4 ms·

> Walking over and talking to someone is still far superior to any online communication. This is an example of a local maximum. This form of communication is b

by runako 3y ago

> Walking over and talking to someone is still far superior to any online communication. This is an example of a local maximum. This form of communication is better for the person doing the walking, but worse when looked at through most other frames: - worse for the person being asked, who was interrupted - worse for the people who weren't privy to that conversation but perhaps could have learned or contributed except that they were OOO that moment. - worse for the organization because knowledge shared this way is ephemeral & siloed by definition - ineffective in large organizations, where teams often span offices And all that's before considering the "worse" that comes from having your staff spend 5 hours a week (average in the US) commuting to the office. In effect, the person walking over is burdening the other party and the organization rather than spend a little more time to craft a question in writing. Weak written communication skills are at the root of why so many organizations are bad at remote work. If oral communications is all that works at your org, then remote is going to be really tough for you (and your inter-office communication is also probably terrible and you should put the whole company in a single building).

Ferret7446 3y ago
> - worse for the person being asked, who was interrupted Generally, only in terms of personal output. I find that the organization benefits overall. Of course, this is problematic when performance/compensation is tied strictly to personal output, but that is a separate discussion > - worse for the people who weren't privy to that conversation but perhaps could have learned or contributed except that they were OOO that moment. Which is why working at the office is important. > - worse for the organization because knowledge shared this way is ephemeral & siloed by definition Somewhat true, but this is completely unavoidable. I know of zero cases where all institutional knowledge is recorded and not siloed in humans. Of course there are degrees. > - ineffective in large organizations, where teams often span offices This is why teams exist, why hierarchical organizations exist throughout history, and proper separation of work is crucial.
- runako 3y ago
  > Which is why working at the office is important. I'm so glad you opened up this avenue for follow-up. Even when working at the office, people are not at their desks 100% of the time. People are still human beings and are out of the office for any number of legit reasons that have nothing to do with remote working: dental appointments, work travel, interviewing candidates, vacation, sick leave, etc. Regardless of how you organize your workplace or what mandates you set, people are going to be out all the time. So your knowledge sharing is among the best who are available right now, not necessarily the best sources. > Somewhat true, but this is completely unavoidable. I know of zero cases where all institutional knowledge is recorded and not siloed in humans. Of course there are degrees. The key again is the degrees. An organization can choose to bias toward using modern tools or not. "Modern tools" here also broadly includes "writing" because it provides so many advantages over synchronous conversations for knowledge sharing. > This is why teams exist, why hierarchical organizations exist throughout history, and proper separation of work is crucial. Here I call your attention to geography. There are any number of reasons for staff to be located where they are, and staff don't typically work on a single project over their careers. This means they will change teams from time to time. Combine these facts and you're going to end up with teams composed of people who live in different places, where it might not make sense to relocate staff (e.g. project only lasts a year). An example might be: implementation consultants for a software company based in Chicago working onsite at a client in Germany. I suppose you could move the whole software company to Germany, but that only scales to one client. Which also highlights that people are often on multiple teams at the same time. These concerns are most salient in the most hierarchical organizations, which tend to be the largest and have the largest geographic footprints.
- somsak2 3y ago
  > I find that the organization benefits overall. Can you speak to how that is measured? I find these kinds of claims very difficult to support with any kind of actual data.
- navane 3y ago
  >> - worse for the people who weren't privy to that conversation but perhaps could have learned or contributed except that they were OOO that moment. > Which is why working at the office is important. What about the guy who just walked over to someone else, now both parties were absent in eachothers conversation. This is actually a good example of: Falls flat if everyone starts doing it. So many times I walk up to someone in the office to ask him something, but he is doing the same so I can't find him.
  - runako 3y ago
    You highlight another reason people are unavailable for synchronous conversations: they are in other meetings! The strength of writing is that it spans location as well as time. I find it odd that thousands of years after its creation, leaning on the written word can still be a competitive advantage.
RandomLensman 3y ago
You describe what sounds like slow moving places. When rapid reactions are required then even just being able to hear commotion a few rows of seats away can be quite valuable. Doesn't mean people cannot write questions well, but sometimes forcing attention now matters.
- runako 3y ago
  I'm not saying people shouldn't go to the office. I'm just saying there are a number of downsides to encouraging walking over to someone's desk to ask a question as a primary mode of knowledge exchange. These downsides have been enumerated at length in The Discourse. On the other side of the ledge is mostly "qualitative" arguments lacking in specifics. The main thing is there are real trade-offs for the staff and organization, and those tend to get overlooked in favor of lifestyle or sunk RE cost arguments.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    Do you think soldiers in battle should send well crafted emails instead of shouting or just acting on observations? Not sure things are just "qualitative"...
    - gedy 3y ago
      Let's get real, white collar tech work is nothing like battles. Even outages are not that dramatic.
      - RandomLensman 3y ago
        Not like physical danger, but can lose a lot of money in minutes in some places.
    - runako 3y ago
      Absolutely wild to take a discussion about "Return to Office" and pivot to soldiers in battle. Solid B for trolling. Would be A-caliber except effective militaries write a lot and use written words as a key part of their command and control. (I will escalate your "soldiers in battle" and ask whether you think launch command on a nuclear submarine would launch nuclear missiles solely on the basis of a quick call?)

by runako 3y ago

Ferret7446 3y ago

> - worse for the person being asked, who was interrupted Generally, only in terms of personal output. I find that the organization benefits overall. Of course, this is problematic when performance/compensation is tied strictly to personal output, but that is a separate discussion > - worse for the people who weren't privy to that conversation but perhaps could have learned or contributed except that they were OOO that moment. Which is why working at the office is important. > - worse for the organization because knowledge shared this way is ephemeral & siloed by definition Somewhat true, but this is completely unavoidable. I know of zero cases where all institutional knowledge is recorded and not siloed in humans. Of course there are degrees. > - ineffective in large organizations, where teams often span offices This is why teams exist, why hierarchical organizations exist throughout history, and proper separation of work is crucial.

runako 3y ago
> Which is why working at the office is important. I'm so glad you opened up this avenue for follow-up. Even when working at the office, people are not at their desks 100% of the time. People are still human beings and are out of the office for any number of legit reasons that have nothing to do with remote working: dental appointments, work travel, interviewing candidates, vacation, sick leave, etc. Regardless of how you organize your workplace or what mandates you set, people are going to be out all the time. So your knowledge sharing is among the best who are available right now, not necessarily the best sources. > Somewhat true, but this is completely unavoidable. I know of zero cases where all institutional knowledge is recorded and not siloed in humans. Of course there are degrees. The key again is the degrees. An organization can choose to bias toward using modern tools or not. "Modern tools" here also broadly includes "writing" because it provides so many advantages over synchronous conversations for knowledge sharing. > This is why teams exist, why hierarchical organizations exist throughout history, and proper separation of work is crucial. Here I call your attention to geography. There are any number of reasons for staff to be located where they are, and staff don't typically work on a single project over their careers. This means they will change teams from time to time. Combine these facts and you're going to end up with teams composed of people who live in different places, where it might not make sense to relocate staff (e.g. project only lasts a year). An example might be: implementation consultants for a software company based in Chicago working onsite at a client in Germany. I suppose you could move the whole software company to Germany, but that only scales to one client. Which also highlights that people are often on multiple teams at the same time. These concerns are most salient in the most hierarchical organizations, which tend to be the largest and have the largest geographic footprints.
somsak2 3y ago
> I find that the organization benefits overall. Can you speak to how that is measured? I find these kinds of claims very difficult to support with any kind of actual data.
navane 3y ago
>> - worse for the people who weren't privy to that conversation but perhaps could have learned or contributed except that they were OOO that moment. > Which is why working at the office is important. What about the guy who just walked over to someone else, now both parties were absent in eachothers conversation. This is actually a good example of: Falls flat if everyone starts doing it. So many times I walk up to someone in the office to ask him something, but he is doing the same so I can't find him.
- runako 3y ago
  You highlight another reason people are unavailable for synchronous conversations: they are in other meetings! The strength of writing is that it spans location as well as time. I find it odd that thousands of years after its creation, leaning on the written word can still be a competitive advantage.

RandomLensman 3y ago

You describe what sounds like slow moving places. When rapid reactions are required then even just being able to hear commotion a few rows of seats away can be quite valuable. Doesn't mean people cannot write questions well, but sometimes forcing attention now matters.

runako 3y ago
I'm not saying people shouldn't go to the office. I'm just saying there are a number of downsides to encouraging walking over to someone's desk to ask a question as a primary mode of knowledge exchange. These downsides have been enumerated at length in The Discourse. On the other side of the ledge is mostly "qualitative" arguments lacking in specifics. The main thing is there are real trade-offs for the staff and organization, and those tend to get overlooked in favor of lifestyle or sunk RE cost arguments.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  Do you think soldiers in battle should send well crafted emails instead of shouting or just acting on observations? Not sure things are just "qualitative"...
  - gedy 3y ago
    Let's get real, white collar tech work is nothing like battles. Even outages are not that dramatic.
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      Not like physical danger, but can lose a lot of money in minutes in some places.
  - runako 3y ago
    Absolutely wild to take a discussion about "Return to Office" and pivot to soldiers in battle. Solid B for trolling. Would be A-caliber except effective militaries write a lot and use written words as a key part of their command and control. (I will escalate your "soldiers in battle" and ask whether you think launch command on a nuclear submarine would launch nuclear missiles solely on the basis of a quick call?)