Lessons Learned from the Book “Effective Remote Work”

https://phauer.com/2022/book-remote-work-lessons-learned/

by 0x54MUR41 • 4 years ago

154 100 4 years ago

tapanjk• 4 years ago

This is indeed a beautiful book and especially useful for those who are new to the industry. I have a nit to pick about one of the points listed in the article...

Every meeting should create an artifact (ideally, a shared document or at least a record).

I have come across this sentiment often but there is no point in creating new artifacts just to record a meeting. What if the meeting was useless and nothing came out of it? Please do not create a document for this meeting. Such records only create an illusion that you are not leaving out those who could not attend the meeting, but creates mountains of documents or records which would be impossible to navigate in order to draw any conclusion later on.

leksak• 4 years ago

Sounds like labeling, tags, or some token in the filename could be used to distinguish this. The purpose of always creating an artefact is that it'll become habitual and then it is less likely that the meeting that halfway through becomes interesting has meeting notes.

Sakos2• 4 years ago

Why are you having meetings that are useless? I can't imagine not having a meeting without some resulting document. Even the poorest meetings I've had have resulted in documents changing to reflect the shitshow.

edit: I don't think every meeting needs its own document though. If there's a meeting, it needs to be associated with some document(s) in some way which will change as a result. If it isn't, it should be cancelled, imo.

neilv3• 4 years ago

You can do it in a lightweight way.

When you schedule a meeting, you create a wiki page named like "2023-01-02 Fooproj UX Meeting with Marketing", and include the URL in the calendar invite.

If there's a written agenda, it goes into the wiki page, in whatever state it's in. If someone is typing notes during the meeting, it goes into the wiki page, in whatever state it's in. Someone might screenshare the wiki page during all or part of the meeting. If there's a meeting video recording or videoconf/calendar SaaS page, the URL gets put in the wiki page. Anything bout that meeting that does get captured somewhere, can be gotten to from that one wiki page, so info not lost.

If no info at all ends up being captured around the meeting, then the wiki page might only ever be a title. But even then, it's still something to wikilink to (like `[2023-01-02 Fooproj UX Meeting with Marketing]`), when referring to the meeting, such as citations in design documents and project plans.

(Note: This works if you have a policy of "everything goes into the code repo or the wiki". But if you're thinking of the wiki as yet another of countless SaaSes where people are dumping write-only stuff that no one will ever find, then adding to that mess won't seem useful.)

pydry6• 4 years ago

When you schedule a meeting, you create a wiki page named like "2023-01-02 Fooproj UX Meeting with Marketing"

These are the kinds of wiki pages I come across when I'm searching for docs that are actually useful. I dont think anybody reads them.

theshrike792• 4 years ago

"Mountains of documents" is not a new problem, you just need to organise them properly.

But if you have a meeting and nothing about it was written down, who knows what was decided if it's not written down?

1) Every meeting must have an agenda and any material linked must be read before attending. You're wasting everyone's time by reading the material during the meeting.

2) Every meeting must create an artefact, otherwise you're just chatting with coworkers.

ThePadawan• 4 years ago

I have come across this sentiment often but there is no point in creating new artifacts just to record a meeting. What if the meeting was useless and nothing came out of it?

I might be a huge cynic, but that seems to me to be the #1 reason to create a post-mortem document to explore how to avoid another meeting that was a waste of time like that.

If the meeting was useless because the participants weren't prepared, make a note to hand out preparatory notes beforehand. If the meeting was useless because everybody shouted over each other, make a note for more moderation. If the meeting was useless because no one had political power to follow up on any decisions, cancel the meeting altogether.

Having a meeting that goes nowhere and then taking no time to publicly settle on actions as a consequence seems incredibly neglectful to me.

sys_64738• 4 years ago

Every meeting should have an agenda. No agenda = cancel meeting.

marniewebb• 4 years ago

The artifact we often use is “zoom recording of the meeting.” Which is less than useful.

For non-sensitive meetings, we record to otter and then edit the transcript using highlights, marking to dos, etc. We’ve got an otter folder structure that mimics our other folder structures. We most commonly do this for document review meetings (I work for an NGO. We write a lot of grants.) This takes time but it creates good notes, allows everyone to be a participant in the meeting.

We have other meetings — like weekly target review meetings — that use Asana as the basis for capturing notes. This works well for things that are really tactical.

gregwebs• 4 years ago

My preferred mode of work is to spread information asynchronously but to discuss it synchronously.

Remote work has finally made it possible for me to be better at synchronous collaboration with others (edit: changed from "pair program"). Rather than being forced to work in a distracting open office, I finally have a private office.

In the past, conversations about code tended to only happen asynchronously during code review, but now we are having them while work is in progress and for code review and it is a lot more productive for us than asynchronous. When you do a synchronous code review, you still need to put in review comments so that others can understand what is going on asynchronously. These comments won't be the full conversation- instead they will be a summary- sometimes you will end up omitting useful details, but it reduces the text overload of asynchronous.

In the past being in an open office environment meant that collaborating with someone always risked being rude- disrupting others with our conversation. This would sometimes be handled by using a meeting room, but this still isn’t as good as just both of us communicating from our offices.

For synchronous remote work It’s crucial to still work with people in similar time zones.

pydry6• 4 years ago

I find that pair programming requires a high degree of psychological safety for people to try it and an even higher level for people to actually enjoy it.

I'm pretty sure that by default remote work with a low level of face time leads to lower levels of psychological safety.

theshrike792• 4 years ago

I have seen pair programming in actual use exactly once. And it was a pair of dudes who had known each other since kindergarten and were roommates. They basically shared a brain.

I've tried it a few times and it's like trying to read the same physical book at the same time with someone who's a lot slower or faster reader.

eschneider• 4 years ago

Not something mentioned in the article, but something I've found super useful at my current (fully remote) job is the concept of "office hours". Where I am, each team has a hour or two each week where folks are "available". For some teams, like mine, most folks show up for the video meeting and we go over whatever short topics we've accumulated over the last few days with whomever, or just work muted if it's not something relevant to us. Very casual. Other teams are generally offline, but if you tag them in their team's slack channel, they'll pop on their video meeting link and you can go over whatever you need to. Nice. It's not a solution to all problems, but ends up being a nice 'hallway conversation' substitute where you don't _quite_ know who you need, or just need to ask some questions and don't want to go to the trouble of scheduling a meeting just for that. And since the whole thing is informal, it doesn't feel like a time waste, even if you're not 'involved' in what's going on. YMMV, of course, but it seems to work for us.

Rayhem• 4 years ago

I propose office hours in every single retrospective we do and it never gets any traction. I've tried proposing "office hours". I've tried proposing them with a bit of an explanation as to why I think they're a good idea. I've tried proposing them with a lengthy explanation as to why I think they're a good idea.

My conclusion is that people don't want to engage with retrospective items that aren't first-order helpful. "Doing X solves problem Y for person ME right now" type things. Office hours smooth communication, but that in and of itself doesn't fix a problem -- it paves the road to fix other problems.

loveparade2• 4 years ago

have face-time, and make room for socializing.
And a little ‘How are you feeling?' goes a long way.
“When leaders make time for fun, it gives permission for others too”

Is it just me, or are others also annoyed when work is mixed with forced socialization? I don't need to have fun or get personal therapy at work. It's just work. I would rather get it done quickly and efficiently and then have more time to have fun with my family or non-work friends.

dherikb• 4 years ago

I'm kind like you, but the people are different and many of them really like this interactions. I just think the manager needs to understand those differences and not force the socialization for everyone. Sometimes the manager even embarrasses the people on the team that not are really into participate of some of this socializations.

loveparade2• 4 years ago

I wonder if it's an age or stage of life thing. When I was younger and single I enjoyed these interactions more than I do now that I have a family and kid. I think the need for extra socializing isn't quite there anymore.

atomicnumber3• 4 years ago

Unfortunately, "work is other people". At least I think that's the quote. Definitely something along those lines.

Less glib: I've always found the technical part of work to be by far the easiest part of my job. The computers do what they're told and when they argue with me, it's deterministic, unambiguous and consistent (at least from its perspective anyway).

People are a lot more complicated, and they seldom know what they want, what to build, whether they know enough to recognize what to build, whether they know they know enough to recognize what to build, etc. they have feelings that can be hurt, friends who they want to defend, opponents they want to see suppressed. I could go on.

Maybe I've somehow only worked in dreadful, dramatic hellscapes, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you? But also I think politics is what happens when more than 3 people want to work together, and so it's an inherent aspect of work.

Sorry, this has been a bit rambling. My point is that, while sure you don't need to do bowling night every week, I do find that a zoom call with your teammates every other week with no agenda other than to chat is ridiculously effective.

And sometimes your best work can happen after you both accidentally give and receive therapy while at work. Everyone is the main character of their own story and knowing how even the work part of all those individual main stories connect can be really useful insight.

bookofjoe• 4 years ago

"Hell is other people." —Jean Paul Sartre, "No Exit" (1944)

A4ET8a8uTh0• 4 years ago

<< Maybe I've somehow only worked in dreadful, dramatic hellscapes, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you? But also I think politics is what happens when more than 3 people want to work together, and so it's an inherent aspect of work.

Not at all. If anything, you are being very stoic about it from my perspective, but then maybe I only had my initial share of hellscapes ( and each new one is getting worse ). Things are getting more complicated in systems and company hierarchy. It is not always understood ( or well documented ) how those systems interact ( or even supposed to interact in theory ). Without careful navigation it is easy to miss something important, because of office politics.

edit: adding missing not

luuuzeta2• 4 years ago

I'm honestly confused what's the use of flagging in Hackernews. You're being flagged, even though you're making some interesting observations that aren't derailing the thread. Is it because the flaggers disagree with your opinions?

I also don't like forced socialization but like the possibility of socialization being there, as a way to build team cohesion, disengage from work, etc.

jagged-chisel2• 4 years ago

One should downvote to disagree. One should flag comments that are against community guidelines (trolling, unnecessary rudeness...)

This, however, doesn't mean that everyone uses these features correctly.

superpope997• 4 years ago

I feel insane when I read stuff like this.

If you work in a team in any capacity then you need to have a strong baseline of trust in order to work effectively.

Trust is the building block that all effective team performance stacks on top of (see 5 dysfunctions of a team).

You don't just get trust for free, you have to build it by creating moments like this where people can demonstrate vulnerability around each other.

ElevenLathe3• 4 years ago

Doing it on purpose is the part that feels sociopathic (because it is). Working together 40 hours a week for years at a time should provide plenty of opportunity to become intimate with your coworkers. We don't need a line item in the department budget that says "fun/friendship".

comfypotato• 4 years ago

It’s a weird balance. Being in a meeting where the manager is basically forcing people to volunteer for the fun committee makes me cringe, but then I enjoy the results of the fun committee. I greatly enjoyed Wolfram’s take on video calls. They’re essential for social aspects like building trust. When it comes time to put your nose to the grindstone and debug something together, the video is a distraction that should be eliminated.

pydry6• 4 years ago

You don't just get trust for free, you have to build it by creating moments like this where people can demonstrate vulnerability around each other.

This point is so important and so commonly missed in the context of remote (or indeed, any) work.

mkl95• 4 years ago

You don't just get trust for free, you have to build it by creating moments like this where people can demonstrate vulnerability around each other

Not every company is an ideal organization where demonstrating vulnerability is going to lead to a positive outcome. Fast growing orgs are often stuck with bad actors because hiring a replacement is difficult, in some cases virtually impossible. You will be stuck in a political game before you are even aware of it and forced to work with people who hate you because you worked for a FAANG or whatever tickles them.

dkjaudyeqooe2• 4 years ago

You don't just get trust for free, you have to build it by creating moments like this where people can demonstrate vulnerability around each other.

This is bullshit. I trust my accountant because he's competent and honest, not because he's been vulnerable in my presence. What you're describing is unprofessional.

The last thing I want to know about (or experience from) my co-workers is anything personal or intimate, unless it's relevant to the job.

If I want to know my coworker better that's my choice, but otherwise it's somewhere between irrelevant and unwanted.

irrational3• 4 years ago

No. Absolutely not. Trust is built up over a significant period of time through… work. When I see your work is good and you are putting in the effort, it builds trust in you. I will never come to trust you over a game of kahoots.

ohdannyboy3• 4 years ago

Trust can be built by working. Do you meet deadlines, not require me to rewrite your code on review and know your stuff? Great, we'll have a strong working relationship after a month of that. Conversely, you can be the best Among Us player in the company and I'll still hate you if you keep Slacking basic questions and submit non functioning code on review.

kcb• 4 years ago

Sure but that doesn't happen by getting everyone in a Zoom call and going around the room asking "Tell us a about time you felt vulnerable"

david38• 4 years ago

Have you ever had surgery? Did you go out for drinks first?

babyshake• 4 years ago

My personal take on this is I don't like it when fun team building and important work meetings are mixed together. Usually this takes the form of the first 5-10 minutes of a meeting being used by the same couple people sharing mundane details from their personal life and then the meeting going over the allotted time because it started 10 minutes late. This is just bad meeting etiquette. Create separate times for this type of "fun" chat and make it completely optional to attend.

amag• 4 years ago

If you for instance work with software developers, true vulnerability shows at a code review not at a occasional game of soccer or similar. Few software developers identify themselves as great soccer players so it's not a threat to their identity to be perceived as bad at it.

chiefalchemist• 4 years ago

But it doesn't have to be forced, simply provide the signal that it's ok.

Where I work currently there's 99.9% emphasis on output, and .1% on conversation. As a result, I have zero sense of team, zero sense of trust.

That's fine when working on small things by yourself, but it doesn't scale. Teams are necessary to solve larger more complex problems. I suppose it all depends on your career aspirations.

tremon2• 4 years ago

At my work, we have a so-called "social daily": every day from 16:00-16:30 people can join the call for some lighthearted banter. Attendance is optional, and I rarely join myself. But I value a lot that it exists.

Sakos2• 4 years ago

I think this separation is important. A meeting should either be work or social, but it shouldn't be both. Participation at the daily is mandatory. I'm there to report my progress and hear about everybody else's progress. I don't want to socialize with anybody at 9am, I just want to figure out my workday and get that started. At some point I do want to socialize, and then it's helpful if there are opportunities for that, but it should never be forced and I shouldn't be tricked into it.

If I'm at some meeting about an architectural decision, I don't want to socialize, I want us to get to the point. If people want to hang out after that, that's fine. But that's not what that meeting is for.

ohdannyboy3• 4 years ago

I have a very busy social life (so this isn't me being a introvert) and hate forced recreation with coworkers. I don't hate them, but we're not friends either and I have stuff to do.

My guess is that management pushes this for loyalty. If all you do is work and get paid you're likely to exit the first year they don't give you a competitive raise. If you're part of a family then you'll stay and even trust the ceo when he says that no layoffs are coming.

skeeter2020• 4 years ago

"forced" or more charitably "intentional" socialization when in-person goes a long way towards building a multi-faceted relationship. When remote it feels like you're attending an AA meeting.

wistlo2• 4 years ago

I value the occasional to the office, on my schedule (take vacation from vacation and stop in the office for an afternoon), to meet the people I work with regularly.

Beyond the occasional stop-through if I'm in the area, I don't derive much value from being there in person. I submit that sharing your desktop and talking into someone's headset is actually more intimate than sitting around the conference table or viewing a screen in a cubicle.

GuB-42• 4 years ago

If you have a full time job with good work/life balance, chances are that a third of your awake time is spent working, it is probably more than half for many people.

That's so much of you life that you may as well try to make it fun. How you make it fun depends from person to person, but socializing with coworkers is definitely on the list for many people (especially extroverts). Introverts may have other ideas, like learning new exciting stuff, but IMHO, if all you think of work is "get it done quickly so I can do something else", I think you are missing something. It doesn't mean you should live for work, but if it takes, say, 20% of your "good time off" to improve 80% of your time at work, I think it is definitely worth it.

mkjonesuk• 4 years ago

I run a remote team and it’s impossible to get anyone to commit to getting together socially. Best we managed was last year when someone left and he lived locally enough for a leaving do.

Most of the team just don’t want the hassle of leaving the house.

walnutclosefarm2• 4 years ago

I haven't read the book, but I think that if he added one sentence to point 1 in his summary, the first three points are really everything you need to know to make remote work effective. Point 1 (treat everyone as remote) is the most critical, but his elaboration on "tools, meeting setup, information exchange, communication, documentation, and opportunities" should be extended further with "Provide all employees with guidance and training on how to work remotely. In particular, people need to understand that working meetings held remotely often bring out the worst in people on opposite ends of the communication spectrum (those who monopolize the floor, and those who are reluctant to participate). A meeting facilitator should explicitly facilitate participation, so that everyone who has something to contribute, does, and no one prevails simply with volume.

On point 2, about use of asynchronous communications - it probably is implied, but one key part of this is making sure that everyone in the team understands and observes the rule that you are expected to be asynchronously available most of the time, and should go dark only when it's absolutely necessary for your work. One thing I found helpful with distributed teams is making a status available on asynchronous channels called "Ping me on the hour" which is a way of saying, "I'm heads down, don't interrupt unless the world is ending, but I surface if necessary every top of hour."

kbutler• 4 years ago

expected to be asynchronously available most of the time

"during core working hours".

See other point about establishing boundaries between work and personal life.

It is helpful to establish expected contact/response timings, such as:

  - email - async. checked a few times/day. turn off notifications
  - slack/chat - async. notify of direct messages & high priority channels, other items checked periodically
  - phone/voice/video calls - synchronous. only for things that justify immediate interruption. Will respond with at least a "What's up?/In a meeting/etc." unless completely unavailable.

blueboo• 4 years ago

A phenomenon that unites these points is the result of extended COVID WFH: in the aggregate, to some significant degree, remote work habits seem to be persisting in in-person work environments. It’s a double-edged sword: You’re pinging the guru down the aisle for advice rather than walking over to her. So no one gets to overhear the guidance, but then again, she can triage your request with her Slack usage.

As a result, our in-person work situations have never been so quiet (outside of lockdowns). The value of in-person is thereby seemingly perceptibly lessened. Are we losing or recouping the value of that serendipitous spark of collaboration that executives wax poetic over? (Was it ever a thing?)

jmoak3• 4 years ago

I've worked jobs that pre-covid that were exactly what you describe, where 80% of the time we'd just ping one another without getting up. You never knew if you were ruining someone's concentration, so pinging over slack let them shift gears when it was best for them.

It's why I'm a large proponent of remote work - outside of lunch and meetings, my work experience compared to one of those (IMO bleak) environments is largely unchanged.

Working in an exciting and lively office is the ideal in my opinion, but it's hard to stumble into those - I feel like these days by definition the people who make an office a great place are the same people with the ability to control their experience i.e. choose remote work. The ones who make offices bleak are the same people who force others/ must be forced to go in to be productive haha

baby• 4 years ago

I read it and it was a really bad book. I didn’t learn much. I felt like I learned more about remote working reading the 4 hours work week.

ta3411• 4 years ago

regarding social interaction, I am running a hybrid US (3 people) - China (4 people) team. My teammates in China just don't usually in meetings / "coffee hours" (mostly due to language and cultural barriers). So any type of cross border team building and social bantering just fall flat. Does anyone have any similar experience and how they address this?

wistlo2• 4 years ago

COVID allowed my company to put everyone on the same level. It was wonderful while it lasted.

Unfortunately, the drive to "collaboration" has sprung up again in our senior ranks, who I think felt uncomfortable not being able to lay eyes on heads. Once again the remote folks are peripheral, literally. A lot of time and bandwidth is now wasted on arguing why it's necessary to arbitrarily be in the office one or three days per week, especially for people working independently on projects. Almost every leadership town hall has employees questioning why they agian have t sit in traffic and hunt for workspace while the closest colleague—the one they do real collaboration with—is actually a thousand miles away.

Lessons Learned from the Book “Effective Remote Work”

Related Stories