4 ms·

It sounds like it's a workaround for dealing with bad co-workers? You can still have these in async communication and others will just give up eventually. And t

It sounds like it's a workaround for dealing with bad co-workers? You can still have these in async communication and others will just give up eventually. And then the guy who gets asked something but doesn't reply until at least two others pester him via phone repeatedly. Assuming you have a well-working team, real-time still seems more efficient to me, at least at my current job.

quadrifoliate 5y ago
Great point! I think I briefly mentioned it in my post, but I think that maybe there's three separate categories that I'm talking about. - Real-time communication in person (face-to-face) - Real-time communication remotely - Asynchronous communication remotely The scenario you mention "gets asked something but doesn't reply until at least two others pester him via phone repeatedly” seems to be in the category "Real-time communication remotely" (phone is real time, but remote). I think that area is problematic too, as my post points out. Overall, I guess my experience has been that asynchronous communication remotely and real-time communication in person are both better than real-time communication remotely (aka "endless Zoom calls"). Real-time in person seems to have more feedback loops where someone who is badly behaved faces social consequences (e.g. not invited to lunch, etc.); and asynchronous remote seems to prevent it a little by giving everyone an equal amount of space to express their thoughts. But overall, yep, I think all of these are assuming less-than-ideal coworkers. But...that's reality, isn't it? With perfectly behaved coworkers, all three options can work perfectly.
- captainredbeard 5y ago
  Nonsense, asynchronous / remote comm just optimizes for people who live online. They can respond faster leading to an initiative advantage which was previously restricted to “egoists”, as you put it.

quadrifoliate 5y ago

Great point! I think I briefly mentioned it in my post, but I think that maybe there's three separate categories that I'm talking about. - Real-time communication in person (face-to-face) - Real-time communication remotely - Asynchronous communication remotely The scenario you mention "gets asked something but doesn't reply until at least two others pester him via phone repeatedly” seems to be in the category "Real-time communication remotely" (phone is real time, but remote). I think that area is problematic too, as my post points out. Overall, I guess my experience has been that asynchronous communication remotely and real-time communication in person are both better than real-time communication remotely (aka "endless Zoom calls"). Real-time in person seems to have more feedback loops where someone who is badly behaved faces social consequences (e.g. not invited to lunch, etc.); and asynchronous remote seems to prevent it a little by giving everyone an equal amount of space to express their thoughts. But overall, yep, I think all of these are assuming less-than-ideal coworkers. But...that's reality, isn't it? With perfectly behaved coworkers, all three options can work perfectly.

captainredbeard 5y ago
Nonsense, asynchronous / remote comm just optimizes for people who live online. They can respond faster leading to an initiative advantage which was previously restricted to “egoists”, as you put it.