[ergothus]

> (1) all employees are trusted and unmeasured, but you have to tap people on the shoulder every once in a while to confirm that they're on track. Naturally, this is easier if everyone is on-site.

I don't get it - shouldn't one-on-ones and regular progress check-ins (be those standups, metrics (This is your #2), whatever) give you that information? None of those are easier when on-site. In fact, given today's move towards open offices, any form of 1:1 collaboration is easier remotely where you don't have to fight for precious meeting room space.

I think the core problem is that you're trying to prove "everyone is working" when we should be interested in "the work is getting done". Seeing that everyone is working doesn't actually mean progress is getting made. If you have to take steps to answer that question anyway, the first question is fairly pointless.

[davidjnelson]

It really depends on the communication styles of people. I had a manager I loved that would drop by every few days and just ask “how’s it going”? Then I’d fill him in. It was fun and low key and highly productive.

Also had managers that were basically invisible but kept a great crap umbrella for us. Loved them too. Ended up working a ton and getting enormous amounts of work done because trust and autonomy are huge.

I think the worst situations are when managers are too insecure to be honest with direct reports. That’s decidedly uncool and super ineffective.

Also, it seems managers get so overloaded that 1 on 1s and stand ups end up being mostly a waste of time because it’s too hard to remember all the little details.

So remote or in office isn’t really the issue. In my view, remote is superior due to productivity, flexibility and happiness, but it does require everyone to do regular video chats and pair programming.

Ironically, the in office folks have the hardest time with this because they feel they need to get up from their desk and find an overly booked conference room as you mentioned.

Simple solutions are context dependent, but could be along the lines of a) work remote if you have the discipline, b) asynchronous slack based standups, c) report status as you go in your tickets, d) every day or two peers and managers sync up 1 on 1 or in person depending on their preference, e) have clear goals as a company and a team, f) have good technical product people writing 1-3 day user story tickets including completed designs if it’s ui work, g) have good tech leads writing 1-3 day technical improvement task tickets, h) vote as a team on contentious technical decisions, then disagree and commit, i) generally chill out a bit and let work be enjoyable.

At least that’s a start...

[ergothus]

> I had a manager I loved that would drop by every few days and just ask “how’s it going”? Then I’d fill him in. It was fun and low key and highly productive.

> Also, it seems managers get so overloaded that 1 on 1s and stand ups end up being mostly a waste of time because it’s too hard to remember all the little details.

I'm not sure how the first quote doesn't count as a 1:1 - the goal isn't to have a highly formalized process, it's to have communication. Some about the specific work, some about general work and workplace, but communication.

Total agreement about the overloading of management though - I haven't had a boss in years that didn't regularly have most of their schedule booked and often double-booked. I had to fill in for my manager while he was on vacation for week and it reaffirmed my lack of desire to do management - and I only had to deal with pieces that couldn't wait a week! I sometimes think the recent shift to focus on regular management 1:1s is all about reclaiming enough time to actually know what their team is doing.

[davidjnelson]

> I'm not sure how the first quote doesn't count as a 1:1 - the goal isn't to have a highly formalized process, it's to have communication. Some about the specific work, some about general work and workplace, but communication.

Yes, you’re right, I guess those were a form of 1 on 1s :-)

> Total agreement about the overloading of management though - I haven't had a boss in years that didn't regularly have most of their schedule booked and often double-booked. I had to fill in for my manager while he was on vacation for week and it reaffirmed my lack of desire to do management - and I only had to deal with pieces that couldn't wait a week! I sometimes think the recent shift to focus on regular management 1:1s is all about reclaiming enough time to actually know what their team is doing.

Absolutely! It’s wonderful to have empathy for this! :-D

[hobofromabroad]

> > (1) all employees are trusted and unmeasured, but you have to tap people on the shoulder every once in a while to confirm that they're on track. Naturally, this is easier if everyone is on-site.

> I don't get it - shouldn't one-on-ones and regular progress check-ins (be those standups, metrics (This is your #2), whatever) give you that information? None of those are easier when on-site. In fact, given today's move towards open offices, any form of 1:1 collaboration is easier remotely where you don't have to fight for precious meeting room space.

This is not quite the case everywhere. We have agile 5-8 person offices and people are still supposed to walk out for longer phone calls occupying one of the smaller meeting rooms.

But I actually like that different teams can mix a lot easier.

[ergothus]

> But I actually like that different teams can mix a lot easier.

I've heard this claim for open offices a lot. I never understand it. It's not like I'm AGAINST easy collaboration. But I spend (or try to spend) more time on my own, and everyone "collaborating" around me and expecting that I can turn off my peripheral vision and hearing with a brain that is hardwired to NOT ignore those things just makes the majority of my time worse.

Plus, in the last 20 years and 5 companies (spanning 8 offices if you count office moves) I've never had adequate meeting room space (defined as: We need a space to spontaneously talk without disturbing others, can we find it trivially?) for more than a 3 month span after moving to a larger building. Hardly scientifically conclusive, but personally persuasive.

So I'm all for collaboration between people, including between teams, but I don't understand sacrificing the REST of the time in the name of that one thing.

[benhurmarcel]

> But I actually like that different teams can mix a lot easier.

My team shares an open office with another one, working on a different project. We see them every day.

I don't think anyone knows any name of the people in the other team.