3 ms·

Agree regarding shared context. The question though is, how close do you have to be to your coworkers, to create that shared context? Do you have to be in the s

Agree regarding shared context. The question though is, how close do you have to be to your coworkers, to create that shared context? Do you have to be in the same room and overhearing conversations? Is it enough to be in the same building? Or is it enough to video conference several times a week? In my experience, video conferencing several times a week is enough to build shared context. Open floor plan not needed.

the_snooze 5y ago
I think it varies on the organization and individuals. For me, "shared context" is a general feeling that people can ask questions and ask for help and can expect to get a productive response in a reasonably timely manner. Organizations have absolutely managed to establish that online using tools like video conferencing (as you mention). For me though, I find relying heavily on asynchronous communications insufficient, and synchronous remote communications deeply frustrating (i.e., natural turn-taking cues aren't present in video calls). I end up feeling disconnected from the people I work remotely with, even though they didn't do anything wrong. I can only establish "shared context" with people who have spent enough time with me in the same space with ample frictionless face-to-face conversations.
curun1r 5y ago
One crucial bit of shared context that gets mostly missed…lunch. Not having lunch together has been, IME, the single biggest indicator of a dysfunctional team. The neat thing about lunch is that the conversations are entirely non-directed without feeling like the time is being wasted in a meeting. Conversations can cover a specific project, when a high degree of coordination is necessary, generalized venting, when there are shared frustrations or just be about non-work topics that help a team bond and get to know each other as people rather than workers. It’s like a meeting that doesn’t feel like a meeting that can be strategic or therapeutic as needed. There’s really no way to replicate the beneficial effects of eating lunch together when workers are remote. As a manager, this has also been one of my go-to tricks for successful cross-team projects lasting any significant amount of time. I tell one of my team members to setup a lunch with at least one member of the other team on a weekly basis and use the incentive of authorizing the company to pay for it. For ~$20/person/week, the cross-team communications issues basically disappear. It’s ridiculously cost effective and almost magical in how well it works.
- flowerlad 5y ago
  There are online alternatives to lunch. Such as online games. Try it, it is great for team building.
  - curun1r 5y ago
    Hard disagree. There's something about eating with someone that taps into our lizard brains' survival instincts...eating together == allies. Online games may work for people who like online games, but anyone who doesn't like them is going to feel resentment at being made to waste time doing something they don't enjoy. Lunch is something that everyone is already doing, so no one will consider the time wasted, especially if they're getting free food out of it.

the_snooze 5y ago

I think it varies on the organization and individuals. For me, "shared context" is a general feeling that people can ask questions and ask for help and can expect to get a productive response in a reasonably timely manner. Organizations have absolutely managed to establish that online using tools like video conferencing (as you mention). For me though, I find relying heavily on asynchronous communications insufficient, and synchronous remote communications deeply frustrating (i.e., natural turn-taking cues aren't present in video calls). I end up feeling disconnected from the people I work remotely with, even though they didn't do anything wrong. I can only establish "shared context" with people who have spent enough time with me in the same space with ample frictionless face-to-face conversations.

curun1r 5y ago

One crucial bit of shared context that gets mostly missed…lunch. Not having lunch together has been, IME, the single biggest indicator of a dysfunctional team. The neat thing about lunch is that the conversations are entirely non-directed without feeling like the time is being wasted in a meeting. Conversations can cover a specific project, when a high degree of coordination is necessary, generalized venting, when there are shared frustrations or just be about non-work topics that help a team bond and get to know each other as people rather than workers. It’s like a meeting that doesn’t feel like a meeting that can be strategic or therapeutic as needed. There’s really no way to replicate the beneficial effects of eating lunch together when workers are remote. As a manager, this has also been one of my go-to tricks for successful cross-team projects lasting any significant amount of time. I tell one of my team members to setup a lunch with at least one member of the other team on a weekly basis and use the incentive of authorizing the company to pay for it. For ~$20/person/week, the cross-team communications issues basically disappear. It’s ridiculously cost effective and almost magical in how well it works.

flowerlad 5y ago
There are online alternatives to lunch. Such as online games. Try it, it is great for team building.
- curun1r 5y ago
  Hard disagree. There's something about eating with someone that taps into our lizard brains' survival instincts...eating together == allies. Online games may work for people who like online games, but anyone who doesn't like them is going to feel resentment at being made to waste time doing something they don't enjoy. Lunch is something that everyone is already doing, so no one will consider the time wasted, especially if they're getting free food out of it.