I think there are different layers for what we define as "asynchronous work".
On one hand, being so asynchronous as in being in completely non-overlapping time zones, as you are describing in your article, can indeed be problematic if not properly planned. (Probably, an ok approach would be having at least a few people on each time zone, so at least there's some collaboration there. But in general I agree if everybody is in completely different time zones, collaboration is tricky.)
However, in my experience, milder asynchronous/hybrid setups are more usual. And here I mean hybrid = async/sync (!= remote/RTO).
In that case, I think the situation you describe about interrupting conversation flows or people arguing they have "frequent personal stuff" becomes a people/team management problem and not so much a problem caused by asynchronicity.
Even in remote settings, I believe having a 100% async way of working is almost impossible, but I believe some of the issues you describe in the article can be worked on through establishing clear boundaries and agreements among team members. (At least, in my experience with in-house teams. I don't really have experience working with freelancers.)
You are absolutely correct. This is fundamentally an issue of people or/and team management. Defining boundaries is dependent on the specific leadership style employed.
The primary advantage of remote work is the focus on outcomes. If someone is working with a significant async (let's say 3 hours), it will inevitably impact overall productivity and results.
When leadership style is directed towards outcomes, the results will determine the continuity (or not) of that asynch.
In contrast, a more classical or conventional approach to leadership will typically establish a code of conduct regarding necessary overlapping work hours. Both methods are (imo), equally valid.
I observe the same effect when people are unreachable because they're sitting in "important" meetings. The more meetings, the more important the person is, which you can tell by the fact that you can't reach them for days. It's particularly annoying when that person also happens to be your own boss. I think this problem is even harder to solve than getting people to agree on common working hours. Do you know this too?
Uau, Uwe! Thank you for the comment. There are so many layers to this.
While reading your first point, I was about to say that I still reply quite a bit in the chat during meetings for different contexts. Meetings aren't an excuse for not replying. However, it's a risky posture because answering in chat comes at the cost of less attention to what's being discussed. So, it's not feasible for all meetings.
The second part seems to be a classic case of someone who was great at a job and got promoted to a leadership position without the required skills. A boss who doesn't communicate with the team because "he is busy" is ignoring one of the first lessons of leadership: delegation. Perhaps he is too focused on his individual work and doing very little coordination with the rest of the team. Cases like this are everywhere. Unfortunately, someone who holds a leading position cannot truly be called a Leader on cases just like the one described
I can see it as short periods and with some preparation beforehand. However, not sure how would be possible over an extended period of time and with dependencies inside the team and external stakeholders.
Maybe with time, methodologies and practices would evolve to find ways to solve this puzzle? (Or AI to simplify the complexity or increase autonomy?)
I think there are different layers for what we define as "asynchronous work".
On one hand, being so asynchronous as in being in completely non-overlapping time zones, as you are describing in your article, can indeed be problematic if not properly planned. (Probably, an ok approach would be having at least a few people on each time zone, so at least there's some collaboration there. But in general I agree if everybody is in completely different time zones, collaboration is tricky.)
However, in my experience, milder asynchronous/hybrid setups are more usual. And here I mean hybrid = async/sync (!= remote/RTO).
In that case, I think the situation you describe about interrupting conversation flows or people arguing they have "frequent personal stuff" becomes a people/team management problem and not so much a problem caused by asynchronicity.
Even in remote settings, I believe having a 100% async way of working is almost impossible, but I believe some of the issues you describe in the article can be worked on through establishing clear boundaries and agreements among team members. (At least, in my experience with in-house teams. I don't really have experience working with freelancers.)
Hello Veronica,
Thank you for your comment.
You are absolutely correct. This is fundamentally an issue of people or/and team management. Defining boundaries is dependent on the specific leadership style employed.
The primary advantage of remote work is the focus on outcomes. If someone is working with a significant async (let's say 3 hours), it will inevitably impact overall productivity and results.
When leadership style is directed towards outcomes, the results will determine the continuity (or not) of that asynch.
In contrast, a more classical or conventional approach to leadership will typically establish a code of conduct regarding necessary overlapping work hours. Both methods are (imo), equally valid.
I observe the same effect when people are unreachable because they're sitting in "important" meetings. The more meetings, the more important the person is, which you can tell by the fact that you can't reach them for days. It's particularly annoying when that person also happens to be your own boss. I think this problem is even harder to solve than getting people to agree on common working hours. Do you know this too?
Uau, Uwe! Thank you for the comment. There are so many layers to this.
While reading your first point, I was about to say that I still reply quite a bit in the chat during meetings for different contexts. Meetings aren't an excuse for not replying. However, it's a risky posture because answering in chat comes at the cost of less attention to what's being discussed. So, it's not feasible for all meetings.
The second part seems to be a classic case of someone who was great at a job and got promoted to a leadership position without the required skills. A boss who doesn't communicate with the team because "he is busy" is ignoring one of the first lessons of leadership: delegation. Perhaps he is too focused on his individual work and doing very little coordination with the rest of the team. Cases like this are everywhere. Unfortunately, someone who holds a leading position cannot truly be called a Leader on cases just like the one described
This is definitely a hot take. But you make very good points. I think that there's a way to do some work together and some asynch.
I can see it as short periods and with some preparation beforehand. However, not sure how would be possible over an extended period of time and with dependencies inside the team and external stakeholders.
Maybe with time, methodologies and practices would evolve to find ways to solve this puzzle? (Or AI to simplify the complexity or increase autonomy?)