[ryusage]

I like the idea; it makes a lot of sense. In practice though, there are a LOT of times that it's much, much faster to communicate verbally. I feel like trying to really stick to this remote-first style might be more difficult/frustrating than it sounds.

[smackfu]

Yes, it may make sense to talk on the phone, but I don't find that's a good strategy for first contact. Especially if people don't answer their phone or like to small talk.

[engendered]

there are a LOT of times that it's much, much faster to communicate verbally

If I want an answer now (if it's something that has an easy answer), and selfishly don't care about the flow of the other party, this may be true: You can prioritize a request by forcing it through synchronous voice mediums.

But even if we exclude that possible friction, it has been my experience that the belief that voice is more productive is often based upon superficial results (much as with meetings). People say some vague, uncertain things and both leave with a great feeling of accomplishment. Written communications, on the other hand, often requires more precision (if we wrote the way we spoke in such calls, the result would often be meaningless) -- you need to actually think about what you're asking, and give specifics. Not least because the medium demands it, but because this is a written, referenced, liable record, versus a call where each party can just vaguely claim miscommunication.

It's incredibly hard to study something like this, but my gut feeling (with the caveat that it's biased) is that the belief in the efficiency of voice communications is often based upon superficial results.