Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The benefits of a more asynchronous workplace

doist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 272 posts

Re: The benefits of a more asynchronous workplace

#241

Post by VonGuard »

r00fus wrote: post #240
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.

As someone who works with client billable hours, actual work usually takes the least amount of time. The communication about your completion, testing/confirmation, documentation and shadow/knowledge sharing take the remaining 7.5h (using your analogy). If you're truly doing all those things in 30m, you should be running the show. Sometimes taking the full 8h allows you to put in the packaging to confirm you've done t…

Everyone in this thread below is assuming after the 30 minutes I just fuck off and do nothing. LOL, why would anyone pay me if I did that? Obviously, there's always a ton of stuff to do. But, again, it's about results, not hours worked. There's times when you have to put in almost 48 hours non-stop, others where you don't have to work all week. The point is that if your employees have tasks to do and they're doing them, who gives a fuck about how long it takes them? The 40 hour work week is fucking horrible, anyway, and as is pointed out later in this thread, creative work like coding goes on in your mind pretty much 24/7. If I come up with the solution to a problem Saturday night you can damn well be sure I'm taking some time off to compensate for that. Otherwise I'll burn the fuck out.

Sure, some unknown quantity of people can just fuck around and hide from work, but again, you're not paying me because I'm a fuck off person, yer paying me because I have the decades of experience, and because you know with certainty I'll do the damn work, find more work when I need more, and will never miss a deadline on my own fault. Everyone on HN just assumes bad faith all the time, geez....

Re: The benefits of a more asynchronous workplace

#242

Post by benhurmarcel »

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.

My team shares an open office with another one, working on a different project. We see them every day.

I don't think anyone knows any name of the people in the other team.

Re: The benefits of a more asynchronous workplace

#243

Post by PunchTornado »

dkersten wrote: post #18
PunchTornado wrote: post #12

I don't get it why the workplace is viewed as only a place to work. We spend 8h of the day there. That would be a sad life if you only worked in those 8h. The workplace is actually a place to socialize, to do the things that you love, chat with your friends, have fun. I bet most people from those 8h work a maximum 4. The rest is chatting and socializing. I like it.

> The rest is chatting and socializing. I like it. The problem I have with this is that I don't really get to choose who I can chat and socialize with -- I like my work colleagues, but they're not my main social circle and never will be because I find it unhealthy if your colleagues are your core friends since if you ever want or need to leave (or get fired), it makes it all the more painful and makes an already stre…

depends on the type of work. if you're in tech and you change jobs every 3 years, yes that's harder. but in medical people stay much much longer, 20-30 years. Most of my team has been here over 10 years. It's seems stupid not to create strong friendships.

Re: The benefits of a more asynchronous workplace

#244

Post by davidjnelson »

ergothus wrote: post #220
davidjnelson wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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, 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. I'm not sure how the first quote doesn't count as a 1:1 - the goal isn't to have a highly formal…

> I'm not sure how the first quote doesn't count as a 1:1 - the goal isn't to have a highly formalized process, it's to have communication. Some about the specific work, some about general work and workplace, but communication.

Yes, you’re right, I guess those were a form of 1 on 1s :-)

> Total agreement about the overloading of management though - I haven't had a boss in years that didn't regularly have most of their schedule booked and often double-booked. I had to fill in for my manager while he was on vacation for week and it reaffirmed my lack of desire to do management - and I only had to deal with pieces that couldn't wait a week! I sometimes think the recent shift to focus on regular management 1:1s is all about reclaiming enough time to actually know what their team is doing.

Absolutely! It’s wonderful to have empathy for this! :-D

Re: The benefits of a more asynchronous workplace

#245

Post by diminoten »

BeetleB wrote: post #227
diminoten wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Sure, let me get back to you later."

That's a guaranteed way to be disturbed again in an hour or two.

Async doesn't mean "never", you do need to respond to your colleagues eventually.

Re: The benefits of a more asynchronous workplace

#246

Post by diminoten »

chimi wrote: post #239
diminoten wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because someone is your boss doesn't mean you have to be submissive to them.

What do you do with a boss, who, when you aren't submissive responds with, "You like your job here, right?"

The same thing I do in other hypothetical where nowhere near enough context or information is given: nothing.

I am not a helpless passenger in my life, so I don't get "stuck" with bosses who treat me like cattle. I anticipate problems like this and preemptively deal with them, and you should too.

Re: The benefits of a more asynchronous workplace

#247

Post by k__ »

JDiculous wrote: post #229
k__ wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially the sleeping... I have not set an alarm for months now.

I've always said one of my primary goals in life is to not have to wake up to an alarm. I'm so used to it now I didn't even think to mention it, but reading your comment I just realized I've achieved that.

But I sleep till noon lol

Re: The benefits of a more asynchronous workplace

#248

Post by ldh »

diminoten wrote: post #171
twoquestions wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what universe is that true? The very essence of being a boss is having the means to force you subordinates to submit to you, and at most companies I've worked with that's an explicit primary benefit to the rank!

Jesus Christ; firstly no, it's not a benefit whatsoever to be able to force someone to do something. Secondly, a boss who has to force people to do things rather than provide convincing reasons to do them is a terrible boss, and should be fired by his/her boss immediately. The "very essence" of being a boss is knocking out obstacles for the people under you. That is what a boss actually does, not tell people what to…

> Jesus Christ; firstly no, it's not a benefit whatsoever to be able to force someone to do something. Secondly, a boss who has to force people to do things rather than provide convincing reasons to do them is a terrible boss, and should be fired by his/her boss immediately.

> The "very essence" of being a boss is knocking out obstacles for the people under you. That is what a boss actually does, not tell people what to do.

Those types of managers/bosses are great, and are some of my favorite people because they simply allow me to do what needs doing while shielding me from bullshit. But by no stretch of the imagination (or certainly the experience of workers as a whole) do they represent every manager/boss. If you've been lucky or sheltered enough to avoid the kind that aren't like that, you should reflect on that as a fortuitous outcome and maybe consider that your experience isn't everyone's experience.

Re: The benefits of a more asynchronous workplace

#249

Post by mnm1 »

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…

Remote has already taken off. Some people will always be stuck in the slave master mentality by choice, not because they don't know any better. They just love to control others and make others' lives miserable. Many managers literally have no other skills or purpose in this world other than that. Fuck them. The rest of us will be productive remotely while the master and slaves will work in open offices where the idiot executives actually believe that random sharing of bullshit is what writes code, fills in the accounting books, and in general does actual work. As long as those morons are making money though, their idiocy will live on. And how can you not make money in advertising these days? So it's a long uphill battle for the rest of us who prefer to get things done and do non work stuff afterwards than the moronic control freaks who think collaboration is the key and somehow the code or article writes itself. The alternative is starting that fifth game of foosball before lunch and getting to actual work sometime in the afternoon, continuing at home, and maybe finishing by two to three am if you're lucky. No wonder people work so many hours with such little efficiency.

Re: The benefits of a more asynchronous workplace

#250

Post by diminoten »

ldh wrote: post #248
diminoten wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jesus Christ; firstly no, it's not a benefit whatsoever to be able to force someone to do something. Secondly, a boss who has to force people to do things rather than provide convincing reasons to do them is a terrible boss, and should be fired by his/her boss immediately. The "very essence" of being a boss is knocking out obstacles for the people under you. That is what a boss actually does, not tell people what to…

> Jesus Christ; firstly no, it's not a benefit whatsoever to be able to force someone to do something. Secondly, a boss who has to force people to do things rather than provide convincing reasons to do them is a terrible boss, and should be fired by his/her boss immediately. > The "very essence" of being a boss is knocking out obstacles for the people under you. That is what a boss actually does, not tell people what…

Nothing lucky about it, you are not a passenger in your life, you get to decide how people treat you.
Post reply on HN