News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by presentation on Friday December 01, 2023 @01:05PM (#38490017)
I’m running engineering at a small startup that’s full remote, it’s working fine for us. Don’t agree that remote work means you can’t have dynamic communication. It just means you need to choose the right employees and have an higher bar of alignment on how you work and communicate.

Don’t hire people who don’t value synchronous communication. People who want all communication to be async and don’t plan to respond promptly to messages (like the work/life balance crowd on HN) will not produce a dynamic team because that’s not the strong point of async communication.

Do quick calls when text conversation gets too long, build a team where you can expect people to actually make an effort to show up to the calls. For us we also have strategy calls with video regularly (but not too frequently), and make sure everyone is aligned to the plan and concerns are resolved before building. Make sure the team understands that for anything where they are unsure what to do or have any ambiguity around requirements, that they proactively ping the right people.

Doesn’t mean you need to be on all the time and that async communication is not valuable, but you need everyone to know when it is and isn’t the right way to go. So long as people are making a best effort to value communication speed it works out.

Hire people who are motivated enough to form opinions, and confident enough to say they really think. Most people are not invested in their work, or not invested in the problem space enough to bother making the mental and research effort to form valid opinions on your problem space. This is fine for when things just need to get done (not everyone on the team needs to be a decision maker), but foster those who are ready to invest. Make it clear it’s a good thing if they do form opinions and are willing to express their doubts about the strategy to others/leadership.

For us we also have very clear owners of different aspects of our operations and product. Someone will make the final decisions on those aspects. This doesn’t mean they make all choices, they can choose to defer to someone they trust to make the call. But someone needs to be clearly responsible, and others need to know that if a conversation is not resolving that they can pull the right person in to resolve it efficiently. People need to agree to disagree at some point once those responsible make a choice.

This general approach works for us, people don’t tend to hate their managers if they understand why choices are made, feel that their concerns are heard, and are aligned ideologically with the approach and way of working. But it does require choosing the right people and setting a higher bar for yourself on alignment.

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by erik_seaberg on Friday December 01, 2023 @02:50PM (#38491361)
If you present a plan in a meeting, don’t expect all important concerns to be raised right there before the meeting ends, people will need time and quiet to think it through.
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by presentation on Friday December 01, 2023 @03:47PM (#38492143)
Agreed, give many chances to raise objections.
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by j4yav on Friday December 01, 2023 @01:30PM (#38490373)
Async teams achieve dynamic results through multi-threading, not being really good at dropping everything else to do one thing at a time really well.
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by presentation on Friday December 01, 2023 @03:43PM (#38492089)
Ya but OP is asking about startups in an ambiguous environment. I think that works well when you’re more steady state.
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by j4yav on Saturday December 02, 2023 @01:55AM (#38496556)
I have personally experienced that effective multi-threading is much better when there is more ambiguity. I at least don't think it's a truism that for startups doing one thing at a time and doing it well is obviously superior.
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by theonething on Friday December 01, 2023 @01:15PM (#38490148)
> Don’t hire people who don’t value synchronous communication. People who want all communication to be async and don’t plan to respond promptly to messages (like the work/life balance crowd on HN) will not produce a dynamic team because that’s not the strong point of async communication.

Basecamp has always been remote and asynchronous and they seem to be doing well.

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by presentation on Friday December 01, 2023 @03:46PM (#38492124)
OP is talking about fast moving startups in an ambiguous environment, async is good but optimizing utilization doesn’t help if you’re going in the wrong direction. My point isn’t “don’t value async work” it is “don’t not value sync work”
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by cosmodisk on Friday December 01, 2023 @01:29PM (#38490366)
Don't hire people who can't put two coherent sentences together in an email. I've seen many many of such types. They are tragedy in remote environments.
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by hiepph on Wednesday December 06, 2023 @01:20PM (#38547602)
Agree. Writing communication is essential, and might have more influence than speaking communication, in a remote working environment. The whole OSS movement has been built on this.