The problem isn’t remote working – it’s clinging to office-based practices | Hacker News Reader

The problem isn’t remote working – it’s clinging to office-based practices

theguardian.com

33 pointspmlnr4 comments

I get the frustration, but how do you actually keep a team aligned on the same goal when they're all working in different locations? I can think of two tools: - Task managers, like Trello or Asana or Jira or whatever. They use text to describe tasks, but over time people start to mean different things with their words and then they're no longer aligned. - Yes, we could all get better at writing, but the problem is that we often don't know which parts of our writing are unclear and which ones are actually A-OK. - Meetings, where we use speech and gestures and interactivity to spot miscommunications and correct them. They take time and are emotionally difficult, but on average the team leaves more aligned than it came in.

Any other tools for alignment? Or ways to avoid drift with async formats?

It's unpopular with some people, but pair programming can work very well for this, even remote. I'm a hands-on manager, and through spontaneous conversations during pairing sessions, my team has learned about things like Agile development (in the real "you discover, learn, iterate the product" sense, not the pseudo-junk that gets peddled many places). On my ideal team, we would have 3 hours per week of meetings and 37 hours of coding. I've done this and seen it work, with stakeholders at the director levels thrilled by our success. We essentially organize around a set of shared values, and team members explain back to me our practices and why we do them clearly with examples, so I know they really get it and actually buy in without me having to force it. This has resulted in great team morale, because everyone feels like they have a stake and a say in our processes. The most consistent feedback I hear is "when I leave to deal with personal life issues or just to take a break, I never worry that I'll be missed. The team keeps going without a hiccup because our processes are so good."

> Take the “when” of work. By default, our days are organised around 9-5, a system that was formalised for factory workers by Henry Ford in the US in 1926. Many of us do not work in factories however. Why are we hanging on to this linear day as the only schedule in which work can be done?>

The author is questioning the concept of division of labor and the associated efficiencies of that type of organization. Without division of labor, each worker must become an independent craftsperson. In other words, they must be able to do the whole task themselves, start to finish, with all of the necessary equipment at their disposal. Some jobs are amenable to this while still remaining efficient. Most jobs, however, including many technical jobs, are not. That is why people work together and in the same location.

If the issue of “Zoom fatigue”, mental health and remote work space can be addressed such that efficiency of labor is maintained or even improved, then remote work makes sense. It would really help save lives from traffic accidents and reduce carbon emissions.

I agree with your observation but disagree with your conclusion.

I believe division of labor is paramount to avoid burn-out. Of course, we would want to have the freedom to split our work around our workday. But that usually means work never ends. And for cognitive workers (like IT), it's hard to just turn it 'off' at some point and think about something else. If something is bugging you, you keep thinking about it. Is that considered work (time)?

Also, while I do believe we do not need as many synchronous meetings as we have right now (even remotely), I think we do need some. But people *also* need to get better at asynchronous work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com