4 ms·

Managing 50+ remote workers taught me that results matter, not hours. It's all about the output. Work asynchronously, focus on the end goal, and as long as it's

Managing 50+ remote workers taught me that results matter, not hours. It's all about the output. Work asynchronously, focus on the end goal, and as long as it's legal and ethical, the 'how' and 'when' are often irrelevant. Traditional managers struggle with this mindset, often due to their own managers outdated approaches. The real game changer is axing all scheduled internal meetings. No standups, no weekly grooming, no syncs. Scrap these time-wasters and you'll be surprised at the productivity spike. If not, then you likely don't have the right people working for you.

pdimitar 3y ago
I started work in a new company December 2023 and they did exactly what you said and boy, am I feeling great about this workplace! I do focus on my work, I achieve results, I make sure they are visible (some documentation and internal knowledge base management are involved but I don't detest it; it becomes the way to gauge my performance and I am not against it) and everyone is happy. It's amazing how difficult this is for so many managers out there though.
rebeccaskinner 3y ago
I started managing a team with the “no meetings, let people do good work” philosophy and I can just say that I’m glad I was given the space as a new manager to find my feet, because I didn’t find that it worked well when taken to an extreme. Remote work offers very little structure. As someone who thrives on autonomy and chafes at process this always felt great to me, but a lot of people thrive with a bit of structure. These days I’m of the opinion that remote work needs to both adapt to not demand too much structure, but also needs to mindfully provide enough that people can work effectively. Most people on my team have around 5 to 6 hours of standing meetings each week, plus ad-hoc synchronous discussions when they seem valuable. That seems to be the right balance for my team but every team will be different in the exact numbers. The important thing I think is to let the structure emerge naturally and serve a specific purpose rather than doing meetings to replicate in-office processes or to serve some theoretical process.
- allset_ 3y ago
  > 5 to 6 hours of standing meetings each week Wow that is a lot. That is (almost) a WHOLE DAY of meetings each week just for syncs. I can only provide my own anecdotes, but I'm at 0.5-1hr for standup status-report type meetings.
  - rebeccaskinner 3y ago
    Everyone replying seems to be assuming this time is all for standups and status meetings, but in practice it’s probably about half an hour a week for status updates for us to. The rest of the time is a mix of reserved time for synchronous technical collaboration (e.g. reserved time for pairing, time to talk about technical architecture at a higher level and for people to opt in to presenting some of their work for feedback) My team skews a bit junior right now, and I generally expect a pretty high degree of autonomy. We’re not a feature factory and people aren’t pulling tickets from a backlog mindlessly- I expect them to understand what they are building, why, talk to users, take ownership of a problem and exercise sound judgement. That requires some coordination. More senior people can handle that with less structure. For a highly competent but less experienced engineer I’ve found asking them to work mostly asynchronously was setting them up for failure. Giving the a bit of structure, making them available to one another to help themselves grow, and giving me more opportunities to recognize when I needed to intervene early has been successful. For some teams it might feel like too many meetings, but that’s why I said that you need to pick what works for the specific team. Don’t cargo cult process and structure, but don’t be afraid of it when it can help either.
- mjevans 3y ago
  The important thing is to identify what the outputs (of meetings etc) should _be_ and then work backwards from that to how to accomplish the task _remotely_ and _asynchronously_.
- meindnoch 3y ago
  >5 to 6 hours of standing meetings Jeeeesus... Yeah, I bet your engineers thrive.

pdimitar 3y ago

I started work in a new company December 2023 and they did exactly what you said and boy, am I feeling great about this workplace! I do focus on my work, I achieve results, I make sure they are visible (some documentation and internal knowledge base management are involved but I don't detest it; it becomes the way to gauge my performance and I am not against it) and everyone is happy. It's amazing how difficult this is for so many managers out there though.

rebeccaskinner 3y ago

I started managing a team with the “no meetings, let people do good work” philosophy and I can just say that I’m glad I was given the space as a new manager to find my feet, because I didn’t find that it worked well when taken to an extreme. Remote work offers very little structure. As someone who thrives on autonomy and chafes at process this always felt great to me, but a lot of people thrive with a bit of structure. These days I’m of the opinion that remote work needs to both adapt to not demand too much structure, but also needs to mindfully provide enough that people can work effectively. Most people on my team have around 5 to 6 hours of standing meetings each week, plus ad-hoc synchronous discussions when they seem valuable. That seems to be the right balance for my team but every team will be different in the exact numbers. The important thing I think is to let the structure emerge naturally and serve a specific purpose rather than doing meetings to replicate in-office processes or to serve some theoretical process.

allset_ 3y ago
> 5 to 6 hours of standing meetings each week Wow that is a lot. That is (almost) a WHOLE DAY of meetings each week just for syncs. I can only provide my own anecdotes, but I'm at 0.5-1hr for standup status-report type meetings.
- rebeccaskinner 3y ago
  Everyone replying seems to be assuming this time is all for standups and status meetings, but in practice it’s probably about half an hour a week for status updates for us to. The rest of the time is a mix of reserved time for synchronous technical collaboration (e.g. reserved time for pairing, time to talk about technical architecture at a higher level and for people to opt in to presenting some of their work for feedback) My team skews a bit junior right now, and I generally expect a pretty high degree of autonomy. We’re not a feature factory and people aren’t pulling tickets from a backlog mindlessly- I expect them to understand what they are building, why, talk to users, take ownership of a problem and exercise sound judgement. That requires some coordination. More senior people can handle that with less structure. For a highly competent but less experienced engineer I’ve found asking them to work mostly asynchronously was setting them up for failure. Giving the a bit of structure, making them available to one another to help themselves grow, and giving me more opportunities to recognize when I needed to intervene early has been successful. For some teams it might feel like too many meetings, but that’s why I said that you need to pick what works for the specific team. Don’t cargo cult process and structure, but don’t be afraid of it when it can help either.
mjevans 3y ago
The important thing is to identify what the outputs (of meetings etc) should _be_ and then work backwards from that to how to accomplish the task _remotely_ and _asynchronously_.
meindnoch 3y ago
>5 to 6 hours of standing meetings Jeeeesus... Yeah, I bet your engineers thrive.