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

31–40 of 272 posts

Re: The benefits of a more asynchronous workplace

#31

Post by bananatron »

settsu wrote: post #22

The issue I often have with discussions of remote work vs. on-site, is how much confirmation bias tends to be incorporated into the conclusions made. After about 16 years of on-site work (at various jobs), I did almost 5 years of remote work (for a single company), having just recently returned to an in-office role (despite focusing on landing another remote position, the best opportunity wasn’t.) And, frankly, I fin…

Great points, the pendulum is still swinging so I expect more and more pro-remote content in the coming years.

I personally prefer mostly remote work, but I think it's much harder to pull off - there are no play books on how to do it and if you don't do it from the start it becomes exponentially more difficulty to execute correctly.

Re: The benefits of a more asynchronous workplace

#32

Post by 2muchcoffeeman »

BigJ1211 wrote: post #11
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 one of my ex CEOs put it: "If I don't see my employees stressing out at thier desks I get the impression they're not working." This really hits the nail on the head, in my experience this is accurate for employers that are anti-remote , they want to be able to see people "work". I've argued that that means they are essentially paying people to be there 8 hours a day, not that they're working 8 hours a day. You s…

I get more work done and work longer hours when I work from home. Meetings are a good reason to turn up to the office if you have an agenda. And maybe the odd guild or two. Or brainstorming on solutions with team mates. But this only requires you to be in the office a couple days a week max. They could get 20% more work out of me with no impact to my non work life but ...

Re: The benefits of a more asynchronous workplace

#33

Post by mkolodny »

settsu wrote: post #22

The issue I often have with discussions of remote work vs. on-site, is how much confirmation bias tends to be incorporated into the conclusions made. After about 16 years of on-site work (at various jobs), I did almost 5 years of remote work (for a single company), having just recently returned to an in-office role (despite focusing on landing another remote position, the best opportunity wasn’t.) And, frankly, I fin…

While "remote workers are more productive" is in the article's title, I disagree that the author is suggesting that working remotely is a necessary part of the solution. The article's subtitle is "Async isn’t just for remote teams".

I think the post makes it clear to that office workers could benefit a ton from async communication. And I agree completely. Sync communication at my previous job was such a drain on my productivity. For me, Slack made communication easier, but it made focus more difficult and work more stressful.

I think you're right that software tools can make a big difference. The author seems to be promoting its product - Twist - as a great Slack alternative. And I think it looks solid.

Re: The benefits of a more asynchronous workplace

#34

Post by gamesbrainiac »

settsu wrote: post #22

The issue I often have with discussions of remote work vs. on-site, is how much confirmation bias tends to be incorporated into the conclusions made. After about 16 years of on-site work (at various jobs), I did almost 5 years of remote work (for a single company), having just recently returned to an in-office role (despite focusing on landing another remote position, the best opportunity wasn’t.) And, frankly, I fin…

I agree with you that neither is inherently superior. However, I think this with regards to the business and generating business value. If you consider the quality of love improvements, they are phenomenal for the employee.

Personally, I believe in a hybrid solution. You work remotely say 2 days of the week, and you spend rest of the time in the office. This makes sure that you get your dose of water-cooler talk, as well as having time to yourself to get things done.

Re: The benefits of a more asynchronous workplace

#35

Post by alexis_fr »

BigJ1211 wrote: post #11
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 one of my ex CEOs put it: "If I don't see my employees stressing out at thier desks I get the impression they're not working." This really hits the nail on the head, in my experience this is accurate for employers that are anti-remote , they want to be able to see people "work". I've argued that that means they are essentially paying people to be there 8 hours a day, not that they're working 8 hours a day. You s…

It’s easy when work gets completed. I would hire anyone remotely or let them play games at work if work is done. It is more difficult when we think their work in average or has a lot of defects. Then, the contract is for them to put in the required hours with decent concentration, and they have fulfilled their part in a measurable way that satisfies the manager. And truth be told, if their work were perfect, they would be promoted.

So, home office for senior developers with awesome productivity only?

Re: The benefits of a more asynchronous workplace

#38

Post by deepGem »

bogle wrote: post #4
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…

This is my experience of British management over the last quarter of a century. I am an expensive contract resource but I still get paid for turning up and not so much for providing working software. When I am working remotely, due to the organisation's inability to measure productivity, fostered by their management's "bums on seats" culture, I can't demonstrate that remote work is a benefit to them.

Ditto in India. Though economic realities are forcing companies to give at least one work from home day per month. It is estimated that companies are losing close to $20B in traffic related stress.

Re: The benefits of a more asynchronous workplace

#39

Post by UserIsUnused »

mkolodny wrote: post #33
settsu wrote: post #22

The issue I often have with discussions of remote work vs. on-site, is how much confirmation bias tends to be incorporated into the conclusions made. After about 16 years of on-site work (at various jobs), I did almost 5 years of remote work (for a single company), having just recently returned to an in-office role (despite focusing on landing another remote position, the best opportunity wasn’t.) And, frankly, I fin…

While "remote workers are more productive" is in the article's title, I disagree that the author is suggesting that working remotely is a necessary part of the solution. The article's subtitle is "Async isn’t just for remote teams". I think the post makes it clear to that office workers could benefit a ton from async communication. And I agree completely. Sync communication at my previous job was such a drain on my p…

Yup, the article is advertising Async, not remote. This is a company blog post, so it's always about advertising, even when it's not explicit.

They promote Async, because they also claim that their coloboration tool (email/slack alternative) is the right option for async.

Re: The benefits of a more asynchronous workplace

#40

Post by UserIsUnused »

Joe-Z wrote: post #29
UserIsUnused wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should always be "I get paid for giving my employee 40h/ week of availability for work". that doesn't necessarily mean code. there's design, meetings, bugs to find, etc. ofc, short breaks should be in those paid times. And the hour/week is not the same in every country. But 40/week doesn't have to be every week, just average (as some times there is less work to do, and other times stuff is on fire and must be fixe…

I find an _average_ of 40 hours to be quite extrem also. I've been at a new 40-hour job for 1 1/2 years now, after working 26/30 hours week for the 3 years prior. My impression is that 30 hours a week might be a realistic average to aim for (26 being the ideal amount IMO). It shifts the work-life balance to "I go to work and in the evenings and on weekends I do whatever I like", where 40 hr / week feels more like "li…

I just said 40h as that is what the law specifies as what is a full time job. Agree that 40h is too much for most knowledge based jobs.
Post reply on HN