How smart leaders are using the now-or-later rule to solve remote work's worst problem

When everyone switched to remote work during the pandemic, it felt like the world had been turned upside down. But it didn't take long for most teams to get on board. Leaders quickly realized there were fewer inconveniences than expected, and employees realized how much they loved working from home (and hated their commute).

At some point, however, things changed. Companies started to worry that their teams weren't actually working, people started spending more time in meetings, and the result was that many teams were working longer hours and getting more burned out than ever before. desk. All of a sudden, working remotely wasn't as appealing as it used to be.

Having run a remote business for over seven years now, we've been through the same ups and downs that everyone else has recently been through. And if you ask me, the key factor in making remote work "work" is aligning as a team on when to use synchronous versus asynchronous communication.

Rule

The rule is simple: Synchronous (now) is for making decisions, asynchronous (later) is for sharing information.

For the uninitiated, synchronous communication (meaning "at the same time") is usually relegated to phone calls and virtual or in-person meetings. While asynchronous (i.e. "not at the same time") communication consists of emails, text messages, video or audio recordings, and messages on Slack or Microsoft Teams.

Knowing when to use each is an essential skill for remote teams that can take years to master. Too much asynchronous communication and people feel isolated and out of the loop. Too much synchronous communication and everyone wastes time in long meetings. My team and I have been through both extremes, and they are equally terrible.

This rule is a good way to create safety barriers for your team, but it does have some nuances. The key is to understand the benefits of each and learn to use them in tandem.

Find the right balance

As a former high-frequency trader, I like to think that the benefits of asynchronous communication are similar to "options" in finance. An option is a financial derivative that gives you the right, but not the obligation, to buy or sell something at a future date at a future price. An option has intrinsic value because it gives you choice.

Asynchronous communication has the same intrinsic value, because you have a choice of when and how to respond, and you can take all the time you need. This generally leads to better, more thoughtful and concise communication. It also reduces the number of meetings and gives people more control over their time, allowing them to focus on important work and respond to messages when it suits them.

For these reasons, asynchronous communication should generally be the default communication method for remote teams.

But it has some critical drawbacks. In my own company, we relied way too much on asynchronous communication, to the point where it started to cause both efficiency and culture issues. This is because it can be easily misinterpreted, leading to mistakes or interpersonal issues. Plus, you lose the face-to-face connection that synchronous communication provides, a key part of remote corporate culture.

I've found that situations involving brainstorming, long comments, or lots of back-and-forth conversations are worth addressing synchronously (in a meeting). And whenever you really need to make sure everyone is on the same page, it's best to make a call.

You can think of the two as being at either end of a spectrum. The more complicated the communication, the more it should be done synchronously. And the simpler it is, the more it should be done asynchronously.

Use them in tandem