontaneously talk without disturbing others, can we find it trivially?) for more than a 3 month span after moving to a larger building. Hardly scientifically conclusive, but personally persuasive.

So I'm all for collaboration between people, including between teams, but I don't understand sacrificing the REST of the time in the name of that one thing.

Re: The benefits of a more asynchronous workplace

#210

Post by malvosenior » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 7:26 PM UTC

justbaker wrote: post #208

malvosenior wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can they not be trusted and measured? I trust my employees and encourage them to be creative and autonomous. I also expect people to ship their progress regularly and work in strategic alignment as helped by the direction I provide in our regular meeting cadence. It's a weak manager that's constantly concerned about their reports not being productive. Nothing in the world is easier to spot than someone who doesn'…

Does the employee deliver? That should be a yes/no answer. Micromanging employees minutes is an ineffective distraction to reaching that goal of delivery. The more autonomous each is while still moving in the direction of the common goal of the team, the more trusted they can be.

Absolutely. You will get the best work out of an employee if they have as much autonomy and creative input as possible. I've never understood why that's so difficult for a lot of managers to realize. I suspect most people aren't cut out for leadership because they don't have the trust, confidence or lack of ego required to motivate people without power tripping on them.