Flow for me <> Flow for we
This is an attempt to up-level the debate about remote & in-person work, and understand the underlying tension between short-term and long-term productivity for builders and teams.
There are many fervent debates these days within tech circles on the value of remote "versus" in-office work. These debates often cite the concept of productivity as a key assessment criteria.
Leaving aside the problem that the concept of productivity is mostly intangible and subject to interpretation…I’ve observed for a while now that these discussions often miss an important nuance. There is a difference between short-term productivity and long-term productivity. And in my experience (which is colored by my own tech-centric frame of reference), I’ve found the major difference to be:
Short-term productivity is typically centered around flow for individuals (flow for me), and requires freedom and flexibility to unlock.
Long-term productivity is typically centered around flow for collectives (flow for we), and requires community and cohesion to unlock.
It feels to me that the typical debates on remote vs. in-person are facades that mask the underlying tension between #1 and #2 above. Let’s explore this a bit.
Short-term productivity → Flow for me
Individual builder types often cite the concept of “achieving flow state” as the ideal nirvana of short-term productivity. Flow state is often described as the ability to do complex, creative work with clarity, focus and high autonomy. When we talk about short-term productivity, we are generally referring to the efficiency that we’re able to bring to known, specific work over a finite period of hours/days/weeks.
Remote work has acted as an elixir to short-term productivity over the past 2+ years. The value of remote work to short-term productivity has been explored at length and is now treated as mostly settled - as remote work has become more widespread and normalized. The benefits of remote work in terms of short-term productivity range from laws of physics & math (no commutes = more working hours, cost savings..) to deeper flexibility & autonomy for workers (ex: more freedom in optimizing working hours to one’s unique circumstances..) to a bevy of other factors in between.
Remote work has created the environment & conditions where it is more likely for builders to achieve flow state. No reasonable builder wants to go back to the distracting, noisy, cramped, sweaty cubicles of times past. And organizations want to attract, retain and empower builders to build most effectively - wherever they are located.
But short-term productivity is often much more tangible to evaluate - given the work is known & specific and done over a finite amount of time. And when the nature of work to be done is complex & creative in nature (as in tech) - the concept of builders having more autonomy, freedom and flexibility to build where & when they want is essentially a no-brainer.
But as they say - “there’s no such thing as a free lunch”. Individual freedom and flexibility offered through remote work is incredibly beneficial, but presents an implicit tradeoff - one that has become more apparent in recent times. Long-term productivity (of teams, not individuals) requires collective action & cohesion and a different kind of flow state - what I will call collective flow.
Long-term productivity → Flow for we
One of my favorite examples of long-term productivity was demonstrated 3 weeks ago, when the National Ignition Facility at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) announced that for the first time in the 70+ year history of controlled nuclear fusion research, a fusion reactor was successfully able to yield a surplus of energy compared to what was required to spark it (source).
This achievement has been hailed as one of the most meaningful scientific breakthroughs in recent history - a ‘holy grail’ moment that has taken decades of research, billions of dollars of investment & the dedication of thousands of the world’s best nuclear scientists/researchers to achieve.
And yet - when you consider the broader mission of making nuclear fusion a viable energy source for humankind - this “proof point” milestone is very much a representation that we’re still in the early innings of our journey.
In tech, the ability to scale builder work requires the long-term work of collectives - teams and organizations. Meaningful long-term accomplishments need coordinated actions, shared buy-in and deep cooperation that is sustained over a long period of time - months/years or even decades. When teams are able to create & collaborate effectively towards a shared purpose over an extended duration, they manifest a collective flow of sorts.
Long-term productivity involves navigating the unknowns, determining the work to be done & prioritizing different kinds of work across a range of time horizons. Teams communicate fluidly, debate regularly and map their inter-dependencies clearly. Strategies and roadmaps are clarified based on shared expertise and intentional choices. Velocity ebbs & flows as teams test, learn & iterate their way through the goals. Communal identity, belonging and support structures (ex: peer mentorship) develop organically. This is what collective flow feels like.
Long-term productivity is akin to fusion - whereby the act of merging two atomic nuclei into a larger one releases a tremendous amount of new energy (value). Unlocking that requires a combination of the right environment, atomic ingredients, patience and of course…some random luck.
Arguably, remote work in its current form has struggled to create the environment & conditions optimal for long-term productivity. Our current palate of Zoom, Slack and increasingly more async-first tools (Loom, Figma..) are reasonable in isolation, but lead to inefficiency and fatigue when stacked together. Serendipity and spontaneous collaboration in particular seem to have suffered over time. And as time goes on - particularly in the face of a more adverse economic environment for tech - the impact of a lack of deep, collective flow over the past few years is being felt more and more.
Up-leveling the debate
If you agree with premise and distinction explored above, it may be natural to consider “hybrid” work as the best-of-both-worlds solution. Or at least, the path of least resistance for most organizations to be able to tap into both short-term and long-term productivity. And this may be true; I myself am very partial to the idea of remote-first, hybrid work.
However the intent of this post is not to offer the solution. Rather it is to simply offer a new framing to help you identify & address this tension in the way that makes sense for your organization/team. That should involve accepting and being intentional about any tradeoffs. For some of you - it may mean leaning more into a hybrid environment. For others - it may motivate you to rethink the suite of tools/rituals your team is using to work remotely today. And for some of you - this post may be validation all along that remote work is inherently limited, and there’s just no replacement for being in-person together.
Regardless of where you are in the spectrum, I encourage you to avoid getting caught up in the dogmatic surface debate (remote “versus” in-person) - and go deeper into what you really want when you refer to productivity.