Comment by duped | Hacker News Reader

Comment by duped | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Remote work thrives when you optimize for asynchronicity. The things you've listed do the opposite of that and sounds like a massive productivity sink.

"Lots of 1:1s" is a red flag for a team that can't work remote well, imo. Fewer 1:1s, optimize async communication (code review, short notes and docs, IMs or emails, a culture of respecting silence or delayed replies), that's great remote.

I had a manager earlier in the pandemic who could not work remotely and could not manage the team remotely because they wanted tons of 1:1s and only communicated through video, synchronously. The team struggled with this, because we couldn't get any work done (it was like being in a conference room all day) and the manager didn't have the technical comprehension skills to follow our IMs, code reviews, and technical documentation so they scheduled more 1:1s, more video calls, etc. It was terrible. The team came close to celebrating when the manager left.

I think "lots of 1:1s" sounds great but is pretty draining to implement. I love chatting with my coworkers 1:1 - I feel like people can't/don't talk as much in group meetings so the 1:1s are nice to maintain a connection with coworkers you haven't met in person.

But! At the end of the week when you realize you spent 6 hours in 1:1s as an IC on top of your regular meetings, it feels very unsatisfying. It takes a lot of time from your work that you're still expected to get done.

I agree with this (and that manager sounds awful). But want to note that having a successful remote/async team has a few prerequisites:

(1) Skilled, engaged contributors. Most high touch management processes (frequent 1-1s, agile ceremonies) exist in order to motivate, guide, and create accountability for mediocre/disengaged employees. High performers can execute successfully in a process vacuum (in fact, they often do their best work with maximal freedom), but unfortunately not all teams are composed exclusively of high performers.

(2) Team members need to have shared values and a baseline level of trust and respect for each other. If they don't trust each other, disagree about technical approaches, or there are power struggles within the team, frequent meetings are often necessary to resolve disagreements that can otherwise spiral and bog everyone down.

I'll also note that I think it's difficult for managers to transition from managing mediocre teams to high-performing ones. The job changes from "telling people what to do and making sure it gets done" to "advocating for my people and empowering them to execute independently." And some managers struggle to recognize that, feel superfluous, and double down on what they know (Jira! Scrums!) in order to feel effective.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com